Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T09:11:30.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frontloading Mitigation: The “Legal” and the “Human” in Death Penalty Defense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Jesse Cheng
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bifurcation of capital trials into determinations of guilt and sentencing presents defense advocates with what seem to be two distinct domains of knowledge—one apparently “legal” in character, the other “human.” But this epistemological division is actually not so clear in practice. This article dissects the procedural and strategic mechanisms through which these two domains unsettle and reconstitute the other. I provide a historical, empirically grounded account that explicitly articulates the connections between developments in legal procedure, prevailing standards of care concerning the need to conduct humanistic investigations of mitigating factors, and the on‐the‐ground trial practice of “frontloading” as a defense strategy. Drawing from documentary research, interview data with leading capital defense practitioners, and analytical observations based on my own experience as a mitigation specialist, this article presents itself as a case study of the processes of mutually constitutive rupturing that reconfigure the categories of the legal and the human.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , Winter 2010 , pp. 39 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Financial support for ethnographic fieldwork was provided by National Science Foundation Grant #SES‐0548835, the Department of Anthropology, the School of Social Sciences, and the Center for Ethnography at the University of California, Irvine. Research activities were approved under IRB protocol HS#2005‐4484 by the UC Irvine Office of Research Administration.

References

References

American Bar Association. 1980. Standards for Criminal Justice. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/ (accessed January 24, 2009.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 1989. Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. http://www.abanet.org/deathpenalty/resources/docs/1989Guidelines.pdf (accessed September 6, 2009.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 2001. Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States. http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/ABA%20Death%20without%20Justice.pdf (accessed September 6, 2009).Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 2003. Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. http://www.abanet.org/deathpenalty/resources/docs/2003Guidelines.pdf (accessed January 24, 2009).Google Scholar
Banner, Stuart. 2002. The Death Penalty: An American History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michelle E., Brodsky, Stanley L., and Davis, Cali Manning. 2004. When Mitigation Evidence Makes a Difference: Effects of Psychological Mitigating Evidence on Sentencing Decisions in Capital Trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22:751–70.Google Scholar
Berger, Vivian. 19901991. The Chiropractor as Brain Surgeon: Defense Lawyering in Capital Cases. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 18:245–54.Google Scholar
Bilionis, Louis D. 1998. Eighth Amendment Meanings from the ABA's Moratorium Resolution. Law and Contemporary Problems 61 (4): 29–54.Google Scholar
Bowers, William J. 1984. Legal Homicide: Death as Punishment in America, 1864–1982. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, William J., Sandys, Marla, and Steiner, Benjamin D. 1998. Foreclosed Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors' Predispositions, Guilt‐Trial Experience, and Premature Decision Making. Cornell Law Review 83:1476–556.Google Scholar
Bright, Stephen B. 1994. Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer. Yale Law Journal 103:1835–83.Google Scholar
Butler, Brooke, and Moran, Gary. 2007. The Impact of Death Qualification, Belief in a Just World, Legal Authoritarianism, and Locus of Control on Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25 (1): 57–68.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jane Maslow, and Bledsoe, Caroline. 2002. Immigrants, Agency, and Allegiance: Some Notes from Anthropology and from Law. In Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies, ed. Shweder, Richard A., Minow, Martha, and Markus, Hazel R., 99–127. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Coleman, Doriane Lambelet. 1996. Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberals' Dilemma. Columbia Law Review 96:1093–167.Google Scholar
Coombe, Rosemary J. 1998. The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation and the Law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Covey, Russell Dean. 2004. Exorcizing Wechsler's Ghost: The Influence of the Model Penal Code on Death Penalty Sentencing Jurisprudence. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 31:189–268.Google Scholar
Coyne, Randall, and Entzeroth, Lyn. 1996. Report Regarding Implementation of the American Bar Association's Recommendations and Resolutions Concerning the Death Penalty and Calling for a Moratorium on Executions. Georgetown Journal on Fighting Poverty 4:3–73.Google Scholar
Doyle, James M. 1996. The Lawyers' Art: “Representation” in Capital Cases. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 8:417–49.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Wells, Martin. 1993. Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases. Cornell Law Review 79:1–17.Google Scholar
Fleury‐Steiner, Benjamin. 2004. Jurors' Stories of Death: How America's Death Penalty Invests in Inequality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Garvey, Stephen P. 1998. Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What Do Jurors Think? Columbia Law Review 98:1538–76.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, Gary. 1983. The Trial for Life: Effective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. New York University Law Review 58:299–362.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jack. 1994. Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hertz, Randy, and Weisberg, Robert. 1981. In Mitigation of the Penalty of Death: Lockett v. Ohio and the Capital Defendant's Right to Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances. California Law Review 69:317–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, Douglas R., and Marcus, George E. 2005. Refunctioning Ethnography: The Challenge of an Anthropology of the Contemporary. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., ed. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S., 235–52. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L. 1996. Drink, Drugs, and Drowsiness: The Constitutional Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Strickland Prejudice Requirement. Nebraska Law Review 75:425–75.Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L. 1998. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The Paradox of Today's Arbitrary and Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 6:345–459.Google Scholar
