DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY REGARDING EXECUTION IMPACT TESTIMONY. 1. I currently serve as the Director of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel

Similar documents
DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY REGARDING UNREPORTED DISCOVERY PRACTICES IN FEDERAL CAPITAL CASES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FEDERALISM IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS: UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS

DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY REGARDING JURY CONSULTANTS. 1. I currently serve as the Director of the Federal Death Penalty Resource

Phillips v. Araneta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV PR (AZ 6/29/2004) (AZ, 2004)

RULE 1.1: COMPETENCE. As of January 23, American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee

Governing Board Roster

RULE 3.8(g) AND (h):

INSTITUTE of PUBLIC POLICY

RULE 2.4: LAWYER SERVING

RULE 4.2: COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

RULE 1.14: CLIENT WITH DIMINISHED CAPACITY

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. Guadalupe Cuesta Director, National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Collaboration Office

Constitution in a Nutshell NAME. Per

RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS

Update on State Judicial Issues. William E. Raftery KIS Analyst Williamsburg, VA

Mandated Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PMPs) Map

Now is the time to pay attention

Promoting Second Chances: HR and Criminal Records

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. [Docket No. FMCSA ; FMCSA ; FMCSA ; FMCSA-

By 1970 immigrants from the Americas, Africa, and Asia far outnumbered those from Europe. CANADIAN UNITED STATES CUBAN MEXICAN

Breakdown of the Types of Specific Criminal Convictions Associated with Criminal Aliens Placed in a Non-Custodial Setting in Fiscal Year 2015

Incarcerated Women and Girls

Admitting Foreign Trained Lawyers. National Conference of Bar Examiners Washington, D.C., April 15, 2016

Congressional Districts Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain, Nevada

UNIFORM NOTICE OF REGULATION A TIER 2 OFFERING Pursuant to Section 18(b)(3), (b)(4), and/or (c)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933

The Law Library: A Brief Guide

Bylaws of the Prescription Monitoring Information exchange Working Group

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA ; FMCSA ; FMCSA ; FMCSA-

The Progressive Era. 1. reform movement that sought to return control of the government to the people

Uniform Wage Garnishment Act

Case 2:17-mj Document 15 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

January 17, 2017 Women in State Legislatures 2017

If you have questions, please or call

POST CONVICTION DNA LEGISLATION Prepared by Smith Alling Lane on behalf of Applied Biosystems (as of December 2001)

NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION DAY. September 26, 2017

RULE 2.10: Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

45 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERMIT DIRECT PETITIONS TO A COURT FOR TREATMENT FOR A PERSON WITH A SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS

Next Generation NACo Network BYLAWS Adopted by NACo Board of Directors Revised February, 2017

Election 2014: The Midterm Results, the ACA and You

Geek s Guide, Election 2012 by Prof. Sam Wang, Princeton University Princeton Election Consortium

StateofWel-Being. Tennesee. State,City&CongresionalDistrictWel-BeingReport

Graduation and Retention Rates of Nonresidents by State

Reporting and Criminal Records

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

Election Cybersecurity, Voter Registration, and ERIC. David Becker Executive Director, CEIR

2016 NATIONAL CONVENTION

2018 NATIONAL CONVENTION

Admitting Foreign-Trained Lawyers. Professor Laurel S. Terry Penn State Dickinson School of Law Carlisle, Pennsylvania

Online Appendix. Table A1. Guidelines Sentencing Chart. Notes: Recommended sentence lengths in months.

Presentation Outline

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION PRO BONO COMMITTEE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNIZING A RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS IN CERTAIN CIVIL CASES

SPECIAL EDITION 11/6/14

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION WITH STATE VERSIONS AND AMENDMENTS SINCE AUGUST 2002

WASHINGTON REPORT. Michael Novogradac Novogradac & Company Merrill Hoopengardner National Trust Community Investment Corp.

WHAT ABOUT (ALL) THE VICTIMS? -- THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXECUTION-IMPACT EVIDENCE IN CAPITAL SENTENCING HEARINGS. Virginia Bell W&L 09L May 1, 2009

Candidate Faces and Election Outcomes: Is the Face-Vote Correlation Caused by Candidate Selection? Corrigendum

RULE 1.16: DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION

DC: I estimate a 4,600 valid sig petition drive for President in I budget $15,000 from the LNC.

