Constitution Project Files Brief Asking Supreme Court to Hear Case of Darick Demorris Walker
5/13/2010
Walker sentenced to death row after evidence discrediting an eyewitness was improperly withheld from the defense
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Matthew Allee, (202) 580-6922 or mallee@constitutionproject.org
WASHINGTON – The Constitution Project filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today on behalf of Darick Demorris Walker, asking the Court to consider his death penalty appeal. Walker, who is on death row in Virginia, is scheduled to be executed on May 20, 2010. Police reports obtained by Walker’s attorneys after trial indicate that an eyewitness who testified at trial did not actually see the suspect, but rather heard the intruder's voice from another room. The prosecution did not turn over this key evidence discrediting the eyewitness to the defense before trial, as they were constitutionally required to under Brady v. Maryland.
The brief also notes the completely inconsistent decisions reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this case. Previously, the Fourth Circuit held that the prosecution knew about this evidence but failed to disclose it to Walker, thereby undermining confidence in the verdict. However, after sending the case back to a district court for fact-finding, the case again reached the Fourth Circuit. A different panel of judges of the court arrived at a decision inconsistent with the Court’s prior ruling, holding there had been no violation of Brady.
According to the brief, this second Fourth Circuit decision severely undermines the rule of law, suggesting that the administration of the death penalty is being determined by the personal opinions of individual judges rather than the impartial application of the law to the facts.
The Constitution Project’s amicus brief states in part:
“The court of appeals’ attempt to separate the cause-and-prejudice and merits inquiries with regard to Brady claims creates opportunities for inconsistency in judgments that can raise troubling questions about whether capital punishment is being meted out in strict accordance with the rule of law, rather than the personal views of individual jurists. A central tenet of the rule of law is that one’s case will be determined according to its legal merit, and not the views of the individual judge . . . That is especially so in death penalty cases, in which the State seeks to exact the ultimate, irreversible, penalty. . . . If the death penalty is to be utilized, it must be ‘imposed on the basis of ‘reason rather than caprice."'"
In the Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Committee’s 2006 report, Mandatory Justice: The Death Penalty Revisited, the Committee makes specific recommendations for improving the fairness of the capital punishment system. In particular, Mandatory Justice stresses that the prosecution must take care to ensure capital criminal defendants receive all exculpatory evidence, and that special care be taken to ensure that capital defendants are not convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness testimony.
To obtain a copy of the amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, go to:
To view a copy of Mandatory Justice: The Death Penalty Revisited, go to:
# # #
