Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1160385
 
 

Footnotes (122)



 


 



Competent Capital Representation: The Necessity of Knowing and Heeding What Jurors Tell Us About Mitigation


John H. Blume


Cornell Law School

Sheri Lynn Johnson


Cornell Law School

Scott E. Sundby


University of Miami School of Law


Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008

Abstract:     
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams in Death Penalty cases.

Capital defense counsel have a duty at every stage of the case to take advantage of all appropriate opportunities to argue why death is not a suitable punishment for their particular client. But that duty can hardly be discharged effectively if the arguments are made in ignorance of available information concerning how persuasive they are likely to be to their audience.

Heeding that simple proposition we present lessons from the work of the Capital Jury Project, an ongoing empirical research effort built upon extended interviews with people who have actually sat on capital juries. We find that the standards for mitigation investigations contained in the ABA's Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases reprinted in 31 Hofstra L. Rev. 913 (2003) and in the Supplementary Guidelines that are the subject of this issue are on firm empirical ground, both in their specific aspects and in their overall approach of encouraging counsel to be creative in building a coherent mitigation theory that is advanced consistently throughout the proceedings.

We then describe particular defense themes and approaches that Project data show are likely to resonate favorably with jurors as well as the most potent prosecution arguments for death and how they might be most effectively rebutted. We conclude by describing the current research findings on the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of those jurors most likely to vote for life, and offering pointers on how to best ameliorate the scandalous but well-documented reality that many jurors simply do not understand the task they are being called upon to perform.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 33

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 19, 2008 ; Last revised: September 24, 2008

Suggested Citation

Blume, John H. and Johnson, Sheri Lynn and Sundby, Scott E., Competent Capital Representation: The Necessity of Knowing and Heeding What Jurors Tell Us About Mitigation. Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1160385

Contact Information

John H. Blume (Contact Author)
Cornell Law School ( email )
524 College Ave
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
Sheri Lynn Johnson
Cornell Law School ( email )
524 College Ave
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
607-255-6478 (Phone)
607-255-7193 (Fax)
Scott E. Sundby
University of Miami School of Law ( email )
1311 Miller Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States
305-284-5848 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 795
Downloads: 108
Download Rank: 150,982
Footnotes:  122

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.469 seconds