Eric's Law and the Penalty Phase of a Trial

[Tennesseer]

Should prosecutors get a second bite at the apple if during the penalty phase of a trial the jury is deadlocked on whether or not to impose the death penalty. Prosecutors want to dismiss a deadlocked jury and impanel a new jury only to determine punishment.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Tom Marino (PA-10) and Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) introduced H.R. 4493, Eric’s Law, named in honor of fallen Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officer Eric Williams.

On February 25, 2013, Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officer Eric Williams was viciously murdered by an inmate at United States Penitentiary Canaan in Wayne County, PA. The inmate was jailed at USP Canaan serving an 11-year sentence for his role in gang-related drug trafficking in Arizona. The inmate had also been convicted in Arizona for the murder of a rival gang member and was scheduled to serve a life sentence following his incarceration at Canaan.

In the trial for Eric’s killer, there was no dispute of guilt with the defense stating that he was guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt.” The jury deliberated for 5 hours and returned a split decision, with 11 jurors in favor of the death penalty and 1 juror voting for life in prison. One juror flatly stated during deliberations that they would not vote for the death penalty, stating that she had a son in prison and that she felt bad for the defendant’s mother. This resulted in an automatic sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole. Since the defendant was already scheduled to serve life in prison, there essentially was no consequence for the brutal murder of Eric.

Eric’s Law provides a fix for this miscarriage of justice by allowing an attorney for the government to motion the court to impanel a new jury for the penalty phase only. Allowing a second jury to have another look during the penalty phase will provide the prosecutor an additional tool if the facts show that the jury system did not work as intended. If the facts of the case truly do show that life in prison is the appropriate sentence, then the second jury is able to impose that sentence. This approach is modeled after several states that already use such a procedure in death penalty cases, such as California, Arizona and Kentucky.

Reps. Marino, Barletta Introduce “Eric’s Law” Sentencing Reform Bill

U.S. senators are now getting involved with Eric's Law too.

GOP Senators Introduce ‘Eric’s Law’ to Reform Death Penalty Cases

[billisonboard]

... Allowing a second jury to have another look during the penalty phase will provide the prosecutor an additional tool if the facts show that the jury system did not work as intended. ...

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

[bean29]

Feb 12, 2018 13:55:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

... Allowing a second jury to have another look during the penalty phase will provide the prosecutor an additional tool if the facts show that the jury system did not work as intended. ...

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

I agree it seems like saying they can try the case until they get the desired outcome. Not good.

Can we assume that most people who are pro-choice are also anti-death penalty?

What does the Republican Platform say on this?

[Tennesseer]

Feb 12, 2018 13:55:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

... Allowing a second jury to have another look during the penalty phase will provide the prosecutor an additional tool if the facts show that the jury system did not work as intended. ...

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

That is how I see it.

I understand the family of the deceased prison guard receives no justice if the end result in life in prison without parole when the killer is already in prison with life without parole. Sometimes life just isn't fair.

[weltschmerz]

Feb 12, 2018 14:05:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:55:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

I agree it seems like saying they can try the case until they get the desired outcome. Not good.

Can we assume that most people who are pro-choice are also anti-death penalty?

What does the Republican Platform say on this?

We cannot.

[thyme4change]

Feb 12, 2018 14:05:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:55:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

I agree it seems like saying they can try the case until they get the desired outcome. Not good.

Sounds expensive.

I'm neither here nor there in the death penalty, but at some point I think we should use our resources carefully. There is not ever really "justice" in a situation like this.

[NastyWoman]

Feb 12, 2018 16:43:55 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:55:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Or is it if the prosecutor doesn't get the result they want?

That is how I see it.

I understand the family of the deceased prison guard receives no justice if the end result in life in prison without parole when the killer is already in prison with life without parole. Sometimes life just isn't fair.

The family of a murder victim never gets any justice. They are also not a party in any criminal trial: it is the government (be it state or federal) against the defendant. The accused person is in front of a court because of trespasses against the law,the rule of the land, the victim is only a "bit player" to a certain extend since s/he is (part) of the subject of the law that was broken.

Case in point the father who recently wanted a few minutes alone with Larry Nasser after his sentencing. The judge told him she could not do so and we all saw what happened afterwards. Maybe the father would have gotten "justice" for him and his girls in those inutes he asked for but that is not how it works.