Capital Case Crisis in Maricopa County, Arizona: A Response from the Defense

By Dupont, Christopher; Hammond, Larry | Judicature, March/April 2012 | Go to article overview

Capital Case Crisis in Maricopa County, Arizona: A Response from the Defense


Dupont, Christopher, Hammond, Larry, Judicature


The decision on whether to seek death is left almost entirely to the unfettered discretion of an elected County Attorney.

Editor's note: this manuscript is in response to an article that follows on page 221 and first appeared in Arizona Attorney in November, 2011.

In March 2007, there were more than 140 capital cases pending in Maricopa County Superior Court. Fifteen of those people charged with death eligible offenses were without legal counsel.1

To put the numbers in perspective, at the high water mark there were 149 active death penalty cases in Maricopa County.2 At the same time, Los Angeles County had 36 capital cases pending, Clark County (Las Vegas) had 36 pending, and Harris County (Houston) had 17. That means Maricopa County alone had 65 percent more cases pending than the next three highest death penalty- charging jurisdictions combined. While Los Angeles and Harris County had less than one capital case pending per 100,000 residents and Clark County had less than two per 100,000, Maricopa County had nearly four death penalty cases per 100,000 residents.3

While the various stakeholders in the court system had different motivations and methods for reacting to what has commonly been called the capital case crisis, this article presents the defense perspective.

Arizona's murder statute and death-eligible offenses

In Arizona, the prosecution may elect to seek the death penalty if a person is charged with first-degree murder, and there is probable cause to assert one of fourteen aggravating factors. Significantly, many of the aggravating factors listed in the capital murder statute are identical to statutory aggravators that apply to every felony offense. For example, the state might allege as an aggravating factor that a murder was, "especially heinous, cruel or depraved"* or that that the murder was committed "with the expectation of pecuniary gain."5 Those same two aggravating factors could be alleged in any felony case6 and are often alleged in first-degree murder cases that do not proceed as death penalty cases.

The failure to distinguish capital murder aggravators from other, regular felonies produces unreliable and arbitrary results. Pointedly, a study by Arizona counsel in a recent death penalty case found the Maricopa County Attorney alleged 78 percent of capital cases were especially heinous, cruel or depraved; the same County Attorney also alleged that 23 percent of non-capital first degree murder cases were especially heinous, cruel or depraved.7

Because the statutory capital sentencing scheme in Arizona is so inclusive, it does not serve to narrow the class of murders that are death-eligible. Instead, the decision on whether to seek death is left almost entirely to the unfettered discretion of an elected County Attorney.

As another example, many states allow for allegations of prior serious felony convictions as a basis for seeking the death penalty; after all, such prior felony convictions tend to prove an historic propensity to commit future serious crimes. Arizona is the only state in the Union that permits an allegation of concurrent felony convictions. There are more than thirty felony offenses that qualify as serious pursuant to this section.8 The practical result is that, from a single incident involving an armed robbery and a resulting murder, a defendant might be charged with felony murder and therefore would be death-penalty eligible. The felony murder would be predicated upon armed robbery, and the same armed robbery could then be alleged as an aggravating factor in the capital litigation.

Serious felony offenses are such a common circumstance in homicide cases in Arizona the Coconino County attorney filed this particular aggravator in 100 percent of the cases selected for capital prosecution; the Maricopa County Attorney filed this aggravator in 60 percent of such cases.9

In the absence of legislation meaningfully restricting prosecutors from seeking the death penalty, it is not surprising there are significant inconsistencies between counties, and between County Attorneys even in the same County. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Capital Case Crisis in Maricopa County, Arizona: A Response from the Defense
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.