Opinion ID: 2344370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: effect of race on the imposition of the death penalty.

Text: Defendant, an African-American, claims that his death sentence is unconstitutional because of the the pernicious effect race has on capital cases. The State, on the other hand, points to In Re Proportionality Review Project II, 165 N.J. 206, 226, 757 A. 2d 168 (2000), where we accepted Special Master David Baime's conclusion that there was no reliable evidence of race of victim or race of defendant discrimination in New Jersey's capital sentencing scheme. The State adds that the same conclusion was subsequently reached by the Special Master in Report to the New Jersey Supreme Court: Systematic Proportionality Review Project, 2002-2003 Term, at 54-55, and again in the Interim Report to Special Master David Baime: Applying the 2003 Race Monitoring System to May 2004 Proportionality Review Date, at 2 ( Interim Report 2004 ). The State submits that, in the aggregate, there simply is no evidence to conclude that the race of either the defendant or his victims resulted in or caused discrimination in respect of the imposition of death sentences in New Jersey.
Without fail, we have required that a defendant relentlessly document[] the risk of racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty. State v. Loftin (II), 157 N.J. 253, 315, 724 A. 2d 129 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have made that requirement stringent because such a showing would invalidate an otherwise valid death sentence. State v. Marshall (II), 130 N.J. 109, 213, 613 A. 2d 1059 (1992). Whether based on the race of the victim or of the defendant, racial disparity is patently unacceptable: We have no doubt that the people of New Jersey would not tolerate a system that condones disparate treatment for black and white defendants or a system that would debase the value of a black victim's life. Whether in the exercise of statutory proportionality review or our constitutional duty to assure the equal protection and due process of law, we cannot escape the responsibility to review any effects of race in capital sentencing. [ Id. at 214, 613 A. 2d 1059.] We have not yet been presented with persuasive evidence of such disparity. See, e.g., State v. Papasavvas (II), supra, 170 N.J. at 534, 790 A. 2d 798 (Coleman, J., dissenting) (rejecting defendant's claims of racial bias and geographic disparity); State v. Morton, 165 N.J. 235, 267-68, 757 A. 2d 184 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931, 121 S.Ct. 1380, 149 L.Ed. 2d 306 (2001) (same); In Re Proportionality Review Project II, supra, 165 N.J. at 226, 757 A. 2d 168 (concluding that evidence presently available did not support finding of racial bias or discrimination in administration of death penalty). Special Master Baime's latest report on the impact of race on capital sentencing discerns no solid evidence that the race or ethnicity of defendants affects whether the cases progress to the penalty phase or whether the death penalty is imposed. Interim Report 2004 at 1. The Special Master noted that, although two-variable analysis might indicate some disproportionality, that effect was not sustained when multi-variable analysis was utilized. Ibid. Likewise, the Special Master found no statistically significant relationship between race of victim and imposition of the death penalty. Ibid. Some evidence exists that White-victim cases are more likely to advance to a penalty trial than African-American-victim cases; however, when county variability was taken into account, the discrepancy largely disappears. Id. at 2. The Special Master is confident that the administration of capital punishment in New Jersey is not infected with racial or ethnic bias. Ibid. He concludes that we do not find consistent, statistically significant evidence of racial or ethnic prejudice in the administration of our death penalty statutes. Id. at 3. In the absence of any persuasive evidence from defendant to the contrary  and we underscore that, other than policy statements, defendant has tendered no evidence at all in support of this claim  we reject defendant's assertion that his death sentence is unconstitutionally tainted as a result of racial discrimination.