Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Court Decision Impacting Death Row Sentences in Three States

Aired September 03, 2003 - 09:08   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.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Other stories we're following this morning, a single decision from a federal appeals court may have changed the lives of more than 100 Death Row inmates.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that only a jury can sentence someone to death, not just a judge. Well, the Ninth Circuit Court yesterday used that ruling to change sentences that already had been handed in Arizona, in Idaho, in Montana, from death to life in prison.

Earlier on AMERICAN MORNING, we spoke with Ken Murray. He's the lead defense attorney in the Ninth Circuit case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN MURRAY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The United States Supreme Court will be asked to give the ultimate answer, and that's, you know, their right to take it up there.

To us, it is a bedrock principle. It's at the very core of the criminal justice system, that you have a right to a jury trial. Everyone else in cases that aren't capital has that right, and they were denying the individuals who would be in -- exposed to death penalty in Arizona with that same fundamental basic right of our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Ken Cattani is the chief counsel for the Arizona attorney general's office. He joins us from Phoenix this morning.

Good morning to you, Mr. Cattani. Thanks for joining us.

KEN CATTANI, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: How many inmates in your state does this affect?

CATTANI: This affects 89 inmates who have moved past the direct appeal stage of their -- of the appeals process.

O'BRIEN: So you have just heard from Ken Murray, who brought the case, as we mentioned. He said having a jury sentence you is a basic right. You disagree with that?

CATTANI: Well, I would disagree that it's a fundamental principle that goes to the -- the fundamental fairness of the process.

All of these defendants were convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The question becomes whether it was fundamentally unfair to be sentenced by a fair and impartial judge, as opposed to a fair and impartial jury.

And the decision that came down from the United States Supreme Court last year, the Ring decision, didn't necessarily hold that a jury must make the ultimate sentencing decision. That decision just held that the jury must determine aggravating circumstances that make a convicted murderer death eligible.

O'BRIEN: I know this is a complicated case, and forgive me for jumping in here, but at the end of the day, doesn't it come down to someone saying 12 people can make a better decision about somebody's fate at the sentencing phase than one judge, who may be elected, who may have political pressure, who may, really, just has a voice that may not accurately reflect the moral sense of the community? The 12 is just better than one?

CATTANI: Well, certainly there is the idea of the moral sense -- the sense of the community that's present with the jury, but there are also advantages in having a judge make these determinations.

And the determinations that we're talking about are simply the presence of aggravating circumstances. And for example, one of the aggravating circumstances in Arizona is that the victim was under age 15 when the crime -- when the victim was murdered.

Under our old system, the judge made that determination, presumably by looking at certificates or getting other evidence. The Ring decision just would require in the future that the determination that the victim was under age 15 would be made by the jury. But I don't think there's anything fundamentally unfair about having had a fair and impartial judge look at a birth certificate and decide that a victim, for example, was 2 years old. We're not really looking...

O'BRIEN: Well, some could argue, OK, in that specific case, certainly a jury could look at a birth certificate and say, "OK, in this particular case, she's 15 years old. Done deal. This means special circumstances."

What happens now in these cases? Do you then take these people who have been on Death Row and bring their sentencing to a jury, who will then make the decision again? And how long, potentially, could it take before somebody who's on Death Row now goes through a new jury hearing, sentencing hearing, is back, potentially, on Death Row?

CATTANI: It's important to keep in mind that this was -- this recent decision was not a decision from the United States Supreme Court. It was a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ruling won't be final, obviously, until the United States Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review it. And the state intends to appeal the decision.

If -- if the United States Supreme Court declines to review the opinion, then some of these defendants may be entitled to a resentencing proceeding which would be carried out in front of a jury. O'BRIEN: How many years, potentially, could that take before those who are once again sentenced to death by a jury this time around would be back on Death Row, do you think? Years? Are we talking two years? Five years?

CATTANI: It's difficult to say. It could be a couple of years. Yes.

O'BRIEN: Ken Cattani, thanks for joining us this morning. Appreciate that.

