Publications & Resources
Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.
Search Results
Recommending a series of reforms to address errors and injustices in state and federal application of the death penalty that undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Arguing that there is some age below which a juvenile's crimes can never be constitutionally punished by death, that contemporary standards of decency decry the execution of a person who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime, and that bedrock principles of capital jurisprudence also require a categorical exemption for juveniles under 18.
Arguing that there is some age below which a juvenile's crimes can never be constitutionally punished by death, that contemporary standards of decency decry the execution of a person who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime, and that bedrock principles of capital jurisprudence also require a categorical exemption for juveniles under 18.
Federal and State Government Officials arguing that the petitioner's death sentence be set aside because the prosecution’s use of perjured testimony in this case was prejudicial and thus denied petitioner due process and defense counsel’s ineffective performance during the penalty phase also was prejudicial, thereby depriving petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance.
Federal and State Government Officials arguing that the petitioner's death sentence be set aside because the prosecution’s use of perjured testimony in this case was prejudicial and thus denied petitioner due process and defense counsel’s ineffective performance during the penalty phase also was prejudicial, thereby depriving petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance.
Arguing that the Court of Appeals of Maryland unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent from Strickland v. Washington to the facts in this case, counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland by failing to conduct a sufficient investigation into potential mitigating evidence, and Wiggins case was prejudiced by the failure to investigate and introduce the mitigating evidence.
Arguing that the Court of Appeals of Maryland unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent from Strickland v. Washington to the facts in this case, counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland by failing to conduct a sufficient investigation into potential mitigating evidence, and Wiggins case was prejudiced by the failure to investigate and introduce the mitigating evidence.
Former Judges, Prosecutors, and other Public Officials arguing that unfairness in capital prosecutions undermines public confidence in the capital punishment system, discloure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence is essential to ensure fundamental fairness in capital cases, and the integrity of the capital sentencing process depends on adequate representation at each stage of the proceedings.
Former Judges, Prosecutors, and other Public Officials arguing that unfairness in capital prosecutions undermines public confidence in the capital punishment system, discloure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence is essential to ensure fundamental fairness in capital cases, and the integrity of the capital sentencing process depends on adequate representation at each stage of the proceedings.
Recommending the creation of safeguards to ensure effective counsel, prohibit execution in cases involving questionable categries of defendants and homicides, expand and explain life without parole, safeguard racial fairness, review proportionally, provide protection against wrongful sentencing and conviction, and interpret role of judges, juries, and prosecutors.
