Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) decision to greatly ease campaign spending restrictions has been the main focus of the mainstream press. Mostly ignored was another verdict by the high court that could have strong implications on the sensitive death penalty debate.In a 7-2 vote, the USSC upheld a lower court ruling against a mentally ill inmate on death row. Attorneys for Holly Wood- an Alabaman with the IQ of a seven-year-old child- argued that the lawyers at his sentencing erred by not presenting evidence to the jury of his diminished mental state. They argued that this supposed mistake led to Wood being sentenced to death, not life imprisonment, for the 1993 murder of his ex-girlfriend.
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the top tribunal’s majority opinion; her viewpoint may calm some of the conservative backlash against her that came to the forefront during her nomination process:
The 7 to 2 ruling was notable because it was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, her first full opinion on capital punishment since she joined the court. She said that while the wisdom of the lawyer's decision might be "debatable," it was not unreasonable to think he had made a strategic decision that kept out more damaging evidence about his client…Image- BBC News
"Even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that . . . counsel made a strategic decision not to inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood's mental deficiencies and not to present to the jury such information," Sotomayor wrote…
Sotomayor's extensive record as a judge is scant on capital punishment. The pro-death-penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation said it was encouraged by Sotomayor's decision to uphold the appeals court ruling.
Online Sources- AFP, Washington Post, CNN
No comments:
Post a Comment