Mrs. Yuen s Final Exam. Study Packet. your Final Exam will be held on. Part 1: Fifty States and Capitals (100 points)

How States Can Achieve More Effective Public Safety Policies

House Apportionment 2012: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin

The Progressive Era. Part 1: Main Ideas. Write the letter of the best answer. (4 points each)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. No GAO

Presented by: Ted Bornstein, Dennis Cardoza and Scott Klug

CURRICULUM VITAE. GREGORY W. WIERCIOCH 975 Bascom Mall, Room 4315E Madison, Wisconsin (o)

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed.

2016 us election results

RULE 2.9: Ex Parte Communications

Senate*** House**** Governors*****

a rising tide? The changing demographics on our ballots

The Impact of Wages on Highway Construction Costs

Background and Trends

Political Contributions Report. Introduction POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

RULE 7.5: FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEADS

A Dead Heat and the Electoral College

Case 5:06-cr TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH

RIDE Program Overview

Prison Price Tag The High Cost of Wisconsin s Corrections Policies

Sean D. O Brien Associate Professor, UMKC Law School

2016 PRIMARY. Election Date: 03/15/2016

RIDE Program Overview

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2018

Effective Dispute Resolution Systems and the Vital Role of Stakeholders

NRCAT Action Fund Senate Scorecard

Notary Legislation Includes RULONA

Historically, state PM&R societies have operated as independent organizations that advocate on legislative and regulatory proposals.

EEOC & Mitchel, et al., v. Allied Aviation Services, Inc., Allied Aviation Fueling of Dallas, LP, Allied Aviation Fueling Company of Texas, Inc.

Inside Washington. Marco

WYOMING POPULATION DECLINED SLIGHTLY

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2019

14 Pathways Summer 2014

USA v. Anthony Spence

CRAIN S CLEVELAND BUSINESS

Mineral Availability and Social License to Operate

Notary Legislation Includes RULONA

50 State Survey of Bad Faith Law. Does your State encourage bad faith?

Washington, D.C. Update

Supreme Court Decision What s Next

NRCAT Action Fund Senate Scorecard

American Express Company Semi-Annual Political Contributions Report July-December 2015

Transcription:

DECLARATION OF KEVIN McNALLY REGARDING EXECUTION IMPACT TESTIMONY 1. I currently serve as the Director of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, assisting court appointed and defender attorneys charged with the defense of capital cases in the federal courts. I have served as Resource Counsel since the inception of the Resource Counsel Project in January, 1992. The Project is funded and administered under the Criminal Justice Act by the Office of Defender Services of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 2. My responsibilities as federal resource counsel include the monitoring of all federal capital prosecutions throughout the United States in order to assist in the delivery of adequate defense services to indigent capital defendants in such cases. This effort includes the collection of data on the initiation and prosecution of federal capital cases. 1 1 The work of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project is described in a report prepared by the Subcommittee on Federal Death Penalty Cases, Committee on Defender Services, Judicial Conference of the United States, FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY CASES: RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE COST AND QUALITY OF DEFENSE REPRESENTATION (May, 1998), at 28 30. www.uscourts.gov/dpenalty/1cover.htm. The Subcommittee report urges the judiciary and counsel to maximize the benefits of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project..., which has become essential to the delivery of high quality, cost effective representation in death penalty cases... Id. at 50. A recent update to the Report stated: Many judges and defense counsel spoke with appreciation and admiration about the work of Resource Counsel. Judges emphasized their assistance in recruiting and recommending counsel for appointments and their availability to consult on matters relating to the defense, including case budgeting. Defense counsel found their knowledge, national perspective, and case specific assistance invaluable. http://www.uscourts.gov/federalcourts/appointmentofcounsel/publications/updatefe 1

