Summary of death sentence process: data set I research report to Arizona capital case commission

              I Summary of Death Sentence Process:
! Data Set I Research Report to
I Arizona Capital Case Commission
I Submitted by
I The Center for Urban Inquiry
College of Public Programs
I Arizona State University
I Peg Bortner and Andy-Hall
I In Consort with the Research Subcommittee
8 I of Arizona Capital Case Commission:
I -
The Honorable Michael Ryan, Dr. ~ohnSt ookey, Mr. Rick
I Unklesbay and Attorney General Janet Napolitano
I March 2001
I Data verification continues. Any changes will appear in the find report.
Summary of Death Sentence Process:
Table of Contents
Methodology and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Overview
Exhibit 1. Arizona Death Sentences by Year, 1974-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Exhibit 2. Arizona Death Sentences by County and Year, 1974-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Exhibit 3. Major Time Intervals: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Exhibit 4. Comparison of Arizona Counties by Population and
Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 and 1990-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Exhibit 5. Conviction- and Sentence-related Remands, Reversals and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, Five-year Intervals, 1975-1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Exhibit 6. Most Recent Disposition and Current Status: Individuals
Sentenced to Death, Arizona, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sentencing
Exhibit 7. Number of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Found by Sentencing Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Exhibit 8. Aggravating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Exhibit 9. Death Sentence Cases in Which Only a Single Aggravating Factor Was Found to
Exist by Trial Court Judges: Arizona, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Exhibit 10. Statutory Mitigating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Exhibit 11. Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appeal Process
Exhibit 12. Remands, Reversals, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000, and 1990-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Exhibit 13. Explanatory Notes for Issue Categories in Remands, Reversals, and Modifications . . . . . . . . . 13
Exhibit 14. Issues Cited as Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Exhibit 15. Issues Cited as Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications and Year of
Death Sentence in Cases Remanded 1990-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Exhibit 16. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-1989 and 1990-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Exhibit 17. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-1989 and 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Exhibit 18. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Exhibit 19. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1990-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Outcomes
Exhibit 20. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and Modifications by
Individuals: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Exhibit 21. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Exhibit 22. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Exhibit 23. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1990-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Exhibit 24. Type of Defense Attorney at Conviction, Direct Appeal, Post-Conviction Relief, and Habeas:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Time Intervals
Exhibit 25. Summary Table of Time Intervals for Arizona Death Sentence Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Exhibit 26. Arizona Death Sentence Cases: Part I-1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Exhibit 27. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part 11-1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals . . . . . . . . 29
Exhibit 28. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part 111-1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals. . . . . . . . 30
Exhibit 29. Arizona Death Sentence Cases: Part I-1990-July 1,2000 Time Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Exhibit 30. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part 11-1990-July 1,2000 Time Intervals . . . . . . . . 32
Exhibit 3 1. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part 111-1990-July 1,2000 Time Intervals. . . . . . . . 33
Defendant and Victim Information
Exhibit 32. Defendant-Victim Relationships: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . 34
Exhibit 33. Defendant-Victim Relationships: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . 35
Exhibit 34. Defendant and Victim Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Age:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Exhibit 35. Defendant and Victim Race~EthnicityS, ex, and Age:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Exhibit 36. Defendant RaceEthnicity by Victim RaceEthinicity:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Exhibit 37. Defendant Characteristics I: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . 3 9
Exhibit 38. Defendant Characteristics 11: Defendant Prior Criminal Justice History,
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix
Appendix A.G-1 Statutory Mitigation Ruled to Exist by Sentencing Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974- July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix B. Nonstatutory Mental Health-related Mitigation Ruled to Exist by
Sentencing Judge: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix C. Explanatory Notes for Time Interval Figures, Exhibits 25-3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Introduction
The Attorney General's Capital Case Commission was formed in recognition of the need for a
comprehensive study of the death penalty process in Arizona. The Commission has four subcommittees:
three examine specific parts of the death penalty litigation process (Pre-Trial Issues, Trial Issues, and
Direct AppealPost-Conviction Relief Issues) and the DataResearch Subcommittee is responsible for
compiling data and providing statistical analyses to the Commission.
The Commission has requested that the DataIResearch Subcommittee explore three distinct data sets. This
report summarizes key information contained in Data Set I. It examines the characteristics of the 230
Arizona death sentence cases (involving 228 individuals) from 1974 through July 1, 2000. The data set is
based on original documents provided by the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, the Arizona
Supreme Court, the County Clerk's Offices, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
and the Arizona Department of Corrections. It focuses on:
the number and type of aggravating and mitigating factors found to exist by sentencing judges;
the number and type of conviction and sentence related remands, reversals, or modifications in the
appellate process of the cases;
case outcomes;
time intervals for key junctures in the sentencing and appellate process; and
preliminary defendant and victim profiles, including relationships between victims and defendants,
and group characteristics (such as; age, racelethnicity, gender, and county of residence).
Data Set I1 will facilitate a comparative analysis of capital cases and other first degree murder cases
during the five-year period, January 1,1995, through December 3 1, 1999, for Maricopa, Pima, Coconino,
and Mohave counties. Data Set llI will explore the incremental additional costs of prosecution, defense
and appeal of a capital murder case compared to a non-capital murder case.
Acknowledgments
We are deeply grateful to the many individuals who have made major contributions to the research
endeavor. These include: Center for Urban Inquiry and College of Public Programs at Arizona State
University: Cyndee Coin, Janet Soper, Jolan Hsieh and Anne Schneider; research associates, assistants,
and apprentices, Cory Gonzales, Kim Furumoto, Jeanine Giordano, Kate Engstrom, Kelly Guth, Lisa
Hird, Rebeca Hoeffer, Bin Liang, Kathy McCaghren, Toni Quintana, Natalie Rarnos, Rashad Shabazz,
Rina Shah, Anitra Smith, Susan Trower, and Eric Welch.
The Arizona Attorney General's Staff, Diane Saunders, Scott Bales, Dennis Burke, Kent Cattani,
Patrick Cunningham, and Tim Geiger; Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Paul McMurdie; Arizona
State Department of Corrections, Daryl Fischer; Arizona Supreme Court Staff Attorneys Office,
Donna Hallam; Arizona Supreme Court, Noel Dessaint; and U.S. District Court for Arizona, Kristine
Fox. For special assistance in gathering and processing victim-related data, we are grateful to Jan
Christian, The Restorative Justice Project, and Teena Olszewski, Director, Arizona Attorney General
Victim Services. For special assistance in gathering defense counsel-related information, we thank the
staff of Osborn Maledon and the Office of the Attorney General.
I , ~ h i I > i3t. bl:jio~'I-' itne I ~ l l ~ r l / i ~ l ~ :
A r i ~ o n ;I)~c~ ;ltiiS cnfencc Cases, 1074--,1t~1y1 , 2000
Sentenced
I to
On Death Row
I as of
March 28,2001
Range = 9.2 mo.-23.6 yr. . . --- -
Median = 8.8 yr.
N = 1 13 people*
Executed after
Appeal Process
Completed
Range = 9.9 yr.-24.0 yr.
Median = 17.4 yr.
N = 18 people
Range = 3.3 yr.-7.0 yr.
Median = 5.7 vr.
N = 4 people
Executed after
Waiving Further
Appeals
' - Range = 362 days-20.8 yr.
Median = 3.2 yr. - --- - --
Dates available for fl of 57 peopl.e - - --.- / Sentence
-- - I--J Changed I 1 t o ~ i f e 1
~--.------ .
Range = 1.9 yr.-20.6 yr.
Median = 13.6 yr.
Dates available for 11 of 12 people
\
i
\\
Range = 2.5 yr.-13.4 yr.
Median = 3.1 yr.
Sentence
Changed 1
to Term ,
of Years
N = 7 people
-i - - --- -,
-, Not Guilty
'I I
after Remand 1
I for New Trial
The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values.
