Opinion ID: 2299402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Racial Bias in the Administration of the Death Penalty

Text: In Loftin II, we reaffirmed our commitment to monitoring the imposition of the death penalty in order to determine whether impermissible racial discrimination is present in the capital sentencing system. 157 N.J. at 276, 724 A. 2d 129; see also Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 207-08, 613 A. 2d 1059. We will not retreat from that commitment. If we are presented with a record in which the statistical evidence relentlessly documents the risk that a defendant's sentence has been influenced by racial considerations, we will `seek corrective measures, and if that fail[s] we [will] not, consistent with our State's policy, tolerate discrimination that threaten[s] the foundation of our system of law.' Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 298, 724 A. 2d 129 (quoting Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 209, 613 A. 2d 1059). Because in Loftin II the statistical models used by the AOC to measure race effect in capital sentencing show[ed] statistical significance in five of ... six categories, id. at 301, 724 A. 2d 129, Loftin claimed that there was strong evidence that race is a predictor of the outcome of a penalty trial. Id. at 302, 724 A. 2d 129. At the same time, the State strongly contested the accuracy and reliability of the statistical models. Ibid. In order to learn more about the model results, and to understand whether racial considerations influence sentencing decisions, we appointed retired Superior Court Judge Richard S. Cohen as Special Master to conduct a review, perform analyses, and make findings and recommendations relating to defendants' race as a possible factor in the decision of juries to impose the death penalty. State v. Loftin , No. A-86-96, slip op. at 3 (Oct. 22, 1996). Judge Cohen did not find that Loftin had demonstrated `relentless documentation or even a preponderance in the direction of the existence of any racial bias.' Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 314, 724 A. 2d 129 (quoting Richard S. Cohen & Dr. John W. Tukey, A Study of Statistical Evidence of Race Bias in Penalty Trials 12 (May 4, 1997) ( Supplemental Report )). Moreover, in the course of his review, he raised more questions than he was able to answer in the short time available to him. The Court accepted his conclusion that racial disparity had not been shown in Loftin's case, id. at 316, 724 A. 2d 129, and sought further assistance from a new Special Master in developing improved statistical models capable of providing more reliable information about race effect, id. at 315, 724 A. 2d 129. We determined, as indicated earlier, that until we have reviewed the new Special Master's report, we will conduct our proportionality review essentially as before. Id. at 266, 724 A. 2d 129. We observe that the model results in Chew's case are very like Loftin's. As the table below indicates, the observed significance of four of six variables falls at or below five percent, the threshold commonly used to identify statistical significance. [9] Variable Schedule Coefficient Observed Sig. (p-value) whitvic 2 1.2922(1.3555) .0434(.0412) blackd 2 1.1758(1.4522) .0376(.0171) whitvic 5 0.9114(0.5157) .2490(.5535) blackd 5 1.8423(2.3796) .0169(.0066) whitvic 8 1.0517(1.0699) .0234(.0240) blackd 8 0.7791(0.9520) .0834(.0418) [Memorandum from David Weisburd, AOC statistical consultant, to Joseph Barraco, AOC staffmember Proportionality Review 2 (Dec. 3, 1997)(Weisburd Memorandum) (on file with the AOC) (Loftin Report data in parentheses).] The AOC consultant compared the results set forth in the Chew/Cooper/Harvey Report, to those in the Loftin Report and concluded that he could not find major differences in the impacts of race across the schedules ... when comparing this proportionality review to Loftin. Weisburd Memorandum, at 1-2. Because the statistical models have changed little from Loftin II to Chew II, and because of the serious flaws in the models used by the AOC, Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 310-11, 724 A. 2d 129, we are unable to rely on the results in either case to find racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty, id. at 315, 724 A. 2d 129, based on the models. Defendant asks us to refine the burden of proof such that even the flawed results in the models are considered sufficient to demonstrate that the New Jersey capital sentencing system is discriminatory. In Loftin II, we considered and rejected the same request. Id. at 314-15, 724 A. 2d 129 (concluding that defendant must `relentlessly document[ ] the risk' of racial disparity before we would overturn his death sentence) (quoting Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 213, 613 A. 2d 1059). The record here does not sustain a claim of impermissible bias.