3. In order to carry out the duties entrusted to me, I maintain a comprehensive list of federal death penalty prosecutions and information about these cases. I accomplish this by internet news searches, by reviewing dockets and by downloading and obtaining indictments, pleadings of substance, notices of intent to seek or not seek the death penalty, jury instructions and findings and by telephonic or in person interviews with defense counsel or consultation with chambers. This information is regularly updated and is checked for accuracy by consulting with defense counsel. The Project s information regarding federal capital prosecutions has been relied upon by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, by the Federal Judicial Center and by various federal district courts. 4. Federal capital juries have received evidence and listened to testimony about the impact the defendant s execution would have on them and other family and friends in numerous cases. Such evidence has generally been presented to federal capital juries without objection by prosecutors. Juries have found execution impact as a mitigating circumstance in, among others, the following cases: LIFE SENTENCES: United States v. Ramon Molina and John McCullah (E.D. OK CR No. 1:92 032 S) (Seay); United States v. Anthony Walker and Walter Diaz (N.D. NY CR No. 94 328); United States v. Dennis Moore (W.D. MO CR No. 94 00194 01 12 CR W 9); United States v. Phouc Nguyen (D. KS CR No. 94 10128 01); United States v. Dean Anthony Beckford deraldeathpenaltycases.aspx 2

(E.D. VA CR No. 3:96 CR 66); United States v. Rashi Jones (E.D. VA CR No. 97 CR 129); United States v. Raheem and Shaheem Johnson (E.D. VA CR No. 97 00314 A); United States v. Gurmeet Singh Dhinsa (E.D. NY CR No. 97 672 (S 3) (ERK)); United States v. John Bass (E.D. MI CR No. 97 80235); United States v. Plutarco Tello (W.D. MO CR No. 98 00311 01/05 CR W 2); United States v. Willis Haynes (D. MD CR No. PJM 98 0502); United States v. Marcus Sanders (S.D. AL CR No. 98 0056 CB);United States v. Kristin Gilbert (D. MA CR No. 98 30044 MAP); United States v. Khalfan Mohamed (S.D. NY CR No. S6 98 CR 1023); United States v. Tommy Edelin (D. DC CR No. 98 264); United States v. Xavier Lightfoot (W.D. MO CR No. 00 CR 395 ALL); United States v. Coleman Johnson (W.D. VA CR No. 3:00CR00026); United States v. Christopher Willis (E.D. VA CR No. 99 00396); United States v. Joseph P. Minerd (W.D. PA CR No. 99 215); United States v. Carl Haskell (W.D. MO CR No. 00 CR 395 ALL); United States v. Tebiah Tucker (N.D. NY CR No. 00 CR 269 ALL); United States v. William Sablan (D. CO CR No. 00 CR 531 ALL); United States v. Michael O Driscoll (M.D. PA CR No. 4:CR 01 277); United States v. Jay Lentz (E.D. VA CR No. 01 CR 150 ALL); United States v. Cornell Winfrei McClure (D. MD CR No. 01 CR 367 ALL); United States v. Johnny Davis (E.D. LA CR No. 2:01 CR 282 ALL); United States v. Andre Cooper and Jamain Williams (E.D. PA CR No. 01 CR 512 ALL); United States v. Robert and Michael Ostrander (W.D. MI CR No. 01 M 639 ALL); United States v. Wayne Bridgewater and Henry Michael Houston (C.D. CA CR No. 02 00938 GHK); United States v. Luis Gonzales Lauzan (S.D. FL CR No. 02 3

CR 20572 ALL); United States v. Hernaldo Medina Villegas and Lorenzo Catalan Roman (D. PR CR No. 3:02 CR 117 ALL); United States v. Shawn Arnette Breeden (W.D. VA CR No. 03 CR 13 ALL); United States v. Brent Simmons (W.D. VA CR No. 5:04 CR 00014 sgw ALL); United States v. Ishmael Cisneros and Oscar Antonio Grande (E.D. VA CR No. 04 CR 283 ALL); United States v. Kenneth McGriff (E.D. NY CR No. 04 966 (ERK) (VVP)); United States v. John Street (W.D. MO CR No. 4:04 CR 00298 GAF ALL); United States v. Khalid Barnes (S.D. NY No. 04 CR 186); United States v. James Dinkins (D. MD No. 1:06 CR 00309 JFM); United States v. Steven Green (W.D. KY No. 5:06 CR 00019 TBR); United States v. Jermaine Michael Julian (M.D. FL No. 8:07 CR 9 T 27TGW); United States v. Patrick Albert Byers, Jr. (D. MD No. 08 056); United States v. Antonio Argueta (D. MD No. 8:05 CR 00393 DKC); United States v. Maurice Phillips (E.D. PA No. 2:07 CR 00549 JCJ); United States v. Anh The Duong (N.D. CA No. 5:01 CR 20154 JF); United States v. George Lecco(S.D. WV CR No. 2:05 00107); United States v. Timothy O Reilly (E.D. MI No. 05 CR 80025); United States v. Vincent Basciano (E.D. NY No. 05 CR 0060 NGG); United States v. Brian Richardson (N.D. GA No. 1:08 CR 139); United States v. Edison Burgos Montes (D. PR No. 06 CR 009 JAG); United States v. LaShaun Casey (D PR. No. 3:05 CR 0277 JAG); United States v. Larry Lujan (D. NM No. 05 CR 924) and United States v. Steven Northington (E.D. PA No. 2:07 CR 00550 RBS). 2 2 The district court in Western District of Virginia federal death penalty case in May 2006 entered a pretrial order denying the government s motion to precluded the admission of execution impact evidence at trial. See United States v. Caro, 2006 WL 1529473 (W.D. Va. 2006). 4