The range indicates the lowest to the highest values.
*Seventeen of the 228 individuals in the study are not accounted for by these time intervals, including 8 in custody awaiting
retrial or resentencing and 9 who died while on death row.
Exhibit 4. Comparison of Arizona Counties by Population
and Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000 and 1990-1999
a~veragoef 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1999 population statistics. May not add to 100% due to rounding.
b Average of 1990 and 1999 population statistics. May not add to 100% due to rounding.
Yormed as a county January 1,1983.
County
Maricopa
Pima
Mohave
Y avapai
Yuma
Pinal
Cochise
Coconino
La PazC
Santa Cruz
Graham
Percent
of AZ
Populationa
57.1 %
18.6%
2.3%
2.7%
3.1%
1990-1999
3.4%
1974-2000
Death
Sentence
Cases
(N = 230)
47.4%
(1 09)
27.8%
(64)
6.1%
(14)
4.8%
(11)
4.8%
Percent
of AZ
~ o ~ u l a t i o n ~
(1)
0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
(1)
0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
Apache
Gila
Remands,
Reversals, &
Modifications
(N = 141)
51.1%
(72)
27.7%
(39)
6.4%
(9)
5.7%
(8)
5 .O%
1.7%
1.3%
(1 1)
3.5%
(8)
Death
Sentence
Cases
(N = 93)
1.6%
1.1%
Greenlee
Navajo
Remands,
Reversals, &
Modifications
(N = 49)
59.0% 1 3;i;: 1 7;:
17.5%
2.7%
(7)
2.1%
(3)
3.0%
2.6%
0.4%
(0)
0.4%
2.4% 0.0% 0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
0.7%
(1)
2.2%
(5)
2.2%
(5)
0.4%
(1)
(0)
0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
0.2%
2.1%
36.6% 38.8%
(34) I (19)
(4) : (3)
0.0% 1 0.0%
(0) (0)
6.5%
(6)
3.1%
3.2%
2.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.0% I 0.0%
4.1%
(2)
2.2% 4.1%
(2) i (2)
4.3% i 2.0%
(4) 1 (1)
3.2% 0.0%
(3) j (0)
0.7%
(1)
0.0%
(0)
0.0%
(0)
0.7%
0.4%
(1)
0.4%
(0)
0.0%
2.9% 4.3% 1 6.1%
(0)
0.0%
2.5% 1 2.2% 1 0.0% (2) (0)
(0) I (0)
0.4%
:
1.1% 0.0%
(1) i (0)
0.9%
0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
(0) j (0)
0.0% 1 0.0%
Exhibit 5. Conviction- and Sentence-related Remands, Reversals and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, Five-year Intervals, 1975-1999
Sentence-related Total Remands,
Remands, Modifications Reversals, Modifications
b e s e include 16 remands as a result of Watson. For an explanation of Watson remands, please see Exhibit 13.
Totals 52 I 80 132
Exhibit 6. Most Recent Disposition and Current Status:
Individuals Sentenced to Death, Arizona, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 228 Individuals)
Not Guilty
on Retrial
Action Pend<inqgT dy~eceased during
3.5% 3.1% Retrial Process
Resentenced to a 0.4%
Term of years-
5.3%
Resentenced
to Death A
11.8% 1
Death, All
Conviction- and
Sentence-related
Appeals Denied 1 to Date I
50.9%
Most Recent Disposition In Custody Awaiting
Retrial or Resentencing
Deceased
\ & 3.5%
in Prison -
-- Current Physical Status
Exhibit 7. Number of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Found by Sentencing Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 230 cases)
Number of
Factors Found
0
1
2
3
4
5
6-10
11-13
Missing 2 Cases I 0.9% 1 2 Cases 0.9% 2 Cases 1 0.9%
Aggravating Factors -
Number Percent
. NIA
Nonstatutory
Mitigating Factors
Number Percent
122 Cases / 53.0%
Statutory
Mitigating Factors
Number Percent
58 Cases
82 Cases
58 Cases
26 Cases
23 Cases
188 Cases
38 Cases
2 Cases
0 Cases
25.2%
35.7%
25.2%
1 1.3%
10.0%
81.7%
16.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
24 Cases
6 Cases
0 Cases
11 Cases 1 4.8%
NIA
16 Cases
11 Cases
18 Cases
1 Cases
10.4% / 0 Cases 7.0%
4.8%
7.8%
0.4%
2.6% 0 Cases
NIA NIA
0.0%
NIA
NIA
Exhibit 8. Aggravating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 230)
FactoP / statute 1 ~ound
Offense committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. / F6 176
i ! 1 (76.5%)
Defendant committed the offense in expectation of anything of pecuniary
value.
Defendant previously convicted of a serious offense.
I
The defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for 1 F1 50
which, under Arizona law, a sentence of life imprisonment or death was I 1 (21.1%)
imposable. 1i 1
During commission of this offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave F3 31
risk of death to another person. i 1 (13.5%)
-- - --- -- ! I
Defendant has been convicted of other hornicide(s), which were committed i F8 1 29
j during the commission of the offense. i 1 (12.6%)
!
Defendant was an adult at the time the offense was committed, and the victim j F9 1 23
i was under 15 years of age or over 70 years of age. 1 (10.0%)
Defendant committed offense while in custody or on release. I F 7 1 9 i ! 1 (3.9%)
;
Defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment.
Murdered person was an on-duty peace officer. I F10 / 1 1 (0.4%)
1973, the Arizona Legislature enacted A.R.S. 3 13-454(E) (renumbered as 3 13-703(F) in 1978), codifying six aggravating
circumstances: (1) Prior conviction for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable; (2) Prior serious offense
involving the use or threat of violence; (3) Grave risk of death to others; (4) Procurement of murder by payment or promise of
payment; (5) Commission of murder for pecuniary gain; (6) Murder committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved
manner.
The Legislature subsequently added the following additional aggravating circumstances: (7) Murder committed while in
custody (effective Oct. 1, 1978); (8) Multiple homicides (effective Sept. 1, 1984); (9a) Murder of a victim under 15 years of age
(effective May 16, 1985); (10) Murder of a law enforcement officer (effective Sept. 30, 1988); and (9b) Murder of a victim 70
years of age or older (effective July 17, 1993).
Exhibit 9. Death Sentence Cases in Which Only a Single Aggravating Factor Was
Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges: Arizona, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 58)
I
Factor / statute 1 ~ound
Offense committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. 1 F6 39 1 (67.2%)
During commission of this offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave 1 F3 1 4
risk of death to another person. I 1 (6.9%)
Defendant previously convicted of a serious offense. 1 ~ 2 13
I 1 (5.2%)
I
Defendant committed the offense in expectation of anything of pecuniary 1 F5 11
The defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for
which, under Arizona law, a sentence of life imprisonment or death was
imposable.
value. I
Defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment.
(19.0%)
Defendant committed offense while in custody or on release.
Defendant has been convicted of other homicide(s), which were committed I F8
during the commission of the offense. 1
Defendant was an adult at the time the offense was committed, and the victim ' F9
was under 15 years of age or over 70 years of age.
Murdered person was an on-duty peace officer.
i
I F1o
Exhibit 10. Statutory Mitigating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 230)
%ese factors were found to exist by trid court judges, but none were ruled to outweigh aggravating factors.
b ~ eAep pendix A for further information.
~ound
25
(10.9%)
13
(5.7%)
3
(1.3%)
1
(0.4%)
1
(0.4%)
Statutory Mitigating Factora I statute
The defendant's age.
Defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness . . . was significantly
impaired . . . but not enough to constitute a defen~e.~
Defendant was under duress.
G5
G 1
G2
Defendant legally accountable for the conduct of another . . . but participation I was relatively minor. G3
Defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of
the commission of the offense . . . would cause, or would create a grave risk of
causing, death to another person.
