Post by sclcookie on Jun 3, 2006 14:47:20 GMT -5
Ohio ACLU Wins State Supreme Court Ruling on Death Penalty Eligibility
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE----CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Defendants with Horrific Backgrounds May Be Exempt from Execution
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today welcomed a landmark
ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court saying that a jury cannot discount the
background of a defendant when it decides whether to use the death
penalty. In the case of State v. Tenace, the Court for the 1st time
reversed a death sentence based on the extraordinarily troubled life of
the defendant.
"This is a first," said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Jeffrey Gamso. "Never
before, in well over 200 death penalty decisions, has the court
acknowledged what the law requires: that a defendant's history, character,
and background can be so horrific that a death sentence cannot fairly be
imposed."
According to the United States Constitution and Ohio's death penalty
statute, if a death penalty defendant has experienced an extraordinarily
damaging childhood, these facts must be considered during sentencing. The
State Supreme Court upheld that standard in yesterday's opinion by Justice
Judith Ann Lanzinger.
Previously, the Ohio Supreme Court had limited that law, applying it only
to cases in which the defendant suffered from serious mental illnesses.
The courts decision yesterday recognized that the law demanded more, and
that traumatic childhood alone could justify a sentence of life in prison
rather than the death penalty.
"The court did not try to excuse the actions of Troy Matthew Tenace, but
took into consideration the truly horrific life he had," Gamso noted. "As
a child, he was taught by his parents to use drugs and commit crimes. He
was a victim of terrible abuse. His brother and sister are both in
prison."
In her opinion, Justice Lanzinger called Tenace "doomed." Another Justice
noted that if there was ever a case in which the childhood of a defendant
should be considered during sentencing, this case was it.
"Hopefully, this opens the door for others who have been failed by society
to receive some sort of recognition for the tremendous obstacles in their
life," Gamso said. "This is not about excusing or minimizing their crimes,
but showing compassion and fairness and recognizing that we are the
products of our pasts."
Gamso, who has represented Tenace since 1994, was joined by Dayton
attorney Gary Crim in arguing the case before the Ohio Supreme Court.
(source: ACLU, June 1)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE----CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Defendants with Horrific Backgrounds May Be Exempt from Execution
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today welcomed a landmark
ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court saying that a jury cannot discount the
background of a defendant when it decides whether to use the death
penalty. In the case of State v. Tenace, the Court for the 1st time
reversed a death sentence based on the extraordinarily troubled life of
the defendant.
"This is a first," said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Jeffrey Gamso. "Never
before, in well over 200 death penalty decisions, has the court
acknowledged what the law requires: that a defendant's history, character,
and background can be so horrific that a death sentence cannot fairly be
imposed."
According to the United States Constitution and Ohio's death penalty
statute, if a death penalty defendant has experienced an extraordinarily
damaging childhood, these facts must be considered during sentencing. The
State Supreme Court upheld that standard in yesterday's opinion by Justice
Judith Ann Lanzinger.
Previously, the Ohio Supreme Court had limited that law, applying it only
to cases in which the defendant suffered from serious mental illnesses.
The courts decision yesterday recognized that the law demanded more, and
that traumatic childhood alone could justify a sentence of life in prison
rather than the death penalty.
"The court did not try to excuse the actions of Troy Matthew Tenace, but
took into consideration the truly horrific life he had," Gamso noted. "As
a child, he was taught by his parents to use drugs and commit crimes. He
was a victim of terrible abuse. His brother and sister are both in
prison."
In her opinion, Justice Lanzinger called Tenace "doomed." Another Justice
noted that if there was ever a case in which the childhood of a defendant
should be considered during sentencing, this case was it.
"Hopefully, this opens the door for others who have been failed by society
to receive some sort of recognition for the tremendous obstacles in their
life," Gamso said. "This is not about excusing or minimizing their crimes,
but showing compassion and fairness and recognizing that we are the
products of our pasts."
Gamso, who has represented Tenace since 1994, was joined by Dayton
attorney Gary Crim in arguing the case before the Ohio Supreme Court.
(source: ACLU, June 1)