On March 7, 1995, New York's newly elected governor, George Pataki, fulfilled one of his main campaign promises by signing the state's death penalty into law. He called the law "the most effective of its kind in the nation."
More than eight years later, a ruling by the state's highest court has raised questions about whether the court will ever permit an execution. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals overturned a death sentence for the second time, in the case of a Syracuse-area man convicted of killing his wife.
Some prosecutors said they were frustrated by the ruling because they would like to know whether they are wasting time and money pursuing capital punishment. In its decision, the court sidestepped broad questions about the law.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
"We're eagerly awaiting guidance on the constitutionality of the statute," said Michael Arcuri, the district attorney in Utica and president of the New York State District Attorneys Association. "The decision didn't give us any guidance."
But the bitterly worded 4-2 decision did begin to reveal how the divided judges line up on the issue, one of the most volatile the court has faced in years. Two judges, some death penalty lawyers said, appear committed to capital punishment. Two seem troubled by the law. And two may be willing to let the issue play itself out over many years with case-by-case rulings.
The split drew new attention to Robert Smith, Pataki's nominee to fill a vacant seventh seat on the court. Some death penalty supporters said that because of the division on the court, Smith could play a central role in determining the future of capital punishment in the state.
Smith has described himself as a conservative, but his views on the death penalty are not known. "We must make sure he's going to be fair on that issue," said state Senator Dale Volker, a Republican who led the effort to reinstate capital punishment in New York for two decades.
As a lawyer for convicted murderers, Smith has twice argued against the death penalty in the US Supreme Court. But after he was nominated on Nov. 4, he said he was undecided on the issue. "I am not entirely sure," he said, "what my own views are."
If confirmed by the State Senate, he would land in the middle of a bruising battle. The two associate judges who dissented on Tuesday, Victoria Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read, used harsh language as they argued that the court should have left in place a first-degree murder conviction for the Syracuse-area man, James Cahill III, who beat his wife with a baseball bat and later forced cyanide down her throat. Cahill is now to be sentenced to a maximum of life in prison for second-degree murder.
"The majority has substituted its `wisdom' and public policy choices for those of the Legislature," Graffeo wrote. Both of the dissenting judges served in senior legal positions in Pataki's administration and were appointed to the court by him.
"It looks to me as though you would have two votes favorable to upholding the death penalty on all grounds," said a retired Court of Appeals judge, Stewart Hancock Jr., after reading the judges' opinions.
Some lawyers said two associate judges who were appointees of former governor Mario Cuomo, George Bundy Smith and Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, had formed a counterbalancing alliance that is open to criticisms of the death penalty law.
George Bundy Smith, who was once a staff lawyer for the NAACP, voted with the majority and wrote a concurring opinion. He said one argument by critics of the death penalty "is a strong one." That argument claims the state's death penalty is unconstitutional because it can be sought arbitrarily by prosecutors, making it possible for life-or-death decisions to be tainted by racism.
He also criticized a provision of the 1995 law that requires judges to tell jurors that if they cannot reach a unanimous decision on a penalty, the judge will impose a sentence with a minimum of 20 to 25 years. Smith said the possibility that a killer might one day be set free coerces jurors to vote for execution. Ciparick, who was once a Legal Aid lawyer, agreed with Smith on that point and also voted with the majority.
The majority's decision overturning the death sentence for Cahill was written by Judge Albert Rosenblatt, a former Dutchess County district attorney. It said that the trial judge had made errors in screening the jurors and that the prosecutors had not proved the aggravating circumstances the law requires to make a defendant eligible for execution, like the prosecutors' claims that Cahill killed his wife to keep her from testifying as a witness against him.
The fourth vote in the majority came from the chief judge, Judith S. Kaye. Some lawyers say the backgrounds of both Kaye and Rosenblatt contain hints of what might be ambivalence about the death penalty.
As a trial judge, Rosenblatt once imposed a death sentence but suggested he might have personal reservations about capital punishment. When Kaye was first appointed to the court in 1983, she was viewed as a liberal, and she wrote the court's opinion the next year striking down the state's last death penalty law. But death penalty lawyers say her record on the court in recent years leaves them unsure whether she now favors or opposes capital punishment.
So the tally on the death penalty in the court may now be two to two, with the two others, Rosenblatt and Kaye, hesitant to make a sweeping declaration either way. Which could mean that Robert Smith, nominated to be the seventh judge, may effectively determine the future of the death penalty in New York.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS