• Skip to content

Ohioans to Stop Executions

otse.org

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Contact OTSE
  • Take Action
    • Join OTSE
    • Donate
    • Upcoming Events
    • Host an Event
    • Open Letter from Ohio’s Faith Leaders
    • Mental Illness Reforms
  • Resources
    • Issues
    • Task Force Recommendations
    • Educational Handouts & Articles
    • Clemency Campaigns
    • News
    • Press Releases
    • Publications
  • View OhioanstoStopExecutions’s profile on Facebook
  • View OHStopExecution’s profile on Twitter
  • View OTSE1000’s profile on YouTube
  • View +OtseOrg’s profile on Google+
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Contact OTSE
  • Take Action
    • Join OTSE
    • Donate
    • Upcoming Events
    • Host an Event
    • Open Letter from Ohio’s Faith Leaders
    • Mental Illness Reforms
  • Resources
    • Issues
    • Task Force Recommendations
    • Educational Handouts & Articles
    • Clemency Campaigns
    • News
    • Press Releases
    • Publications

July 26, 2017 By OTSE Staff

Statement of Ohioans to Stop Executions on resumption of executions

July 26, 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Kevin Werner, kwerner@otse.org
614-560-0654

After more than 3.5 years, Ohio carried out an execution. During the moratorium on executions, Ohio has failed to adopt long-overdue and sensible recommendations made by experts on the Supreme Court Death Penalty Task Force that would ensure fairness and accuracy of the death penalty system.

Because action has yet to be taken by the Supreme Court and General Assembly, Ohio’s death penalty system undoubtedly risks executing innocent men. One need look no further than the nine exonerated death row survivors.

Because action has yet to be taken, individuals with the most serious mental illnesses will continue to be sentenced to death and executed.

Because action has yet to be taken, the needs of murder victims’ family members will continue to go unmet.

Because action has yet to be taken, Ohio’s death penalty will continue to be disproportionality sought by only a handful of county prosecutors.

Because action has yet to be taken, Ohio’s death penalty will continue to produce outcomes that demonstrate unacceptable racial bias.

And because action has yet to be taken, Ohioans will continue to lose confidence in the death penalty system. This lack of fairness and accuracy is what gives Ohioans serious concern that our state will make the gravest of mistakes by executing an innocent person.

Ohio’s death row population may have decreased by one prisoner today, but 26 still await execution. We can no longer afford to let the known and identified problems to go unaddressed by state leaders.

Tweet
Pin
Share57
+1
57 Shares

Filed Under: News, Press Releases

© 2021 Ohioans to Stop Executions · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy

RECOMMENDATION 52

Adoption of a rule directing that the trial judge is the appropriate authority for the appointment of experts for indigent defendants. The rule should further provide that the decision pertaining to the appointment of experts shall be made, on the record, at one of the prescribed Pre-Trial Conferences.

If defense counsel requests, the demand for appointment of the expert shall be made in-camera ex parte, and the order concerning the appointment shall be under seal.

Upon establishing counsels’ respective compliance with discovery obligations, the question of the appointment of experts (including determination of projected expert fees based upon analysis of expert’s time to be applied to the case as well as consideration of incremental payment of expert fees as case progresses) would be decided by the court, which decision would be subject to immediate appeal, under seal, to the appropriate Court of Appeals. The trial court judge shall make written findings as to the basis for any denial. Although concerns have been raised as to the ability of the Appellate Court to provide the anticipated, necessary expedited hearing within a reasonable time-frame, the Joint Task Force suggests that this issue be elevated to the status of a final appealable order and that the necessary expedited appellate process be spelled out in the statute.

RECOMMENDATION 54

Should the present process of appointment of indigent counsel by the judiciary continue, the main objective should always be to assure the best educationally experienced and qualified candidate, who is available (within the county or outside the county), and who is otherwise willing to take on the responsibilities associated with the case for an appropriate fee and accompanying expenses, is appointed. A uniform fee schedule for such services across the State of Ohio must be a necessary consideration to assure the equal protection and due process for the accused in a capital case.

RECOMMENDATION 55

Adoption of reporting standards to provide complete transparency of record, including requirements to ensure better record keeping by the trial judge and the provision of additional, detailed resource information necessary to assure strict compliance with due process, which information shall be submitted to the Supreme Court upon completion of the case. Such resource information may include unique Constitutional issues, unique evidentiary issues, significant motions, plea rationale, pre-sentence investigation, and any additional information required by the Rule 20 Committee or the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additional types of resource information could be developed as part of the mandated educational process conducted by the Ohio Judicial College.

RECOMMENDATION 56

The Joint Task Force believes that some of the recommendations above could be accomplished by the adoption of a separate Criminal Rule for Capital Cases. The Joint Task Force recommends that such a rule be adopted and provide for the mandatory training of attorneys and judges (Recommendation 49), the selection and appointment of indigent counsel in capital cases (Recommendation 51), and the enforcement of the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases and the Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams (Recommendations 11 and 12).

Make YOUR impact.

Support OTSE today!
Donate