G4
Exhibit 11. Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors Found to Exist by Trial Court Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 230)
Type of Mitigating Factora
Positive Character Traits I
50
Found to Exist
by Trial ~ u d ~ e ~
Negative Background Factors, Impact of Childhood and Family
Such as "childhood sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and deprived childhood,
alcoholic father, dysfunctional family, and parents died when defendant only 14, lack of
education, gang membership, and victim of sexual abuse."
Such as "military service, responsible member of community, prior good acts on part of (21.7%)
defendant."
67
(29.1 %)
Minimal Record CriminaWiolent
Such as "no prior record, no record of past violence, and lack of significant criminal history."
Positive Family Characteristics 34
Such as ''strong relationship with family, is a good father, and good family background.'' (14.8%)
I
Mental Health IssuesC 1 33
Such as "post traumatic stress syndrome, disassociative state, and near borderline of mental (14.3%)
retardation."
1
Negative Impact of Alcohol and Drugs
Such as "longstanding substance abuse problems, history of alcohol abuse, and intoxification."
Evidence of or Potential for Rehabilitation
Such as "potential for rehabilitation, newfound religious beliefs, and has changed life."
Felony Murder as Basis for Death Sentence 1 13
Such as "conviction based on felony murder, convicted of felony murder and not premeditated, I (5.7%)
and convicted of 4 counts of murder under felony muider instructions."
I
Codefendant Treatment I 7
Such as "codefendant sentenced to life imprisonment, codefendant received lesser sentence,
and codefendant not prosecuted."
(3.0%)
Leniency Recommended
Such as "members of the victim's family support the life sentence, leniency recommended by
police, and state recommends against death penalty."
5
(2.2%)
Criticisms of Criminal Justice System
Such as "state offered plea bargain to defendant and corrupt and coercive prison reality."
3
(1.2%)
' ~ u t no factors were ruled to outweigh aggravating factors. Percentages do not add to 100 because multiple factors may apply to
a single case
'percentages do not add to 100 because multiple factors may apply to a single case.
'see Appendix B for further information.
Exhibit 12. Remands, Reversals, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000,1974-1989, and 1990-July 1,2000
Conviction-related
Remands and Reversals
a ~Lnoc kett v. Ohio, 438 Y.S. 586 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
require that the sentencer not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or
record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Applying
Lockett, in State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441 (1978), the Arizona Supreme Court struck the portion of Arizona's death penalty
statute that limited consideration of mitigating circumstances, and remanded the case to allow the defendant to present any
mitigating circumstances tending to show why the death penalty should not be imposed.
Direct Appeal
Post-conviction
Relief
Habeas
Solely Watsona
Total
Sentence-related Remands
and Modifications Total
1974-
1989
23
4
1
1990-
2000
16
7
4
1974-
1989
1974-
2000
39
11
5
NIA 1 NIA
1974-
1989
56
15
2
16
89
NIA
1990-
2000
28 1 27 1 55
1974-
2000
1990-
2000
32
11
9
49 ' 15
6
16
86
1974-
2000
8 8
26
11
33 16
NIA / 16
11
52
4
141
1 5
16 / NIA
61 25
Exhibit 13. Explanatory Notes for Issue Categories in Remands, Reversals, and Modifications
Aggravating factors include findings that aggravating elements of other offenses, and
factors at sentencing were not supported by admissibility/consideration of evidence.
evidence or were inappropriately considered by the Jury selectionlvoir dire includes such issues as
trial court. improper dismissal of potential jurors and
Constitutional issues include 6th Amendment, right to inadequate voir dire.
speedy trial, double jeopardy, 5th Amendment Law enforcement error includes issues such as
(self-incrimination), 8th Amendment (death involuntary statement, illicit custodial
penalty cruel and unusual punishment), and interrogation, coerced confession, warrantless
challenges to specific aspects of the Arizona death search, lack of probable cause, invalid warrant,
penalty statutes. and Miranda violation (failure to provide
Enmunwison. In felony murder cases, under access to requested counsel).
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), and Mitigating factors includes findings that
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), the death mitigating factors at sentencing were not
penalty should not be imposed unless the defendant properly considered or weighed by the trial
killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill. If that court.
criterion has not been met, the defendant is not Other due process/procedural issues includes
death eligible unless he or she was a major issues such as inadequate record of sentencing
participant in the underlying felony and acted with hearing.
reckless disregard for human life. Prosecutorial error includes issues such as state
Expert testimony includes issues such as violation of exhibit not timely disclosed, arraignment delay,
patient confidentiality, and giving fraudulent failure to preserve material evidence,
testimony. unenforceable plea agreement, fabricated
Felony murder includes issues such as lack of proof evidence and failure to disclose plea agreement.
of predicate felony and insufficient evidence of Trial coxirt rulings (pretrial and during
direct participation. trialband aside from evidence and jury
Improperly excluded evidence includes issues such as instruction issues set out above-includes issues
disallowed co-defendant testimony, limitation of such as improper refusal to conduct
cross-examination of co-defendant, and newly competency hearing, failure to sever charges,
discovered exculpatory evidence and failure to sever co-defendant trials.
Inadmissable evidence includes issues such as hearsay Trial court rulings (sentencing-related) includes
testimony, inflammatory physical and/or pre-sentencing, sentencing, resentencing and
photographic evidence, use of videotaped evidentiary hearing issues.
confessions or testimony, and inaccurate evidence Watson Ruling refers to the 1978 State v. Watson
of defendant's criminal history and "bad acts." (Arizona). In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 Y.S. 586
Ineffective assistance of counsel includes prejudicial (1978), the United States Supreme Court held
conduct, failure to develop mitigating evidence, that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
and failure to challenge prosecution evidence at require that the sentencer not be precluded from
trial. considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of
Insufficient evidence includes issues such as verdicts a defendant's character or record and any of the
not supported by evidence and insufficient circumstances of the offense that the defendant
evidence to convict. proffers. Applying Lockett, in State v. Watson,
Judicial error includes issues such as coercion of juror 120 Ariz. 441 (1978), the Arizona Supreme
and ex parte communications. Court struck the portion of Arizona's death
Juror error includes issues such as consideration of penalty statute that limited consideration of
extrinsic evidence. mitigating circumstances, and remanded the
Jury instruction includes inadequate or improper jury case to allow the defendant to present any
instructions regarding second degree or lower mitigating circumstances tending to show why
homicide, elements of homicide offenses charged, the death penalty should not be imposed.
Exhibit 14. Issues Cited as Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
Direct Appeal
(147 Issues Cited in 90 Remands)
h sinc ludes 16 cases decided solely on Watson and 2 cases in which Watson is one issue in the decision.
