Defending Death Penalty Judgments

By Gillette, Dane R. | Judicature, March/April 2006 | Go to article overview

Defending Death Penalty Judgments

Gillette, Dane R., Judicature

The defense of a capital judgment by state counsel is a long-term commitment of time and resources.

On March 6, 1979, Robert Alton Harris was sentenced to death by the Superior Court in San Diego, California, for the July 1978 murders of two teenaged boys. The California Supreme Court affirmed the death judgment in February 1981.1 For the next 11 years deputies from the California Attorney General's Office defended Harris's death judgment against habeas corpus attacks in the state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court.2 With all challenges to the judgment apparently resolved, in March 1992, the San Diego County Superior Court scheduled an execution date of April 21, 1992. Prison officials announced that the execution would take place at 12:01 a.m. on that date.

On Thursday, April 16, Harris filed his ninth state habeas corpus challenge to the death judgment in the California Supreme Court. At 10:00 a.m. on April 17, he filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the state's use of lethal gas as a method of execution. The next day Harris filed his fourth federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Later that day he moved in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to recall the mandate from denial of his previous federal habeas corpus proceeding.

Over the weekend state attorneys replied to all of these last-minute efforts to stay Harris's execution. The lethal gas challenge resulted in a hearing in the district court on the evening of April 18, after which the district court issued a temporary restraining order that effectively vacated the execution date. The state's petition for writ of mandamus seeking to overturn the stay was argued telephonically to the Ninth Circuit on the evening of Easter Sunday, April 19. The petition was granted late that night, thus reinstating the execution date.

Although the state and federal courts rejected all of Harris's habeas corpus challenges, beginning on the evening of April 20, the Ninth Circuit began issuing a series of stays based on the lethal gas case. By 3:00 a.m. on April 21, the United States Supreme Court had vacated three stays and prison authorities prepared to execute the death warrant.3 At 3:51 a.m., with Harris in the execution chamber, a Ninth Circuit judge called the prison to issue yet another stay. The state again asked the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and an order to that effect was issued at 5:45 a.m.4 Harris was finally executed at 6:21 a.m.

In the 13 years since the Harris litigation, California has completed 10 other executions. Two of those executions were stayed at the last minute by Ninth Circuit orders and they had to be reset following additional litigation. In one of those cases the Supreme Court granted certiorari and following argument vacated a Ninth Circuit order belatedly granting rehearing en bane.5 In a 2004 case the Ninth Circuit granted a last-minute application to file a successive habeas corpus petition and that litigation is still pending.6 Even in two cases involving inmates who sought to waive further review and accept the judgment, various efforts were made by interveners to challenge their competence to do so.7 Before an execution in January 2005, the attorney general's office filed responsive pleadings in several state and federal courts and made appearances in the San Mateo County Superior Court and the United States District Court in San Jose, and argued three times before the Ninth Circuit, twice in Pasadena and once in San Francisco, during a five-week period.8

Multiple responsibilities

As these events illustrate, last-minute litigation in capital cases can be extensive and intense. It is, however, but a small part of the responsibilities faced by state attorneys defending death penalty judgments. In California, the attorney general's office is responsible for all post-conviction proceedings in capital cases, including direct appeal before the California Supreme Court, all state and federal habeas corpus challenges and appeals arising from those challenges, as well as any other collateral attacks on the judgment or execution procedure. …

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
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • 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
Cite this article

Cited article

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. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Defending Death Penalty Judgments


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

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    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,

    Cited passage

    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.