Death penalty cases should be better analyzed

On Jan. 20, the Supreme Court took an unprecedented step in overruling a lower court in a death penalty case. In 1999, Mark Christeson was convicted of brutally murdering Susan Brouk and her two young children. He was then sentenced to death later that year. Death penalty experts who were brought in asserted that Christeson’s lawyers failed to adequately represent Christeson by missing the deadline to submit a federal appeal.

The lawyers refused to step down from the case and the lower courts refused the substitution. The Supreme Court was then forced to intervene, claiming that the lawyers had a conflict of interest and could not be expected to argue a case that could hurt their careers. Christeson’s new lawyer, Jennifer Merrigan, said, “There were serious constitutional errors in his trial and those have never been listened to.” Christeson’s lengthy and messy case exemplifies why the death penalty should be reviewed more carefully in the United States.

The death penalty, despite its long legacy, is a troubling and divisive topic for many citizens. Though the United States remains an adherent to the death penalty, according to a October 2014 Gallup poll, nationwide support for the death penalty is at a 40-year low. This is due to findings revealing the absence of absolute certainty in the trial process.

It is also clear that the United States has struggled to find the appropriate method to both ensure fair trials in death penalty cases and perform executions in ways deemed “humane.” Since 1976, 1,399 people have been executed in the United States, but there is no way of knowing how many of those executed were innocent because the courts do not usually entertain innocence claims after death. There are a few cases, however, with strong evidence pointing to innocence that have sparked controversy.

A key problem in prosecuting fair death penalty trials is eyewitness misidentification, which factored in 72 percent of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence. In this way, improper or missing forensics is also a essential piece of evidence that can be used to convict innocent defendants. According to the Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization that uses DNA evidence to overturn wrongful convictions, “In about 30 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.” These confessions are often the result of official misconduct by officials.

Pre-trial error exists even without mentioning possible trial error and executional problems. In Christeson’s case, the mistakes made by court-appointed lawyers in the appeals process may cost Christeson his life. Often times, court-appointed lawyers don not have much of a stake in the outcomes of their clients’ cases because of a lack of monetary incentive and a high volume of cases. The legal system is simply flooded with logistical and human errors. There is no doubt that death penalty cases have high stakes. If the death penalty is justified for serious, brutal crimes like murder, then the United States must ensure that it approaches the legal system fairly. The death penalty is undoubtedly cruel if it is not issued with extreme caution. Innocent, institutionalized execution cannot be tolerated in a so-called “humane” society. It is time for death penalty cases to be pursued with the presumption of innocence instead of the quest for conviction.

Interference by the Supreme Court in Christeson’s death penalty case is a step that affirms the importance of death penalty cases. Getting it wrong is no longer acceptable for our criminal justice system. All cases that involve the lives of American citizens should involve all the resources that this country has to offer.

It is imperative, for the sake of this nation’s integrity, that the American criminal justice system take further unprecedented action to prevent wrongful appropriation and execution of the death penalty.