- Champion Article
An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei
Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Argument: No facts are too heinous, no conduct too appalling, and no defendant too unsympathetic to rule out a life verdict from a properly empaneled American trial jury presented with compelling mitigation. Even a defendant convicted of the worst crimes is constitutionally entitled to present broad mitigation during the penalty phase of a capital trial and a jury cannot impose the death penalty unless it unanimously finds that the mitigation is outweighed by aggravating factors. The examples discussed in this brief illustrate that properly selected and instructed juries will reach life verdicts in many of the most aggravated capital prosecutions. Juries have rejected the death penalty for acts of terrorism. Courts routinely vacate capital sentences when errors undermine confidence in the decision to impose death.