CATTANI: Thank you.

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





States>


Aired September 3, 2003 - 09:08   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Other stories we're following this morning, a single decision from a federal appeals court may have changed the lives of more than 100 Death Row inmates.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that only a jury can sentence someone to death, not just a judge. Well, the Ninth Circuit Court yesterday used that ruling to change sentences that already had been handed in Arizona, in Idaho, in Montana, from death to life in prison.

Earlier on AMERICAN MORNING, we spoke with Ken Murray. He's the lead defense attorney in the Ninth Circuit case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN MURRAY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The United States Supreme Court will be asked to give the ultimate answer, and that's, you know, their right to take it up there.

To us, it is a bedrock principle. It's at the very core of the criminal justice system, that you have a right to a jury trial. Everyone else in cases that aren't capital has that right, and they were denying the individuals who would be in -- exposed to death penalty in Arizona with that same fundamental basic right of our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Ken Cattani is the chief counsel for the Arizona attorney general's office. He joins us from Phoenix this morning.

Good morning to you, Mr. Cattani. Thanks for joining us.

KEN CATTANI, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: How many inmates in your state does this affect?

CATTANI: This affects 89 inmates who have moved past the direct appeal stage of their -- of the appeals process.

O'BRIEN: So you have just heard from Ken Murray, who brought the case, as we mentioned. He said having a jury sentence you is a basic right. You disagree with that?

CATTANI: Well, I would disagree that it's a fundamental principle that goes to the -- the fundamental fairness of the process.

All of these defendants were convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The question becomes whether it was fundamentally unfair to be sentenced by a fair and impartial judge, as opposed to a fair and impartial jury.

And the decision that came down from the United States Supreme Court last year, the Ring decision, didn't necessarily hold that a jury must make the ultimate sentencing decision. That decision just held that the jury must determine aggravating circumstances that make a convicted murderer death eligible.

O'BRIEN: I know this is a complicated case, and forgive me for jumping in here, but at the end of the day, doesn't it come down to someone saying 12 people can make a better decision about somebody's fate at the sentencing phase than one judge, who may be elected, who may have political pressure, who may, really, just has a voice that may not accurately reflect the moral sense of the community? The 12 is just better than one?

CATTANI: Well, certainly there is the idea of the moral sense -- the sense of the community that's present with the jury, but there are also advantages in having a judge make these determinations.

And the determinations that we're talking about are simply the presence of aggravating circumstances. And for example, one of the aggravating circumstances in Arizona is that the victim was under age 15 when the crime -- when the victim was murdered.

Under our old system, the judge made that determination, presumably by looking at certificates or getting other evidence. The Ring decision just would require in the future that the determination that the victim was under age 15 would be made by the jury. But I don't think there's anything fundamentally unfair about having had a fair and impartial judge look at a birth certificate and decide that a victim, for example, was 2 years old. We're not really looking...

O'BRIEN: Well, some could argue, OK, in that specific case, certainly a jury could look at a birth certificate and say, "OK, in this particular case, she's 15 years old. Done deal. This means special circumstances."

What happens now in these cases? Do you then take these people who have been on Death Row and bring their sentencing to a jury, who will then make the decision again? And how long, potentially, could it take before somebody who's on Death Row now goes through a new jury hearing, sentencing hearing, is back, potentially, on Death Row?

CATTANI: It's important to keep in mind that this was -- this recent decision was not a decision from the United States Supreme Court. It was a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ruling won't be final, obviously, until the United States Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review it. And the state intends to appeal the decision.

If -- if the United States Supreme Court declines to review the opinion, then some of these defendants may be entitled to a resentencing proceeding which would be carried out in front of a jury. O'BRIEN: How many years, potentially, could that take before those who are once again sentenced to death by a jury this time around would be back on Death Row, do you think? Years? Are we talking two years? Five years?

CATTANI: It's difficult to say. It could be a couple of years. Yes.

O'BRIEN: Ken Cattani, thanks for joining us this morning. Appreciate that.

CATTANI: Thank you.

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





States>