Lockett v. State of Ohio and Limitations on Capital Sentencing

    30 4 

Howard Fishm 
N 

N y York, New York 

(212) 586-8397 

Contact: 

The NAACP Legal 
National Association for 

that organization in 19 
Directors, program, 

ion with the 

founded by 

d of 

MEMO TO NATIONAL DESK EDITORS 

On Tuesday, January 17, 1978, ¢ 

will hear oral argument in Lockett v. s Ohio, a cap 

case in which the petitioner is represented by the Legal Defense 

The case will be argued by Anthony G. Amster , Professor at 

University Law School, consultant 
for LDF. ing attorr 

On May 2, 1975, Ms. Sandra Loc! 

sentenced to death in the shooting of 

an automobile outside the place wt 

triggerman was not senten 

bargain, ‘The Legal Defense Fund contends 

Amendments were violated. 

As a result of LDF litigation, there has been a virtual moratorium on 

no 1 
executions for over a de nger impose the death penalty 

Contributions are deductible jor U.S. income tax purposes 



for rape (Coker v. Georgia - 1977), which had been the most discriminatorily 

ck. Nor can states any longer applied penalty: 405 of 455 cuted were bl 

“arbitrarily and capriciously" kill crimin, = 3972).| 
| 

offenders (Furman v. Georg 

The necessity for standards in capital sentencing has been recognized 

by the Supreme Court in two LDF cases ( fe} mv. North Carolina and Roberts 

v. Louisiana) and now requires the following standards: 

1. Sentences must be based on reliable evidence. 

2. Each sentence must be individuated for the particular 
defendant, taking into account aggravating and mitigating 
factors. 

3. Every sentence must be subject to review. 

Presently, LDF's Capital Punishment Program falls into three broad 

categories: 

dy of Guided-Discretion 

Following Furman, 35 states enacted simplicity 

can be described as eith mandatory or gu tutes. In 1976, 

in five cases in which LDF was involved, tt ed the mandatory 

guided- ion must be given to the 

cific "aggravating" and "mitigating" circumstances of a capital crime 



the offer well as pers 

process of inquiring how these statutes a 

Cases will examine race, poverty and c 

cases to determine whether the law is 

as it was before Furman. 

al Punishment Empirical Studies of Capi 

me mover in havi LDF has been the pr enalty issues 

debated and discussed on a national level. Now we are trying to accumulate 

and study social-science data on capital se: ing patterns that may shed 

light on the practices by which the death penalty is applied. 

Reliable, neutral studies based on 

a first step toward building this model. 

in the field, LDF is unig y equipped to 

Death Row Early Warning Cen 

LDF maintains the only center in ¢ 

approximately 400 current death row When LDF began to concentrate on a 

program of capital punishment ten years ago, it realized the need for establishing 

patterns in sentencing as a tool for me. the application of death statutes 

in practice, which knowledge has contribu to its achievement of virtual 

moratorium on executions since 1967, 



gn — a coor 

continues to be a catalyst for reform in is the only 

rs n capital punishment program that has resulted in permanent 

icant Be ntencing procedure, changes that can provide models for eventual sign 

reforms in other aspects of the criminal justice system.