DEATH SENTENCES: United States v. Bruce Webster (N.D. TX CR No. 4:94 CR 121 Y) 1; United States v. Bountaem Chanthadara (D. KS CR No. 94 10128 01); United States v. Louis Jones (N.D. TX CR No. 6 95 CR 0015 C); United States v. Darryl Johnson (N.D. IL CR No. 96 CR 379); United States v. David Paul Hammer (M.D. PA CR No. 4 96 CR 239); United States v. Aquila Marcivicci Barnette (W.D. NC CR No. 3:97 CR 23 P); United States v. Billie Jerome Allen (E. D. MO CR No. 4:97 CR 0141 ERW (TCM)); United States v. Richard Stitt (E.D. VA CR No. 2:98CR47); United States v. German Sinisterra (W.D. MO CR No. 98 00311 01/05 CR W 2); United States v. Dustin Higgs (D. MD CR No. PJM 98 0502); United States v. Marvin Charles Gabrion (W.D. MI CR No. 1:99 CR 76); United States v. Keith Nelson (W.D. MO CR No. 99 138H 01); United States v. Angela Johnson (N.D. IA CR No. 00 CR 3034 MWB); United States v. Richard Jackson (W.D. NC CR No. 00 CR 74 ALL); United States v. Gary Sampson (D. MA CR No. 01 CR 10384 ALL); United States v. Sherman Fields (W.D. TX CR No. 01 CR 164 ALL); United States v. William Emmett LeCroy (N.D. GA CR No. 02 CR 38 ALL); (E.D. NY CR No. 1:04 CR 01016 NGG ALL); United States v. Alfonso Rodriguez (D. ND CR No. 04 CR 55 ALL); United States v. Ronell Wilson (E.D. NY No. 1:04 CR 01016 NGG); United States v. John Johnson (E.D. LA No. 2:04 CR 00017 HGB SS); United States v. George Lecco and Valerie Friend (S.D. WV CR No. 2:05 00107); United States v. David Runyon (E.D. VA CR No. 4:08 CR 16) and United States v. Ronell Wilson (E.D. NY No. 1:04 CR 01016 NGG). 5

5. Such testimony is regularly heard in state death penalty trials. See, e.g., State v. Smith (Union County Indictment No. 94 GS 44 906, 907). Rejection of such testimony has been found to be error. See, e.g., Romine v. State, 305 S.E.2d 93 (Ga. 1983) (error where the defendant, who murdered his parents, was not allowed to present the testimony of his grandfather that he did not wish his grandson to be executed); State v. Stevens, 879 P.2d 162 (Or. 1994) (trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the defendant s wife that she believed the execution of her husband would have a negative effect on their six year old daughter) and Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 43 (1992) (recognizing Arizona s practice of accepting evidence of the effect [defendant s] execution would have upon his family as mitigation evidence) (dicta). The federal government has been allowed to present such evidence. See United States v. Battle, 1999 WL 252378 (11 th Cir. 4/28/99) (allowing the testimony by three prison guards about the murder of a fellow officer. Eleventh Circuit upheld direct questions to the prison guards of the effect of a life without parole sentence on inmates at the institution... ). 6. The information detailed herein is maintained in the ordinary course of business of the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project and is accurate to the best of my knowledge, ability and belief. 6

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of American, 28 U.S.C. 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 6 th day of September, 2013. /s/ Kevin McNally Kevin McNally 7