(continued)
Issue Cited as Basis for
Reversal/Remand/Modification
Mitigating Factor
Aggravating Factor
Watson Rulinga
Inadmissable Evidence
Jury Instruction
Prosecutorial Error
Trial Court Rulings (sentencing-related)
Aggravatingmitigating Factors
Conviction-related
0
0
0
6
4
4
6 -
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
147
Sentence-related
28
22
18
I
TOTALS
28
22
18
5
0
Constitutional Issues
Improperly Excluded Evidence
16
14
3
5 -
5
15
1
4
1
Law Enforcement Error
Other Due Process1 Procedural Issues
Enmund!Tison Claims/Findings
14
4
1
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
94
Judicial Error
Juror Error
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Insufficient Evidence
Jury SelectiodVoir Dire
Trial Court Rulings (pretrial and trial)
Felony Murder
Totals
2
2
3
0
2
2
2
1
53
1
0 5
0 5
Exhibit 14 (continued)
Post-Conviction Relief
(32 Issues Cited in 26 Remands)
Habeas
(13 Issues Cited in 9 Remands)
Issue Cited as Basis for
ReversaURemand/Modification
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Improperly Excluded Evidence
Enmund6%on Claimst Findings
Prosecutorial Error
Judicial Error
Jury Instruction
Law Enforcement Error
Conviction-related
5
4
0
2
1
2
Issue Cited as Basis for
ReversaVRemandIModification
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Aggravating Factor
1
1
32
Sentence-related
7
2
4
1
1
0
TOTALS
12
6
4
3
2
2
1
1
17
Trial Court Rulings (sentencing-related)
Mitigating Factor
Totals
TOTALS
6
1
Conviction-related
1
0
1 1
0
0
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Sentence-related
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
8
Jury Instruction 1
Law Enforcement Error
Prosecutorial Error
1
1
Mitigating Factor 0
Other Due Process/Procedural Issues
Trial Court Rulings (pretrial and trial)
Totals
0
1
5
Exhibit 15. Issues Cited as Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1990-July 1,2000
Direct Appeal
(46 Issues Cited in 34 Remands)
Jury SelectionlVoir Dire I
Issue Cited as Basis for
ReversaVRemand/Modification
Mitigating Factor
Aggravating Factor
Inadmissable Evidence
Prosecutorial Error
AggravatingIMitigating Factors
Judicial Error
Enmuna77'ison Claims1 Findings
Jury Instruction I 6 I 0 I 6
Conviction-related
0
0
7
Trial Court Rulings (sentencing)
Insufficient Evidence
1
3
2
1
0
2
Sentence-related
11
8
0
0
3
0
0
TOTALS
11
8
7
Law Enforcement Error
(continued)
1
Trial Court Rulings (pretrial and trial)
Totals
1
1
1
21
0
Other Due Process1 Procedural Issues
1
0 1
0
25
1
1
46
Exhibit 15 (continued)
Post-Conviction Relief
(1 6 Issues Cited in 1 1 Remands)
Habeas
(9 Issues Cited in 7 Remands)
Issue Cited as Basis for
Reversal/Remand/Modification
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Improperly Excluded Evidence
Prosecutorial Error
Judicial Error
Law Enforcement Error
Trial Court Rulings (sentencing)
Totals
Conviction-related
5
2
2
1
1
0
11
rOTALS
5
Issue Cited as Basis for
Reversal/Remand/Modication
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Sentence-related
2
1
1
0
0
1
5
TOTALS
7
3
3
1
1
1
16
Aggravating Factor
Conviction-related
1
Sentence-related
4
0 1
Law Enforcement Error
1
1 0 1
1
1
1
1
Mitigating Factor
Other Due Process/Procedural Issues
Prosecutorial Error
Trial Court Rulings (pretrial and trial)
I
0
Totals
1
--
4 7 11
0 1
1
1
0
0
Exhibit 16. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and
Modifications: Arizona Death Penalty Cases, 1974-1989 and 1990-July 1,2000'
20 %
Jury Ineffective Mitigating Aggravating Inadmissable
Instruction Assistance Factor Factor Evidence
of Counsel
f \
1974-1989 1990- July 1,2000
\ /'
"Percentages indicate the proportion of issues cited. They do not equal 100 because only most
commonly cited reasons are shown.
Exhibit 17. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals,
Remands, and Modifications and Year of Death Sentence in
Cases Remanded 1974-1989 and 1990-July 1,2000
1974-1989
Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel
7 cases,
issue cited 7 times
Issue Cited as
Basis for Reversal/
RemandJModiication
1990-July 1,2000
Aggravating Factor
12 cases,
Year in Which
Remanded Case
Originally Sentenced to
Death
Issue Cited as
Basis for Reversal/
RemandAModification
1976, 1977, 1978 (2),
1982 (2), 1987
Mitigating Factor
14 cases,
issue cited 23 times
).
Year in Which Ii
Remanded Case I
Originally Sentenced to 1 I
Death i
issue cited 16 times 1989 (2), 1992,1993 I
1974 (2), 1976, 1978
(3), 1981, 1984, 1985,
1986 (2), 1987
Inadmissable Evidence
7 cases,
issue cited 9 times
Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel
12 cases
1974 (2), 1976 (2),
1977, 1978, 1981 (2),
1982, 1984 (2),
1986 (2), 1987
1 Jury Instruction
I 10 cases,
issues cited 11 times
1977,1979,1981, 1
1983, 1984, 1 !
1987 (3), 1988,1989, 1
1990,1993 1
Aggravating Factor
9 cases
1974,1975,1979,
1980, 1982, 1984, 1987
1974, 1986, 1987 (2), /
1988, I
Mitigating Factor
6 cases, issue cited 11
times
1974, 1976 (2),
1979 (2), 1982 (2),
1983,1984 (2)
i
I 1974,1987,1989, !
1990,1991,1994 j
i
Inadmissable Evidence
Cases' cited
times
i i
1986,1991(3),1992 1
1
Jury Instruction
5 cases, issues cited 6
times
1
1987,1991(3), 1994 j
i
Exhibit 18. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1, 2000a
w e 16 cases remanded for resentencing based solely on the Watson ruling are not included.
ISSUE
Most
frequently
cited
Second
most
frequently
cited
Third
most
frequently
cited
Fourth
most
frequently
cited
Fifth
most
frequently
cited
Direct Appeal
(Times cited in
90 decisions)
Mitigating
Factor (28)
Aggravating
Factor (22)
Inadrnissable
Evidence (1 6)
All Three Stages
(Times cited in
125 decisions)
Mitigating
Factor (30)
Aggravating
Factor (23)
Post-Conviction Relief
(Times cited in
26 decisions)
Jury
Instruction (14)
Constitutional
Issues (6) and
Other Due
Process Issues
(6)
Habeas Corpus
(Times cited in
9 decisions)
Prosecutorial 1 Factor,
Error (3) Mitigating / Instruction (17) Factor, I Other Due
Process Issue,
Judicial Error (2), Prosecutorial Inadmissable
Jury Instruction (2), and 1 Evidence (16)
Juror Error (2) 1
EnmundfTison Claims,
Findings (4)
Error,
preha1 & rial Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (1 9)
Aggravating
Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (12)
Improperly Excluded
Evidence (6)
Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (6)
All others
cited once:
Law
Enforcement
Exhibit 19. Most Frequently Cited Basis for Reversals, Remands, and Modifications:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1990-July 1,2000
ISSUE
Most
frequently
cited
Second
most
frequently
Direct Appeal
(Times cited in
34 remands)
Mitigating
Factor (1 1)
Aggravating
Factor (8)
Post-Conviction Relief
(Times cited in
11 remands)
Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (7)
Improperly
Excluded
Evidence (3)
cited
Third
most
frequently
cited
Fourth
most
frequently
cited
Fifth
most
frequently
cited
Inadmissable
Evidence (7)
Jury
Instruction (6)
Aggravating1
Mitigating
Factors (3)
Habeas Corpus
(Times cited in
7 remands)
Inadmissable
Enforcement
All Three Stages
(Ties cited in
52 remands)
Prosecutorial
Error,
PretriaYtrid
Error (3)
Judicial Error (I),
Law
Enforcement
Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (5)
All others
cited once:
Law
Ineffective
Assistance of
Counsel (12) and
Mitigating
Factor (12)
Aggravating
Factor (9)
Court Ruling,
Aggravating
Factor,
Mitigating
Factor,
Other Due
Evidence (7)
Jury
Instruction (6)
Prosecutorid
Error (5)
Error (I), and
Court Ruling on
Sentencing (1)
Process Issue,
Prosecutorial
Error
Exhibit 20. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and
Modifications by Individuals: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974July 1,2000
(N = 228 Individuals, 230 Cases)
Individuals/ Percent Current Physical
Most Recent Disposition of Total Status of Individuals
Sentenced to death, all 1 116 individuals / 50.9% 1 94 death row
conviction- and sentence- ( 117 cases 1 50.9% / 15 executed
related appeals denied to date I I 1 4 died on death row
Resentenced to life
Resentenced to death
57 individuals
57 cases
27 individuals
28 cases
Resentenced to a term
of years / 4 serving sentence
11.8%
12.2%
25.0%
24.8%
12 individuals
12 cases
3 under death sentences in
other states
16 death row
7 executed
4 died on death row
49 serving sentence
3 died in prison
3 released
2 paroled
8 in custody awaiting retrial
5.3%
5.2%
3.5%
3.5%
3.1%
3.0%
I Action pending on remand or 1 8 individuals
reversal 1 8 cases
Deceased during retrial / 1 individual
process , 1 case
or resentencing
7 released
1 paroled
Not guilty on retrial or
0.4%
0.4%
5 released at time of
not guilty finding
1 released 11 years
later after serving sentence
for other offense
1 serving sentence
for other offense
7 individuals
1 died on death row
acquitted 1 7 cases
11 3 death row
54 serving prison sentences
22 executed
12 died in prison
16 released
8 in custody awaiting retrial
or resentencing
3 paroled
Exhibit 21. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands,
and Modifications: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(1 4 1 Reversals/Remands/Modifications)
Not Guilty
on Retrial
or Acquitted D,eceased Before Result
Exhibit 22. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and
Modifications: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
- --
Outcomes of Conviction
Reversals and Remands
Not Guilty on Retrial
or Acquitted
7 decisions
Reconvicted,
Resentenced to Death
16 decisions
Not applicable
Reconvicted,
Resentenced to Life
10 decisions
Guilty Plea,
Sentenced to Life
4 decisions
Reconvicted,
Sentenced to Term of Years
3 decisions
Guilty Plea,
Sentenced to Term of Years
9 decisions
Pending
5 decisions
Deceased Before Result
1 decision
TOTALS
55 decisions
Outcomes of Sentence
Remands and Modifications I TOTALS
Not applicable i Not Guilty on Retrial
or Acquitted
1 7 decisions
Resentenced to Death I Death Sentence
36 decisions 52 decisions
Sentence Modified to I Life by AZ Supreme Court I
28 decisions I
Resentenced
to Life i
I Life Sentence
1
15 decisions 1 61 decisions
Guilty Plea, I
Sentenced to Life
4 decisions !
