Narrow Debate About the Death Penalty

SHERRY F. COLB

In light of the federal government’s resumption of executions, Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb describes some of the common arguments of proponents and opponents of capital punishment. Colb observes that many of the moral arguments are based on a consequentialist perspective and suggests that a deontological perspective might lead to novel arguments and considerations about the death penalty.

Read More

Balbirnie v. State

Docket: 115650

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant did not establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance, holding that Defendant met his burden of showing that there was a reasonable probability that, but for his trial counsel's deficient performance, the result of his trial would have been different. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant later moved to have his conviction set aside, arguing that his appointed trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to admit into evidence a recording of a 911 call in which the caller identified someone other than Defendant as the person who killed the victim. The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) counsel's failure to introduce the 911 call fell below an objective standard for reasonably effective representation; and (2) Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance.

State v. Martinez

Docket: 119739

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and other crimes, holding that the prosecutor did not err during closing arguments by saying, "The defense has speculated about other peoples [sic] motives, but the State has actually presented evidence." On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the State to the defense and infringed on his constitutional protections against compulsory self-incrimination. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor's comments did not offend Defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial and did not fall outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to conduct the State's case.

State v. Thomas

Docket: 115990

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery but affirmed his convictions for abuse of a child and aggravated endangering of a child, holding that the cumulative effect of certain errors required reversal of the aggravated battery conviction. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred by giving jury instructions that allowed the jury to convict Defendant of aggravated battery if it found that Defendant intended the conduct but not the harm; (2) during closing arguments, the prosecutor erred by telling jurors to acquit only if the jurors thought it was acceptable to inflict injuries on their children; and (3) the two errors when considered together were not harmless as to the aggravated battery conviction. Further, the Supreme Court held the district court erred by scoring a previous out-of-state conviction from Virginia for domestic assault and battery as a person crime.