About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (July 6, 2000)

handle is hein.crs/crsahkg0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Order Code RS20620 July 6, 2000 Capital Punishment: Summary of Supreme Court Decisions During the 1999-00 Term Paul Starett Wallace, Jr. Specialist in American Public Law American Law Division Summary 1 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000). 2 Slip Op. No. 99-7000 (U.S. June 12, 2000). 3 120 S. Ct. 727 (2000). 4 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000). Congressional Research Service + The Library of Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web With the exception of the Supreme Court's ruling in Williams v. Taylor,' the Court did not find any serious reversible error in the lower courts' opinions reviewed during the 1999-2000 term that relate to capital punishment. In Ramdass v. Angelone,2 it was decided that a habeas corpus petitioner could not obtain relief from his death sentence on the ground that the state courts should have taken a less technical approach to determining whether he was entitled to have the penalty phase jury instructed that he would be ineligible for parole if the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The state courts reasoned that because judgment had not been entered on one of the petitioner's convictions, he did not have three strikes for purposes of the state's parole ineligibility law. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision on June 12, 2000, reasoning that the entry of a judgment of conviction upon a jury's guilty verdict in another case was not a forgone conclusion in view of the possibility of post-trial motions. In Weeks v. Angelone,3 the Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denying the petitioner's appeal of a death penalty sentence and federal habeas corpus petition, deciding that the jury instructions were constitutionally adequate. In Williams v. Taylor,' it was generally recognized that a defendant is barred from proceeding with federal habeas corpus claims which were not developed in the state habeas corpus petition, however, the Court allowed an evidentiary hearing on two claims due to the petitioner's diligence in pursuing them.