Not applicable Ii
I
L
I Term of Years
None I 12 decisions
1
1
I1
Pending
3 decisions
-
86 decisions
Pending
8 decisions
Deceased Before Result
1 decision
141 decisions
Exhibit 23. Outcomes of Conviction- and Sentence-related Reversals, Remands, and
Modifications: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1990-July 1,2000
Outcomes of Conviction Outcomes of Sentence I
Reversals and Remands Remands and Modifications 1 TOTALS
Reconvicted,
Resentenced to Death
5 decisions
Not Guilty on Retrial None
or Acquitted
Resentenced to Death
8 decisions
Not Guilty on Retrial
or Acquitted
I Death Sentence
1 13 decisions
4 decisions, 1 4 decisions
Not applicable Sentence Modified to
Life by AZ Supreme Court
9 decisions
Reconvicted,
Resentenced to Life
4 decisions
Resentenced
to Life / Life Sentence
I
2 decisions 1 19 decisions
Guilty Plea, Guilty Plea, i 1
Sentenced to Life Sentenced to Life
! 1 decisions 3 decisions I
Reconvicted, Not applicable j
Sentenced to Term of Years i
2 decisions 1 Term ofyears
Guilty Plea, None I1 7 decisions
Sentenced to Term of Years 1
5 decisions 1
Pending
5 decisions
I Pending 1 Pending
3 decisions I 8 decisions
Deceased Before Result
1 decision I Deceased Before Result
1 decision
TOTALS I
27 decisions 25 decisions 1 52 decisions
Exhibit 24. Type of Defense Attorney at Conviction, Direct Appeal, Post-Conviction Relief,
and Habeas: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1, 2000a
?he total of 723 recorded attorneys includes only lead counsel or designated second counsel involved in these four stages of
litigation in the 230 cases. The mean number of attorneys involved in a case was 3.1, although many more were involved in
various appeal briefs, especially in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
b ~ h"eco urt appointed" status includes attorneys compensated for contract work and those accepting appointment without
compensation.
Totals
204
209
210
100
723
Process Stage
Conviction
Direct Appeal
Post-Conviction Relief
Habeas
Totals
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
From 1974 to July 1,2000, nineteen defendants received remands/reversals or modifications based
on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Thirteen defendants were granted resenrencings due to ineffective
assistance of counsel. Of the thirteen cases, eight defense attorneys were court-appointed and three were
public defenders. No information is available on attorney status in the remaining two cases. Eight of the
thirteen cases were from Maricopa County, three were from Pima County, one was from Yavapai County,
and one was from Yuma County.
During the same period, six defendants were granted new trials due to ineffective assistance of
counsel. Of the six defense attorneys, two were court-appointed, one was a public defender, and one was
privately retained. No information was available on attorney status in the remaining two cases. Three of
the six cases were from Maricopa County, and one was from each of Pima, Pinal, and Yuma counties.
Public Defender Private
76 37.3%
60 28.7%
11
8
3
Court ~ppointed~
117 1 57.4%
24
5.4%
3.8%
1.4%
141
183
78
519
1 1.4%
67.5%
87.1%
78.0%
71.8%
!
21 / 21.0%
181 1 25.0%
1 / 1.0%
23 3.2%
Exhibit 25. Summary Table of Time Intervals for Arizona Death Sentence Cases,
1974-July 1,2000,1974-1989, and 1990-July 1,2000
Time Interval
Crime
to
Death Sentence
Notice of Appeal
to
Arizona Supreme
Court Decision
on Direct Appeal
Arizona Supreme
Court Decision
on Direct Appeal
to
Petition for Writ
of Certiorari
Petition for Writ
of Certiorari
to
Court Order
Denial of Cert
to
Petition for Post-
Conviction Relief
Petition for Post-
Conviction Relief
to
Trial Court
Ruling
Petition for Writ
of Habeas
Corpus
to
Federal District
Court Ruling
Petition for Writ
of Habeas
Corpus
to
U.S. Supreme
Court Ruling
1974-1989
Range=2.2mo.-7.8yr.
Median = 1 yr.
Range=11.7mo.-5.5yr.
Median = 1.99 yr.
Range = 1.1 mo.4.l yr.
Median = 5.3 mo.
1990-July 1,2000 194-July 1,2000
Range=7mo.-10.2yr. Range=2.2mo.-1O.lyr.
Median = 1.8 yr. Median = 1.4 yr.
Range=lSyr.-5.3yr. Range=11.7mo.-5.5yr.
Median = 2.7 yr. Median = 2.3 yr.
Range = 2.7 mo.-3.1 yr. Range = 34 days-4.1 yr.
Median = 5.6 mo. Median = 5.5 mo.
1
Range = 24 days-1.5 yr.
Median = 2.3 mo.
Range = 25 days4.6 yr.
Median = 5.6 mo.
Range = 1.1 mo.-8.4 mo. Range = 24 days-1.5 yr.
Median = 2.3 mo. Median = 2.3 mo.
Range = 3.4 mo.4.5 yr. Range = 25 days4.6 yr.
Median = 1.7 yr. Median = 1.2 yr.
I
Range = 3 days-3.7 yr.
Median = 5.6 mo.
Range = 3.5 mo.-11.9 yr.
Median = 5.5 yr.
Range = 2.8-17.1 yr.
Median = 8.4 yr.
Range = 23.0 days-2.1 yr. Range = 3 days-3.7 yr.
Median = 6.7 mo. Median = 5.9 mo.
1 case Range = 3.5 mo.-11.9 yr.
3.2 yr. Median = 5.7 yr.
Range = 2.8 yr.-17.1 yr.
No cases completed Median = 7.3 yr.
Exhibit 26. Arizona Death Sentence Cases: Part I
1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 230 cases)
Death Sentencing Process
Range = 2.2 mo.-10.1 yr.
Median = 1.4 yr.
