Did the trial court err in refusing to require that Daniel Ramsey be represented by certified members of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, where his guilty plea and capital sentencing hearing took place more than five years after the effective date of amended Supreme Court Rule 701? People v. Ramsey, No. 105942, filed 2-19-09 (Charles W. Hoffman, SCU).

Was the decision of the Hancock County State’s Attorney to seek a death sentence unconstitutionally arbitrary, given his predecessor’s pronouncement that the state would not seek death if Daniel Ramsey pled guilty and accepted a sentence of natural life? People v. Ramsey, No. 105942, filed 2-19-09 (Charles W. Hoffman, SCU).

Whether the circuit court erred by declining to consider Mr. Baez’s offers of proof, and other relevant evidence, especially of counsel’s representation in murder cases and of the expenditures from the Capital Crimes Litigation Act in years 2000-2001 to several private counsels? People v. Baez, No. 98911, Remand Brief filed 7-1-09 (Kim Robert Fawcett, SCU).

Eligibility - 720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)

Whether Mr. Adkins’s home invasion conviction must be vacated because the same physical acts underlie the home invasion and murder and whether the trial court erred in finding him eligible for a death sentence because he had committed home invasion? People v. Adkins, No. 107309, filed 6-30-09 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Whether counsel’s concession that Mr. Adkins was guilty of residential burglary requires this court to vacate the finding that Mr. Adkins was eligible for a death sentence because the murder was committed in the course of a residential burglary? People v. Adkins, No. 107309, filed 6-30-09 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Because the trial judge erroneously refused the defendant’s tendered verdict forms on felony murder at trial, must the judgment of conviction for intentional murder be vacated and replaced with a judgment of conviction for felony murder, the judgment of conviction for the predicate felony of aggravated kidnaping be vacated, and the death sentence be vacated and remanded for imposition of a sentence other than death? People v. Damm, No. 108156, filed 3-16-10 (Charles W. Hoffman, SCU).

Aggravation / Mitigation - 720 ILCS 5/9-1(c,d,e)

Whether the sentencing court erred reversibly by finding the evidence at the capital sentencing hearing was insufficient to support the existence of the statutory mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance? People v. Baez, No. 98911, Orig. Brief filed 10-17-05 (Kim Robert Fawcett, SCU).

Did the trial court err in excluding the mitigation testimony of defense psychiatrist Henry Conroe that the mental “disorders” from which Daniel Ramsey suffered at the time of the offenses could also be characterized as mental “disturbances?” People v. Ramsey, No. 105942, filed 2-19-09 (Charles W. Hoffman, SCU).

Whether Mr. Adkins was denied his right to confront witnesses at the aggravation/mitigation hearing where the state played the taped statement his girlfriend made to the police and presented an incriminating affidavit from a former director of the Arkansas State Police? People v. Adkins, No. 107309, filed 6-30-09 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the state’s claim at his capital sentencing hearing that Mr. Mertz had committed another murder? People v. Mertz, No. 109275, filed 8-5-10 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge profiling testimony from a state investigator? People v. Mertz, No. 109275, filed 8-5-10 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to obtain records concerning his suicide attempt, his use of anti-depressants, and his maternal family’s chaotic lifestyle? People v. Mertz, No. 109275, filed 8-5-10 (Allen H. Andrews, SCU).

Jury Instructions and Deliberations

Closing Argument

Excessive / Disparate Sentences - 720 ILCS 5/9-1(i)

Is David Damm’s death sentence unconstitutionally disparate to the life sentence imposed on co-defendant Bruce Burt, given Burt’s more extensive criminal record, his poorer prospects for rehabilitation, and his similar, if not greater, culpability for the murder of Donnisha Hill? If Mr. Damm’s death sentence is not unconstitutionally disparate, is it an excessive punishment in light of the totality of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case? People v. Damm, No. 108156, filed 3-16-10 (Charles W. Hoffman, SCU).

Statutory Challenges - 720 ILCS 5/9-1(g, h)

Whether the sentencing court erred reversibly by applying the wrong standard for the selection decision (using the former “sufficient to preclude” test), which violated the eighth amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, and the parallel provisions of the Illinois Constitution? People v. Baez, No. 98911, Orig. Brief filed 10-17-05 (Kim Robert Fawcett, SCU).

Whether the Illinois death penalty statute violates Due Process of Law under Apprendi v. New Jersey, because the State is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, after weighing the factors in aggravation and mitigation, death is the appropriate sentence? People v. Pate, No. 108157, filed 4-23-10 (Duane E. Schuster, SCU).

OSAD Webmaster |Site Map