Breaking: Delaware AG Matt Denn Will Not Appeal Death Penalty Ruling
Just got this press release from the AG’s office:
Attorney General Will Not Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court On Death PenaltyDelaware DOJ Will Argue State Court Decision Is Not Retroactive
After carefully reviewing the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the constitutionality of Delaware’s current death penalty statute, the Attorney General has decided not to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court. He has concluded that even if the United States Supreme Court reversed the opinion on Federal Constitutional grounds, that the Delaware Supreme Court would ultimately invalidate Delaware’s current death penalty statute based on the Constitution of the State of Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Delaware Constitution provides rights to a jury trial that are independent of and in some instances more expansive than those provided by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Litigating and appealing these issues – a process that would likely take years before issues of both federal and state constitutional law were resolved — would likely not only bring about the same result, but would also deny the families of victims sentencing finality.
While the application of the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion to sentences already imposed will undoubtedly be litigated in Delaware courts, the Delaware Department of Justice does not believe that the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion applies retroactively.
The Attorney General has stated repeatedly over the past two years that he would support an amendment – which would require passage by the General Assembly and approval of the Governor – to Delaware’s death penalty statute that would require a unanimous jury verdict in order to impose a death sentence, and he stands by that position.
Gotta admit that the last sentence is disappointing. But at least there will be no official state challenge to the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling.
I hope the progressives on this blog who routinely praise Matt Denn are outraged at his duplicity on this issue. It is literally a life and death issue and he is trying to play politics and have it both ways. If Delaware’s death penalty law is unconstitutional, which it is, then those sentenced to die under said law were sentenced to die unconstitutionally. And that is very disturbing.
EVERYTHING is a calculated political decision with Denn. I know that’s most politicians, but time to quit shining Doogie’s halo.
The sentence basically says it is Leg Hall’s job to bring it back if they want it.
Denn has reverted to being a typical politician. SAD!! and Disappointing!!
Carney jumped on the right side of this one and Denn didn’t….
Interesting how important it is to kill people for a party that calls itself “pro life”
I agree with Jason and it is also worth pointing out that Denn heads the DE Dept. of Justice. He is, essentially, the chief law enforcement official in the state. He has to tread carefully with how he positions himself on this for the law enforcement community, as their leader. Of course I wish he would’ve come out and been more forceful and progressive, but that is not smart on his part, in his position. It is the message as a whole that is the most impactful, not the pieces, and that is what DD said. There will be no state challenge to the ruling.
As for his progressive card status, those “that routinely praise Matt Denn” can still do so (see last sentence in previous paragraph). That is the final nail in the death penalty coffin, barring a republican take over of the general assembly. It clearly shows his values are on the progressive side of this issue.
Mouse, apparently to the GOP, life begins at conception, but ends with conviction.
A wise man once told me that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.
In applying that maxim, History does not support this endeavor (to “reinstate” the Death Penalty even with a unanimous jury verdict as Denn calls for).
I respect Matt tremendously, and remember as a young lawyer pulling case law with his name on it when he was acting in a pro bono capacity in our Courts. I believe him to be a fine man, and a good lawyer.
On this issue, however, his analysis is incorrect.
Let this fact sink in: AS OF TODAY, IN OUR LIFETIME THIS STATE HAS NEVER EXECUTED SOMEONE UNDER A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID DEATH PENALTY STATUTE. Never. Not one time. We can’t go back and “re-do” those trials. The people are dead.
Here’s the supporting data:
In 1972 the United States Supreme Court decided Furman v Georgia which invalidated Delaware’s death penalty. The Delaware Supreme Court held that in 1973 in State v Dickerson.
In 1974, the General Assembly, no doubt motivated by passions like yours, enacted a new death penalty statute.
In 1976 the US Supreme Court decided Woodson v North Carolina and Roberts v Louisiana. Again, the DE Supreme Court, in reliance upon the US Supreme Court decisions, invalidated the Delaware Death Penalty in 1976 in State v Spence.
In 1977, the General Assembly again instituted a new death penalty statute modeled after Georgia.
In 1991, seeing the writing on the proverbial wall as it relates to Court rulings on the constitutionality of the death penalty, changed the statute again.
However, in 2002, the US Supreme Court issued their decision in Ring v Arizona – again invalidating Delaware’s death penalty.
And, again, the Delaware death penalty was re-drafted, this time based on a Florida statute.
In 2016, the US Supreme Court invalidated that Florida statute and the Delaware Supreme Court followed suit last week invalidating our statute in Rauf v State.
History has taught us several lessons here – principal among them is that the Courts keep telling us there is no way to constitutionally execute our citizens. It cannot be done, and, historically, has not been done.
Let’s end the madness. And I use that term purposefully, as Einstein tells us the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Respectfully,
Sean
Mr. Lynn: With all due respect, that’s one way to interpret the data. Another would be that, with the status of capital punishment continually evolving, the state has tried to evolve with it. Whether it should do so is a different argument.
In short, whether a law is constitutional or not is not immutable, as the constitutionality is decided by vote among nine people. The fugitive slave law was constitutional throughout its existence thanks to the Dred Scott decision. We can say that decision was wrong, just as we can now claim Citizens United is wrong, but it’s currently constitutional.
In short, banning the death penalty based on its constitutionality is to rest the foundation of your argument on shaky ground, because if a future SCOTUS makes it constitutional again, that argument falls apart.