N = 228 cases
Range = 0.0-7.5 yr. Range = 0.0-2.2 yr. Range = 1.4 mo.4.2 yr. Range = 0.0-7.1 mo. Range = 4 days-2.1 yr.
Median = 5.0 days Median = 9.0 days Median = 9.8 mo. Median = 14.0 days Median = 2.5 mo.
N = 223 cases N = 184 cases N = 98 cases N = 158 cases N = 228 cases
The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values.
The range indicates the lowest to the highest values. Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges.
Exhibit 27. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part I1
1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 230 cases)
Direct Appeal Process
Range = 11.7 mo.-5.5 yr.
Median = 2.3 yr.
Attorney Attorney Supreme
Range = 0 days-10.8 mo. Range = 16 days-3.2 yr. Range = 3 days-10.0 mo. Range = 6 days-1.3 yr. Range = 18 days-1.2 yr. Range = 1.5 mo.-2.3 yr.
Median = 41 days Median = 9.0 mo. Median = 1.9 mo. Median = 1.2 mo. Median = 4.5 mo. Median = 8.8 mo.
N = 171 cases N = 177 cases N = 204 cases N = 165 cases N = 139 cases N = 150 cases
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
Median = 2.3 mo.
Supreme Court Attorney Regarding
Decision on
\ Direct Appeal J of Certiorari for Writ of Certiorari
Range = 34 days-4.1 yr. Range = 3 days-7.1 mo. Range = 10 days-9.3 mo.
Median = 5.5 mo. Median = 30 days Median = 1.4 mo.
N = 90 cases N = 85 cases N = 82 cases
These time intervals reflect each case's initial appeal.
The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values.
The range indicates the lowest to the highest values. Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges.
Exhibit 28. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part I11
1974-July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 230 cases)
Post-Cvonv-ictio n Relief PReatni gtei o= n3 d#ay1s- 3(.7P Cyr. R#l) Median = 5.9 mo.
N = 123 cases
Defense Attorney Defense Attorney Reply nial
of Cert to State's Response Court
to Petition for PCR#l \ Decision /
Range = 25 days-4.6 yr. Range = 1 day-3.6 yr. Range = 7 days-10.0 mo. Range = 4 days-3.1 yr.
Median = 1.2 yr. Median = 1.4 mo. Median = 28 days Median = 2.6 mo.
N = 81 cases N = 112 cases N = 70 cases N = 64 cases
Habeas Corpus
Range = 2.8-17.1 yr.
Median = 8.4 yr.
N = 14 cases
Range = 6.5 mo.-1.3 yr.
Median = 2.8 yr. Median = 8.7 mo.
N = 42 cases N = 29 cases N = 14 cases
These time intervals reflect each case's initial appeal. The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values. The range indicates the lowest to the highest values.
Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges. The time intervals for habeas decisions are particularly difficult to calculate. Short intervals may indicate procedural
dismissals and extremely long intervals may result when a case is held in abeyance while action is taken at the state level. We anticipate further refinement of these data for the
final report.
Exhibit 29. Arizona Death Sentence Cases: Part I
1990-July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 96 cases)
Death Sentencing Process
Range = 7 mo.-10.2 yr.
Median = 1.8 yr.
N = 94 cases
Crime Indictment
Range = Odays-7.5 yr. Range = 0 day-2.2 yr. Range = 3.2 mo.-5.2 yr. Range = 0 days-2.8 mos. Range = 1.1 mo.-2.1 yr.
Median = 4.5 days Median = 10 days Median = 11.8 mo. Median = 15 days Median = 4.5 mo.
N = 90 cases N = 77 cases N = 44 cases N = 75 cases N = 94 cases
The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values.
The range indicates the lowest to the highest values. Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges.
Exhibit 30. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part I1
1990- July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 96 cases)
Direct Appeal Process
<--- Range = 1.5 yr.-5.3 yr.
Median = 2.7 yr.
N = 65 cases
Attorney Attorney Argument Supreme
Brief
Range = 1.0 mo.-1.6 yr. Range = 1.5 mo.-2.5 yr. Range =22.0days-8.2 mo. Range = 10.0 days-6.7 mo. Range = 23 days-1.6 yr. Range = 1.5 mo.-2.2 yr.
Median =4.9 mo. Median = 7.0 mo. Median = 2.5 mo. Median = 1.5 mo. Median = 6.7 mo. Median = 7.8 mo.
N = 82 cases N =9l cases N = 83 cases N = 68 cases N =61 cases N = 60 cases
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
Arizona Defense Court Order
Attorney Regarding
Decision on
of Certiorari for Writ of Certiorari
Range = 2.7 mo.-3.1 yr. Range = 19 days-2.3 mo. Range = 28.0 days-4.8 mo.
Median = 5.6 mo. Median = 1.1 mo. Median = 1.2 mo.
N = 44 cases N = 43 cases N = 40 cases
These time intervals reflect each case's initial appeal.
The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values.
The range indicates the lowest to the highest values. Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges.
Exhibit 31. Arizona Death Penalty Appeals Process: Part I11
1990-July 1,2000 Time Intervals (N = 96 cases)
Post-Conviction Relief Petition #I (PCR#l)
Range = 23.0 days-2.1 yr.
Median = 6.7 mo.
N = 34 cases
Defense Attorney
to State's Response
to Petition for PCR#1
Range = 3.4 mo.4.5 yr. Range = 1.1 mo.-10.4 mo. Range = 8.0 days4.5 mo. Range = 7.0 days-1.7 yr.
Median = 1.7 yr. Median = 2.5 mo. Median = 1.1 mo. Median = 2.1 mo.
N = 40 cases N = 31 cases N = 25 cases N= 18 cases
Habeas Corpus
A _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _
No caws completed
Petition for f 1
No cases completed No cases completed U.S. Supreme
Court Ruling
Habeas J
These time intervals reflect each case's initial appeal. The median is the middle value in the ranked distribution of values. The range indicates the lowest to the highest values.
Appendix C provides further detail on unusual ranges. The time intervals for habeas decisions are particularly difficult to calculate. Short intervals may indicate procedural
dismissals and extremely long intervals may result when a case is held in abeyance while action is taken at the state level. We anticipate further refinement of these data for the
final report.
Exhibit 32. Defendant-Victim Relationships:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 3 1 1 relationships)
Overall Relationships
rn h
Nonstranger Relationships
Note: 1.3% could not be categorized.
Illegal
Activities
14.2%
Exhibit 34. Defendant and Victim Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Age:
Arizona Death Sentences 1974-July 1,2000
American Indian1
Native American 1
Individuals Sentenced to Death Victims
(N =230) (N = 219)
RaceIEthnicity AsladAsian
Black, American
%racial American Indian1
2.2% Afkican 2.7% \ / Native American
~ m e r i c a n ~
3.2% A
Female
66 years or more 17 years or less
0.4OJ- J
Sex
Mexican
~mericad-
Hispanic
12.3%
Exhibit 36. Defendant Racemthnicity by Victim Racemthnicity:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N = 228 victims, 199 defendants)"
Ethnicities
(33)
White
(Anglo)
(149)
Victims of White Defendants
N = 182
r Other
L Ethnicities
Victims of Defendants of
Other RacesIEthnicities
N = 46
"Race/ethnicity is not known for all victims. The 228 victims for whom it is known are paired with
defendants. The pie sizes are relative to the number of victims, that is, the number of victims of white
defendants is approximately 4 times greater than the number of victims of otherdefendants.
