Arbitrariness and Discrimination in the Administration of the Death Penalty: a Legal and Empirical Analysis of the Nebraska Experience (1973-1999)

• Publication year: 2021

81 Nebraska L. Rev. 486. Arbitrariness and Discrimination in the Administration of the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of the Nebraska Experience (1973-1999)

486

Arbitrariness and Discrimination in the Administration of the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of the Nebraska Experience (1973-1999)

David C. Baldus*
George Woodworth**
Catherine M. Grosso***
Aaron M. Christ****

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE

PART A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
II. Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
III. Law and Practice in the Nebraska Death Penalty
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
A. Judicial Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
B. Death Eligibility, Fact Finding, and the Weighing of
Aggravation and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
C. Comparative Proportionality Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
1. Proportionality Review in Penalty Trials . . . . . . . . . 515
a. Pre-1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
b. Post-1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
2. Proportionality Review in the Nebraska
Supreme Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
a. Pre-1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
b. Post-1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
D. Prosecutorial Charging Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
E. The Implications of Ring v. Arizona for Capital
Sentencing in Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
F. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
PART B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
IV. Methodology, Research Design, and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 532
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532

487

B. Measures of Defendant Culpability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
1. The Number of Statutory Aggravating
Circumstances Found or Present in the Cases. . . . . . . . 534
2. Number of Statutory Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances Found or Present in
the Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
3. The Salient Factors Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
4. Logistic Regression-Based Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
C. A Measure of Geographic Disparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
D. A Note on Unadjusted and Adjusted Disparities . . . . . . . . 537
E. Convergent Validity and Triangulation of Empirical
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
F. Omitted Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
V. The Disposition of Homicide Cases: 1973-1999 . . . . . . . . . . 541
A. Capital and Non-Capital Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
B. The Disposition of Capital Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
VI. Evidence of the Impact of Defendant Culpability on
Prosecutorial and Judicial Decisionmaking. . . . . . . . . . . . 548
A. The Impact of Individual Statutory Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
B. The Number of Statutory Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances in the Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
1. The Number of Aggravating Circumstances. . . . . . . . . . 550
2. The Number of Statutory Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
C. Salient Factors of the Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
D. Regression-Based Measures and Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
PART C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
VII. Evidence of Disparate Treatment in Charging and
Sentencing Outcomes Based on the Race of the
Defendant and Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
A. Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Legal
Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
B. Evidence of Disparate Treatment Based on the Race
of the Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
1. Unadjusted Statewide Minority-Defendant
Disparities in Charging and Sentencing
Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
2. Statewide Minority-Defendant Disparities in
Charging and Sentencing Decisions Controlling
for Offender Culpability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
3. Race-of-Defendant Disparities in the Exercise of
Prosecutorial Discretion After Adjustment for
the Place of Prosecution (in Major Urban
Counties v. the Counties of Greater Nebraska). . . . . . . 572

488

C. Evidence of Disparate Treatment Based on the Race
of the Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
D. Evidence of Minority-Defendant/White-Victim
Disparate Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
VIII. Evidence of the Disparate Impact of State Law and
Policy on Minority Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
A. Evidence of a Statewide Disparate Impact on
Minority Defendants in the Rates that Death-
Eligible Cases Advance to Penalty Trial . . . . . . . . . . . 591
B. Evidence of an Adverse Impact on Minority
Defendants in the Execution of Death-Sentenced
Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
PART D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607
IX. Evidence of Disparate Treatment in Charging and
Sentencing Outcomes Based on the Socioeconomic
Status (SES) of the Defendant and Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . 607
A. Defendant SES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
B. Victim SES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
1. Statewide Disparities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
2. Disparities in the Major Urban Counties and
Greater Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
X. Evidence of Geographic Disparities in Charging and
Sentencing Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
A. Unadjusted and Adjusted Geographic Disparities. . . . . . . . 623
B. Geographic Disparities Over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
C. Alternative Explanations for Geographic Disparities
in the Rates that Cases Advance to a Penalty
Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
1. Disparities in Financial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
2. The Experience of Prosecutors in Capital
Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
3. Judicial Sentencing Practices as a Proxy for
Judicial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
4. The Imminence of Prosecutorial Elections . . . . . . . . . 639
5. Differences in the Frequency of Problems of
Proof that "Compel" Plea Bargains. . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
PART E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
XI. Evidence of Consistency and Selectivity in Charging
and Sentencing Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
1. Consistency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
2. Selectivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
B. Evidence of Inconsistency and Comparative
Excessiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648

489

1. The Nebraska Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
a. Quantitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
b. Qualitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
c. A Note on Proportionality Review in the
Nebraska Supreme Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
2. Testing the Proffitt Hypothesis with a
Comparative Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
a. Death-Sentenced Cases in Which 70% or
More of the Defendant's Near Neighbors
Receive a Death Sentence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
b. Death-Sentenced Cases in Which Fewer than
50% of the Defendant's Near Neighbors
Receive a Death Sentence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
c. Death-Sentenced Cases in Which the Death-
Sentencing Rate Among the Defendant's
Near Neighbors is Less than the Overall
Average Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
C. Evidence of Selectivity in the Imposition of Death
Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
1. Quantitative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
2. Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
PART F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
XII. Summary of Principal Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
A. Principal Findings and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
1. Race-of-Defendant and Race-of-Victim Disparate
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
2. Adverse Disparate Impact on Minority
Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
3. Minority-Defendant Adverse Impact Among
Death Row Prisoners Executed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
4. Disparate Treatment Based on the
Socioeconomic Status (SES) of the Defendant
and Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
5. A Trend of Declining Death-Sentencing Rates. . . . . . . . 666
6. Geographic Disparities in the Exercise of
Prosecutorial Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
7. Consistency and Selectivity of Charging and
Sentencing Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
8. Legislative Ambiguity Concerning Prosecutorial
Charging and Judicial Sentencing Discretion. . . . . . . . 671
B. Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
1. Legislative Amendments to Satisfy the
Requirements of Ring v. Arizona . . . . . . . 671

490

2. Legislation to Clarify the Scope of Prosecutorial
and Judicial Discretion Under Section 29-2521,
Which Defines the Procedure for a First-Degree
Murder Sentencing Hearing...