United States: How Often Did the California Supreme Court Reverse Death Penalty Judgments (Part 2)?

Earlier this week, we began analyzing the Illinois Supreme Court's experience with automatic death penalty appeals.  Yesterday, we began our review of the California Supreme Court's record, beginning with the year 1994.

In Table 279, we review the Court's partial and complete reversal rate for the years 2002 through 2009.  In 2002, the Court affirmed in 78.57% of death penalty cases, partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 14.29% and partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in 7.14%.  In 2003, the Court affirmed in three-quarters of its death penalty cases.  It partially reversed with the penalty affirmed in 5%, partially reversed with the death penalty vacated 15% of the time, and completely reversed in 5%.  In 2004, the Court affirmed in 90.48% of its cases, and partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in the remaining 9.52%.  In 2005, the Court affirmed in 88.46% of its death penalty cases, and partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in the remaining 11.54%.  In 2006, the Court affirmed in 73.68% of its cases.  The Court partially reversed in each of the remaining cases, affirming the death penalty in 15.79% and vacating it in 10.53%.  In 2007, the Court affirmed in 82.61% of its death penalty cases.  The Court reversed in part while affirming the death penalty in 13.04%, and partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in the remaining 4.35%.  The Court affirmed completely in 76.92% of its death penalty cases in 2008.  The Court partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 15.38% of its cases.  It partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in 3.85% of its 2008 cases, and reversed entirely in the remaining 3.85%.  In 2009, the Court affirmed in 80% of its cases, partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 12%, and completely reversed in the remaining 8%.

We report the year-by-year data for the remaining years to the present in Table 280.  The Court decided 24 death penalty cases in 2010, 26 in 2011 and 25 in 2012.  In 2013, the Court decided 18 death penalty cases.  The Court decided 23 cases in 2014, 17 in 2015 and has decided 7 death penalty cases so far in 2017.

Finally, we review the year-by-year reversal rates in Table 281.  The Court affirmed entirely in 95.83% of its death penalty cases in 2010, and partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in the remaining 4.17%.  In 2011, the Court affirmed entirely in 88.46%, partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 7.69%, and reversed entirely in 3.85%.  In 2012, the Court affirmed in 72% of its death penalty cases, partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 12%, partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in 12%, and completely reversed in 4%.  In 2013, the Court completely affirmed in 94.44% of its death penalty cases, and partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 5.56%.

Since that time, there are indications that the Court is taking a harder look at death penalty cases.  The Court affirmed 60.87% of its death penalty cases in 2014.  The Court partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 30.43%, partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in 4.35% and completely reversed in 4.35%.  In 2015, the Court affirmed completely in only 52.94%.  The Court partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in 29.41% and partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in the remaining 17.65%.  In 2016, the Court affirmed in 58.33% of its cases.  In partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed and partially reversed with the death penalty vacated in 16.67% each.  The Court reversed entirely in the remaining 8.33%.

So far in 2017, the Court has entirely affirmed in 85.71% of its death penalty cases.  It has partially reversed with the death penalty affirmed in the remaining 14.29%.

Join us back here next Thursday as we continue our comparison of the death penalty records of the Illinois and California Supreme Courts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.