Leonard, Pamela Blume. 2003. A New Profession for an Old Need: Why a Mitigation Specialist Must Be Included on the Capital Defense Team. Hofstra Law Review 31:1143–55.Google Scholar
Levine, Kay L. 2003. Negotiating the Boundaries of Crime and Culture: A Sociolegal Perspective on Cultural Defense Strategies. Law & Social Inquiry 28 (1): 39–86.Google Scholar
Liebman, James S. 2007. Slow Dancing with Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment, 1963–2006. Columbia Law Review 107:1–130.Google Scholar
Lyon, Andrea D. 1991. Defending the Death Penalty Case: What Makes Death Different? Mercer Law Review 42:695–711.Google Scholar
Mackey, Philip English. 1974. The Inutility of Mandatory Capital Punishment: An Historical Note. Boston University Law Review 54:32–35.Google Scholar
Mendez, Miguel A. 1999. Evidence: The California Code and the Federal Rules. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 2003. Human Rights Law and the Demonization of Culture (and Anthropology along the Way). Political and Legal Anthropology Review 26 (1): 55–76.Google Scholar
Miller, Jill. 2003. The Defense Team in Capital Cases. Hofstra Law Review 31:1117–41.Google Scholar
Model Penal Code, Proposed Official Draft. 1962. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2002. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Renteln, Alison Dundes. 2004. The Cultural Defense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2000. The Network Inside‐Out. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, Lawrence. 1996. Common Law, Common Culture, Commonsense: A Brief Introduction to Arab Legal Reasoning. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 19 (2): 27–32.Google Scholar
Rozelle, Susanne D. 2006. The Principled Executioner: Capital Juries' Bias and the Benefits of True Bifurcation. Arizona State Law Journal 28:769–807.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 1992. Let God Sort Them Out? Refining the Individualization Requirement in Capital Sentencing. Yale Law Journal 102:835–70.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 1995. Sober Second Thoughts: Reflections on Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment. Harvard Law Review 109:355–438.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 1998. Defending Categorical Exemptions to the Death Penalty: Reflections on the ABA's Resolutions Concerning the Execution of Juveniles and Persons with Mental Retardation. Law and Contemporary Problems 61 (4): 89–104.Google Scholar
Sundby, Scott E. 1991. The Lockett Paradox: Reconciling Guided Discretion and Unguided Mitigation in Capital Sentencing. UCLA Law Review 38:1147–208.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1995. Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? Utah Law Review 1995:1–49.Google Scholar
Vick, Douglas W. 1995. Poorhouse Justice: Underfunded Indigent Defense Services and Arbitrary Death Sentences. Buffalo Law Review 43:329–460.Google Scholar
Volpp, Leti. 2000. Blaming Culture for Bad Behavior. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12:89–116.Google Scholar
Weinreb, Lloyd L. 1998. Criminal Law: Cases, Comment, Questions. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Robert. 1983. Deregulating Death. The Supreme Court Review 1983:305–95.Google Scholar
White, Welsh S. 1993. Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Cases: The Evolving Standard of Care. University of Illinois Law Review 1993:323–78.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E., and Hawkins, Gordon. 1986. Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Abdul‐Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).Google Scholar
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990).Google Scholar
Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 286 (2007).Google Scholar
California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987).Google Scholar
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).Google Scholar
Delo v. Lashley, 507 U.S. 272 (1993).Google Scholar
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).Google Scholar
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982).Google Scholar
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004).Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (1979).Google Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).Google Scholar
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).Google Scholar
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 23 (2008).Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).Google Scholar
Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 (1970).Google Scholar
McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990).Google Scholar
New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).Google Scholar
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).Google Scholar
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005).Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar
Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (1990).Google Scholar
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986).Google Scholar
Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987).Google Scholar
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).Google Scholar
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990).Google Scholar
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).Google Scholar
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).Google Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).Google Scholar
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. section 794 (2006).Google Scholar
Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. section 2381 (2006).Google Scholar
Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. section 3591(b) (2006).Google Scholar
Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. section 3592(a) (2006).Google Scholar
Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. section 3593(c) (2006).Google Scholar
Food and Drugs, 21 U.S.C. section 848(e) (2005).Google Scholar