Legal Process Most Frequently Used to Impose Death Penalty Challenged by LDF Attorneys Before U.S. Supreme Court

Press Release
February 26, 1969

Cite this item
Legal Process Most Frequently Used to Impose Death Penalty Challenged by LDF Attorneys Before U.S. Supreme Court preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 6. Legal Process Most Frequently Used to Impose Death Penalty Challenged by LDF Attorneys Before U.S. Supreme Court, 1969. e9bec252-b992-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b3d1900e-46f1-4c0d-9ad2-9f9d01e8c2b5/legal-process-most-frequently-used-to-impose-death-penalty-challenged-by-ldf-attorneys-before-us-supreme-court. Accessed June 01, 2025.

    Copied!

    q 
4 

President 
Hon. Francis E. Rivers 

PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 
egal ’efense lund Jack Greenberg 

Director, Public Relations 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC Tene DeVore, Je. 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

FOR RELEASE 
WEDNESDAY 
February 26, 1969 

NATIONAL NEWS ANGLE: LEGAL PROCESS MOST FREQUENTLY 
USED TO IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY 
CHALLENGED BY LDF ATTORNEYS 
BEFORE U.S, SUPREME COURT 

476 Lives In 36 States Affected 

NEW YORK---The U.S. Supreme Court was asked today to strike down the 
death sentences of 80 men and one woman now on death row in California. 

Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, 
(LDF), who are defending more than half the 476 condemned persons 
across the country, brought the suit. 

Announcement of the suit was made in New York City by Professor 
Anthony Amsterdam of the University of Pennsylvania, director of the 
LDF's capital punishment litigation. 

The LDF is seeking, in this case, review of a ruling by the 
California Supreme Court. That Court said last November 18 that 
capital punishment as administered in that state is constitutional. 

This new case seeks to determine whether the right to impose the 
death penalty should be left to the unguided, undirected and absolute 
discretion of a jury. 

LDF attorneys point out in their brief that such unguided pro- 
cedures allow the death penalty to be administered in an arbitrary 
manner, subject to whim and caprice, rather than the orderly rule of 
law. 

This “standardless jury sentencing procedure" employed in 
California is common to the other 36 states that utilize the death 
penalty, LDF lawyers assert, 

In fact, they add, virtually all of the 476 persons awaiting 
execution across the nation were condemned under the challenged 
procedure. 

-30- 

NOTE: Please bear in mind that though the LDF was once a part of 
the NAACP, it is now a separate and distinct organization, even though 
the initials are retained in its title. 

25

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top