Exhibit 33. Defendant-Victim Relationships:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N=3 1 1 relationship^)^
Strangers
57.9% 180
Type of Relationship
Percent
of Total Number
Stranger, police officer, debt collector, real estate agent, gas station
attendant, codefendant's sexual partner's stepmother, hitchhiker
Relationships in Category
Friends, neighbors,
acquaintances
Neighbor, acquaintance, family member of acquaintance, child of
sexual partner, family friend, friend, temporarily lived in house to
aid in moving, coprisoner , roommate, roommate's son,
cohabitating sexual partner's daughter, wife's farnily member's
housekeeper, classmate, girlfriend's daughter, stepmother of girl-friend,
cohabitant (not sexual partner), codefendant's son, tenet in
same building, sexual partner's father, codefendant's ex-sexual
partner
Family
6.1% 19
Illegd activities
5.8% 18
Spouse, biological mother, adoptive mother, biological father, bio-logical
daughter, stepdaughter , biological son, brother's step-daughter
("uncle"), sister-in-law
Drug dealer, coparticipant in drug deal, hired hit-man
Business I Business partner, employer, former employer, former coworkers,
Sexual partners I Sexual partner, cohabitant (sexual partner), former sexual partner
5.5% 17
client
b~ercentagems ay not add to 100% due to rounding.
Unable to categorize
1.3% 4
Friend of a friend, renter of defendant's friend, boyfriend of renter
of defendant's friend, former coprisoner's wife
? h e number of relationships (3 11) exceeds the number of death penalty cases (230) due to multiple victims and codefendants.
Exhibit 35. Victim and Defendant RacetEthnicity,
Sex, and Age: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
a~nformationis not available for all victims. To avoid double counting victims, this Exhibit includes the victim(s) of one
codefendant from each group of codefendants.
%e base the defendants' racdethnicity, sex, and age on the total 230 cases which include 2 individuals sentenced to death in 2
separate cases. Both are white males. One was 20 years old at the time of the first crime and 24 years old at the time of the
second; the second individual was 31 at the time of both crimes.
kcludes conviction- and sentence-related remands, reversals, and modifications
%wo of the biracial individuals were Mexican American and American Indian; 3 were Mexican American and White.
RaceIEthnicity
WhitelAnglo
Mexican AmericanIHispanic
BlackIAfrican American
AsianIAsian American
American IndiadNative American
~ i r a c i a l ~
Totals
Victimsa
N = 228 %
Sex
182
27
9
N = 262
79.8%
11.8%
3.9%
Defendants
Sentenced to ~ e a t h ~
N = 230 %
159
Defendants
Receiving RemandsC
N = 113 %
228
Male 1 133
Female 1 129
69.1%
36
26
7 1
8
100.0% 1 230 / 100.01 113
62.8%
3.5%
100.0%
50.8% / 228 / 99.1%
15.7% 18.6%
2
0
113
0
I
49.2% 1 2
Totals / 262 / 100.0% / 230
21
0
0.9%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
113
0.9%
100.0%
11.3%
0.0% 0
100.0%
, 16 / 14.2%
0.0%
Age
17 years or less
4
2
46
52
13
0
113
1.7% 1
N = 157 1
1.8%
40.7%
46.0%
11.5%
0.0%
100.0%
0.9%
3 8
18-25 years 1 32
5 2.2% 4
24.2%
3.5%
20.4% 35.2%
53.0%
9.6%
4
8 1
1.7%
122
22
26-40 years 28
66 years or more
17.8%
41-65 years
1
Totals
26 16.6% 0.4%
33 21.0%
157 100.0% 1 230 99.9%
Exhibit 37. Defendant Characteristics I: Arizona Death Penalty Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
(N=230)
Important Note: The data for this Exhibit are less robust and reliable than other parts of the data set. They
are intended only as preliminary indicators. More reliable data will be available in the forthcoming data set.
Characteristic
7th-9th Grade
Number
High School
Percent
Highest Education Level Completed
39
GED
3rd-6th Grade
17.0%
10th-1 lth Grade
29
AA degree
Some college/university
12.6%
53
Bachelor's degree
8
42
23.0%
Some community college
3
Unknown
3.5%
18.3%
1.3%
4
Full-time
Employed, specifics unknown
13
1.7%
Employment Status
24
Employed part-time
5.7%
15
10.4%
37
Unemployed, over 6 months
Unemployed, duration unknown
S tudentlretiredldisabled
Unknown
6.5%
16.0%
5
First Language
2.2%
Unemployed, 6 months or less
12
German
unknown
23
5.2%
91.3%
3.0%
English
10.0%
10
210
4
4.3%
124
1.7%
Citizenship
53.9%
Spanish 7
9
88.7%
1.7%
United States
Mexican
6
3.9%
204
4
2.6%
German
Honduran
Resident Alien
Illegal Alien
Unknown
13
4
1
1
1
15
5.7%
1.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
6.5%
Exhibit 38. Defendant Characteristics 11: Defendant Prior Criminal Justice History,
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
Individuals
Prior Adult Felony Convictions
Percent of
Total Cases
0
Cases Missing Data
Cases Missing Data 76 33.0
Percent of
Cases with Data
Total
I L
46
68 29.6
230
Total
20.0
100.0
Prior Adult Incarcerations
Cases Missing data
28.4
0
Prior Adult Parole Su~ervisions
230
Total
100.0
86
Cases Missing Data
66
37.4
230
Total
100.0
Prior Adult Probation Supervisions
77
28.7
0
33.5
230
42.9
100.0
60 26.1 39.2
Appendix A. G-1 Statutory Mitigation Ruled to Exist by Sentencing Judges:
Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974- July 1,2000
Hill
- ! Mental Health 1 DiagnosidOpinion from
Casea Professionals i Court Documents Duration of Condition
I I I intoxijication.
I Unclear. Psychological I Long history of alcoholism, but no I evaluation mentioned. I neurologic or emotional disorder
Over 10 years.
Note: "Time of crime1'
Rarnirez 1 Defense psychologist Intoxicated state at time of of-
I
I I fense, alcohol & cocaine abuse
Moorman I Unclear. Psychological
evaluation n~entioned-
! i / over Zmonth period prior to
I i offense
From probation oficer 's smmary:
Long history of mental illness,
possible mental retardation, appar-ent
pedophilia, no psychosis
apparent
Rogovich 1 Defense psychologist Acute psychosis and psychotic
Unspecified, but previ-ous
sex offender treat-ment
in prison noted.
i 1 episode
I 1 Defense psychologist 1 Paranoid schizophrenia
I I Prosecution psychologist Personality disorder
I i j Prosecution psychologist i No mental disorder
Unspecified.
Note: "Time of crime "
intoxification.
Unspecified, but appar-ent
long-term druglal-coho1
addiction.
Note: "Time of crime "
intoxification.
Jirnenez 1 Court-appointed
I psychologist
I
I I Two prosecution
1 Major depressive episode wl psy- I chotic features, borderline intelli-gence,
schizoid personality traits
/ Schizotypal personality disorder 1 evaluation.
Unspecified.
Note: Defendant was
juvenile at time of
I psychiatrists 1
i 1 Prosecution psychologist / Mental disease of schizophrenic I I
t I nature
I I I / Two defense [ Schizophrenia, paranoid type I
1 psychologists I
i
I I I episodes, schizophrenia
Mauro 1 Defense psychologist / Bipolar affective disorder
i
1 Prosecution psychologist Personality disorder
I
!
i ! I and psychosis.
Over 10 years. Notes on
nine instances of hospi-talization
for psychotic
(Appendix A, continued)
I 1 fense, bipolar I Note: "Time of crime "
Casea
Tankersley
/ Prosecution psychologist I Polysubstance abuse, antisocial I intoxification. 1 I personality disorder
i I I
Mental Health I Diagnosis/Opinion from
Professionals Court Documents Duration of Condition
Lengthy substance
abuse history.
Defense psychologist Extensive drug & alcohol history,
acute intoxification at time of of-
Brookover ' Court psychiatrist !
Hughes ) Defense psychologist I
Impaired capacity, impulsivity, 1 Unspecified, but history
Stevens / Defense psychiatrist / Depression, mental disorder
t
1
Prosecution psychologist • Passive/aggressive personality dis- 1
f order, alcohol & amphetamine de-
1 pendence, extreme intoxification
i 1 at time of offense
I
i 1 learning disability I of polysubstance abuse
Neurological lesion, minimal
brain damage syndrome
Unspecified, but previ-ous
antidepressant treat-ment
noted.
