"Bill Could Spare Some in Md. With Murder Trials Pending," is written by John Wagner and Henri E. Cauvin. It appeared in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post.
Legislation that significantly raises the bar on evidence needed to seek the death penalty in Maryland was meant by its authors to apply only to future cases. But the bill, which Gov. Martin O'Malley has pledged to sign in coming weeks, could also spare the lives of some defendants in pending trials -- and has sparked debate about what should happen to prisoners already on death row.
A largely overlooked provision in the bill bars the death penalty for sentences pronounced on Oct. 1 or later, unless the case meets the new standards of evidence. The standards limit capital cases to those with biological or DNA evidence, a videotaped confession or a videotape linking the defendant to the crime. If the standards are not met, prosecutors can seek only life without parole.
Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), who introduced an amendment that included the new standards, said he never intended for the law to apply to cases in which murder charges have already been filed. But a review of the bill by lawyers at the attorney general's office concluded that it would do just that in cases in which sentencing has not occurred by the time the bill takes effect Oct. 1.
Five defendants in Maryland have been charged with murder and could face the death penalty, and the known evidence in some of their cases might not meet the new standards. Among those is a Washington County man charged in late 2007 with fatally shooting a police officer. The trial is scheduled to start next month.
Zirkin's amendment was one of two introduced during a chaotic debate on the Senate floor last month that dramatically altered the bill, which originally sought a full repeal of the death penalty. The other amendment, sponsored by Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County), prohibits the death penalty in cases built solely on eyewitness testimony.
A third amendment, drafted by legislative staff, was intended to make the two other amendments compatible. It contained the Oct. 1 provision in question. Zirkin and Brochin said they were unaware of that part of the amendment, which was introduced under Brochin's name.
"My intention certainly was not to make this retroactive in any way whatsoever," Zirkin said. Brochin called the episode "unfortunate."
And:
The bill does not directly affect the five prisoners now on death row.
But death-penalty supporters and opponents suggested in interviews that O'Malley (D), who as governor has the power to commute death sentences, could use the new standards as a guide in reevaluating cases. O'Malley, who sponsored the bill to abolish the death penalty, declined to discuss that prospect in a recent interview.
The cases of at least four of the five death-row prisoners would not meet the new evidence standards, said Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions, which has researched the crimes. Some of them took place more than two decades ago, when the use of DNA evidence was less common.
David E. Kendall, a partner at Williams & Connolly who served on Maryland's death-penalty commission and has worked on death-penalty litigation for decades, said the new law could provide defense attorneys for those on death row with powerful arguments for commutation. "It does give a defense lawyer a reasoned basis to say, 'Look, you know the standard has really changed,' " Kendall said.
The article notes that a moratorium remains in place in Maryland due to the lack of lethal injection procedures. The governor has indicated that he will allow procedures to be developed now that the legislature has acted on capital punishment. Earlier coverage of the Maryland legislation begins with this post.
Comments