Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

Coffey Talk: Off Death Row

Aired September 03, 2003 - 06:08   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: More than 100 death row inmates in three states had their death sentences overturned, but the move by a federal appeals court is sure to face a fight, which may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
CNN's Frank Buckley looks at the decision.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The ruling means that prisoners on death row in Arizona, Idaho and Montana remain convicted of their crimes, but their sentences for those crimes have been overturned.

The ruling affects more than 100 death row inmates. It followed a decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that said juries, not judges, should sentence people to death.

A question that remained open was whether the new rules could apply retroactively to inmates who were awaiting their executions. The 8-3 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said they did, and that the death sentences should be commuted to sentences of life in prison.

The other option for prosecutors in the individual jurisdictions that convicted those inmates is to instead retry the penalty phases of each death row inmate.

Before any of that happens, though, it's expected that the Supreme Court will take up the case. Already, Arizona's attorney general says he plans to appeal.

Frank Buckley, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, time for some "Coffey Talk" on the death row decision. Legal analyst Kendall Coffey is with us now on the telephone from Miami.

And, Kendall, this case could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. If it's upheld by the court, do you see this really opening up the floodgates?

KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's not going to open up the floodgates, but what it's going to do is address the issue of retroactivity. The Supreme Court itself in 2002 already decided that juries, not judges, have to decide the death penalty.

But retroactivity is a huge issue, literally life and death for perhaps hundreds of people whose basic state court proceedings were completed before the Supreme Court decision in 2002.

So, the question is: Do we go back and apply the Supreme Court decision to those hundreds of death row inmates? Or are they, in effect, too late and will have to face execution under sentencing systems that the Supreme Court itself has found unconstitutional?

WHITFIELD: Well, you know, the California court ruled this way. It said -- quote: "The Supreme Court altered the fundamental bedrock principles applicable to capital murder trials."

If this is so fundamental, how did it get this far?

COFFEY: Well -- and, of course, that's the point in controversy, Fredricka, because another court, the federal appeals court out of Atlanta, has said no. What the Supreme Court did was really just change the rules. Having juries rather than judges doesn't change, in effect, the measure of proof or the fundamental issues of whether somebody should die. It just affects the procedure.

So, that all sounds very technical, but it couldn't be more dramatic (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to hundreds. So, this could be something that the Supreme Court has to clarify.

WHITFIELD: Did you and your colleagues kind of see something like this coming, especially after Illinois -- or then Illinois Governor Ryan commuting those more than 100 -- in fact, more than 150 death penalty cases?

COFFEY: I think Governor Ryan's decision, as well as two Supreme Court decisions last year -- there was another one that held unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded -- really signaled that there would be a major judicial phase of sorting out and re-examining certain aspects of the death penalty, not to eliminate it, but to perhaps look at some of the features that are more troubling and, in fact, create some judicial revision of the death penalty system in this country.

WHITFIELD: All right, Kendall Coffey, thanks very much. Have a good morning.

COFFEY: OK, thank you, Fredricka.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.






Aired September 3, 2003 - 06:08   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: More than 100 death row inmates in three states had their death sentences overturned, but the move by a federal appeals court is sure to face a fight, which may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
CNN's Frank Buckley looks at the decision.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The ruling means that prisoners on death row in Arizona, Idaho and Montana remain convicted of their crimes, but their sentences for those crimes have been overturned.

The ruling affects more than 100 death row inmates. It followed a decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that said juries, not judges, should sentence people to death.

A question that remained open was whether the new rules could apply retroactively to inmates who were awaiting their executions. The 8-3 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said they did, and that the death sentences should be commuted to sentences of life in prison.

The other option for prosecutors in the individual jurisdictions that convicted those inmates is to instead retry the penalty phases of each death row inmate.

Before any of that happens, though, it's expected that the Supreme Court will take up the case. Already, Arizona's attorney general says he plans to appeal.

Frank Buckley, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, time for some "Coffey Talk" on the death row decision. Legal analyst Kendall Coffey is with us now on the telephone from Miami.

And, Kendall, this case could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. If it's upheld by the court, do you see this really opening up the floodgates?

KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's not going to open up the floodgates, but what it's going to do is address the issue of retroactivity. The Supreme Court itself in 2002 already decided that juries, not judges, have to decide the death penalty.

But retroactivity is a huge issue, literally life and death for perhaps hundreds of people whose basic state court proceedings were completed before the Supreme Court decision in 2002.

So, the question is: Do we go back and apply the Supreme Court decision to those hundreds of death row inmates? Or are they, in effect, too late and will have to face execution under sentencing systems that the Supreme Court itself has found unconstitutional?

WHITFIELD: Well, you know, the California court ruled this way. It said -- quote: "The Supreme Court altered the fundamental bedrock principles applicable to capital murder trials."

If this is so fundamental, how did it get this far?

COFFEY: Well -- and, of course, that's the point in controversy, Fredricka, because another court, the federal appeals court out of Atlanta, has said no. What the Supreme Court did was really just change the rules. Having juries rather than judges doesn't change, in effect, the measure of proof or the fundamental issues of whether somebody should die. It just affects the procedure.

So, that all sounds very technical, but it couldn't be more dramatic (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to hundreds. So, this could be something that the Supreme Court has to clarify.

WHITFIELD: Did you and your colleagues kind of see something like this coming, especially after Illinois -- or then Illinois Governor Ryan commuting those more than 100 -- in fact, more than 150 death penalty cases?

COFFEY: I think Governor Ryan's decision, as well as two Supreme Court decisions last year -- there was another one that held unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded -- really signaled that there would be a major judicial phase of sorting out and re-examining certain aspects of the death penalty, not to eliminate it, but to perhaps look at some of the features that are more troubling and, in fact, create some judicial revision of the death penalty system in this country.

WHITFIELD: All right, Kendall Coffey, thanks very much. Have a good morning.

COFFEY: OK, thank you, Fredricka.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.