Note: ',Time of Crime..
intoxification.
and past diagnoses of
antisocial personality
Unspecified. Note:
"Time of crime"
intoxijication.
1 I I disorder noted.
I
i 0. Medina Defense psychologist ! Anti-social personality disorder, / persistent pattern of violence,
f i / egregious history
I Prosecution psychologist I Personality disorder w/ dependent
/ anti-social & compulsive traits
Unspecified, but "pat-tern"
& "history" notes
by psychologist.
Note: "Time of Crime"
inroxijiCation.
! Epperson i No diagnosis. Jail psy- ' Depression. "not a danger", / chiatrists asked to / rehabilitatable From opinions of
1 comment. / jail psychiatrists
I I disorder, alcohol dependence, I intoxification.
Unspecified history. no
psych. evaluation.
Lavers / Defense psychologist / Delusional paranoid disorder, ob-j
1 sessive-compulsive personality
Unspecified.
Note: "Time of crime "
] Prosecution psychiatrist / "Insufficient symptomology" to I
i
1
1
- ~ i support Tatro diagnosis I
(binge type), extreme
intoxification at time of crime.
?'he available data contain minimal systematic information regarding mental health considerations. At the time of sentencing,
approximately one-half of the defense attorneys alleged statutory mitigation factor G-1. In 13 cases the sentencing judge ruled
that the factor existed.
Appendix B. Nonstatutory Mental Health-related Mitigation Ruled to Exist by
Sentencing Judge: Arizona Death Sentence Cases, 1974-July 1,2000
Case
Blakely
Canez
i
Duration of Condition iI
1
History of substance j
abuse and
abandonment.
Unspecified.
I
i
Note: intoxicated on 1
night of crime. !1
I i
Carlson, I 1 Diminished mental capacity I I I Doris i I (incomplete !:
/ file) I
i1 Cook iI Psychological evalua- I Mental health issues
1 tion not ordered. j
I i !
! Gulbrandson / 1 Defense psychologist Unusual stress
i i
I
Mental Health
Professionals
i .!
I
s
i
i
Significant history of j
mental health issues.
! Significant history of ;
mental health issues. i
Diagnosis/Opinion from
Court Documents
Unclear. 1 * Cognitive impairment
i 1
Defense and 1 Borderline mental retardation
prosecution I Personality disorder
psychiatrists !
: Hoskins / Unclear. Psychological 1 Antisocial personality
Ii ! 1 evaluation mentioned. i
I I i I i
j iI I
j
i 1 Hurles 1 Prosecution / Failure to receive previous psy-
I
i , psychiatrist j chological care and treatment.
I i i
i I I ! I i
!
i i 1 / H~de I Defense and Prosecu- i Grief
1 / tion psychiatrist
I
!
/ Jones, D. i! Unclear. Psychological /I MentaUbehavior/psychological
I I I evaluation mentioned I disorders from prior head injury.
I I i
,
I
j I 8
i
i I King i I Defense psychologist \ Anti-social personality I 1 May suffer from PTSD
I i 1 j[
Unspecified but history 1
of dysfunctional family, I
physicaVsexual abuse 1
and long term alcohol
and drug abuse. \
Long-standing signifi- I
cant history of mental 1
health issues. I
Note: used LSD on II
night of offense. 1
Unspecified. 1
1
Unspecified, but abu- 1 I
sive childhood and long I
term alcohol and drug I
abuse. I
Unspecified but trau-matic
childhood and
long term alcohol and
drug use. I I
/ Case
rRo-ssi I No psychological eval- I Non GI mental health issues / Unspecified. 1i
Mentai Health DiagnosislOpinion from
Professionals Court Documents Duration of Condition
/ Unclear. / Personality disorder
1 Unspecified. Disorder i1
I uation ordered ii 1
Impaired mental capacity
1
I
Unspecified but long 1
term drug abuse.
Note: ingested crack
has underlying feelings 1
of inadequacy and 1
cocaine prior to
offense.
inferiority. 1
I
Unclear. Psychological Non-GI mental health issues
evaluation conducted. 1 Unspecified.
Scott Unclear. Psychological
evaluation conducted.
Non-GI mental health issues
(mixed personality disorder with
passivelaggressive, avoidant and
anti-social features coupled with
opiate and alcohol dependency
and mixed substance abuse.)
Unspecified but long
standing history of alco-hol
and drug abuse.
Shackart Defense psychologist / Impaired judgement (not suffi- 1 1 cient to constitute GI)
Non-GI mental health issues (be-havioral
and personality disorder
and long-term effects of head
injury).
Unspecified.
Smith, T. 1 Unclear but psycho- 1 logical evaluation
Spoon Schizophrenia; paranoid type
Long-term addiction to
drugs and alcohol.
conducted
Defense psychiatrist Unspecified but
long-term.
Thornton I Defense and
1 prosecution
Anti-social personality Unspecified but
long-term.
i 1 psychiatrists I
i I
I I I
--
Webster
Williams, / No psychological eval- / Personality disorder
R.T. t uation ordered. i
-
Unclear but psycho-logical
evaluation
conducted
Unspecified.
Documented learning disorder
Impulsivity
Emotional and mental immaturity
Unspecified but
long-term.
i I i i 1 Borderline intellectual functioning / 1
Appendix C. Explanatory Notes for Time Intervals, Exhibits 25-31
The time interval data are complex and difficult to portray in a meaningful way. Frequently,
intervals that appear "extreme" are accurate, but they may follow an unconventional path in the
appeal process or intervening factors may have influenced the long time interval. The following
are examples:
Time Interval and Explanation
Crime to Arrest
2,722 days Defendant was not apprehended until featured on a televisibn crime show.
1,573 days Defendant was apprehended five years later.
2,573 days Defendant was apprehended while in prison for a separate crime.
1,706 days Defendant was apprehended after an anonymous tip on the 88-CRIME phone line.
1,835 days Defendant was extradited to Arizona from the Utah prison system.
Indictment to Trial
1,894 days Continuances of trial for DNA testing as well as new counsel appointed over a
five-year period.
Notice of Appeal to Record Complete
601 days A court reporter moved to another state without transcribing several days of an
evidence suppression hearing. There was difficulty in locating her and she was
initially somewhat uncooperative in preparing the transcripts. In addition, the court
reporter eventually admitted that she could not prepare one of the transcripts because
she lost the notes. The case had to be remanded to the superior court for
reconstruction of the record for that day of the hearing.
Record Complete to Opening Brief
908 days After the original notice of completion of record, the record on appeal was expanded
to add a large number of additional transcripts that had to be prepared. Those
included proceedings in the defendant's case, his co-defendant's case, and grand jury
proceedings. There was also difficulty ascertaining the exact dates of the numerous
grand jury proceedings and obtaining transcripts of same.
Opening Brief Order to Opening Brief
469 days Three requests for extension of time to file.
Opening Brief to Answering Brief
301 days Motion to stnke revised opening brief; motion for extended time to file answering
brief; motion for extended time for clerk to file; motion to impose sanctions.
(Appendix C, continued)
Response to PCR to Reply to Response
8 12 days Motion to extend time to file; petition dismissed; telephonic status conference;
motion to continue; extension to file.
PCR Petition to Response to PCR
1,321 Request for investigator; reprieve hearing scheduled, commutation hearing, request new
trial.
PCR to Order PCR
1,525 days Motion to extend time to file response and reply; assignment of judge.
1,062 days Motion to extend time to file amended PCR; request funds for investigator; motion
for discovery; plea agreement.
PWCert to Opposition Brief
3 days Docket dates show date received petition not date filed
Habeas Intervals
Seemingly extreme intervals at the federal level may be due to a case being held in abeyance
while action is taken at the state appellate level.