About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 U. Dayton L. Rev. 655 (1994-1995)
The Racial Justice Act of 1994 - Undermining Enforcement of the Death Penalty without Promoting Racial Justice

handle is hein.journals/udlr20 and id is 663 raw text is: THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1994- UNDERMINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WITHOUT PROMOTING RACIAL JUSTICE Daniel E. Lungren* Mark L. Krotoski** I. OVERVIEW During the last Congress, the so-called Racial Justice Act (RJA) proved to be one of the most controversial provisions in the omnibus crime bill. In fact, until it was dropped, the RJA threatened final congressional consideration of the crime bill.' If the RJA were enacted, a capital defendant would be allowed to present statistics from unrelated cases to suggest that race was a factor in the decision to seek or to impose the death sentence. Once the defendant makes this bare statistical showing, prosecutors would have a heavy burden to rebut the showing. If the rebuttal is not made, the death penalty cannot be imposed. The RJA clearly is designed to overturn McCleskey v. Kemp,' where the U.S. Supreme Court denied a similar statistical claim based upon unrelated cases to establish racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty. The RJA would also permit a new round of litigation, unrelated to the facts of the murder and the individual background characteristics of the offender, to be used to determine whether the death penalty should be enforced. Since 1988, the Congress has considered the RJA on several occasions. It is likely that it will be debated as an amendment to future crime measures. Little * Attorney General of the State of California, 1991 to present; University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1968; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1971 ; member, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 1978-1988. ** Special Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Feb. 1991 through Dec. 1994; University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., 1980; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1986. The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation for the many valuable suggestions on, and review of, this Article by Deputy Attorney General Susan Lee Frierson. who is recognized for her extensive background and expertise in dealing with legal issues related to the Racial Justice Act. Additionally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and review of several members of the California Department of Justice Federal Habeas Corpus Reform Task Force who considered an earlier version of this Article which was circulated as a section-by-section analysis of the Racial Justice Act to members of Congress. This review included Chief Assistant Attorney General George Williamson and Deputy Attorneys General Ward A. Campbell, Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Susan Lee Frierson, Dane R. Gillette, Ronald Matthias, Karl Mayer, and Quint Hegner. Manager of the Statistical Analysis Center of the California Department of Justice. Finally, the authors are appreciative of the efforts and review of this Article by Special Assistant Attorney General Kevin P. Holsclaw. 1. See infra notes 32-35. 2. 481 U.S. 279 (1987).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most