Keta Taylor Colby Death Penalty Project

The Keta Taylor Colby Death Penalty Project was established in 2001 to involve law students in work aimed at the interim reform, and ultimate abolition, of the death penalty in the United States. The Project is directed by Professor Steven F. Shatz, who holds the Philip & Muriel Barnett Professorship at USF, where he teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Death Penalty Law. He is co-author of a casebook and articles on the death penalty and has appeared as an expert witness in capital cases. The principal program of the Project has been the Southern Internship Program, which each summer sends 8-10 law students to work with capital defense attorneys in the South.

SOUTHERN INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

During the spring, students attend four training sessions covering a range of issues in death penalty law and practice. In the summer, students are sent in pairs to spend 10 weeks working at the offices of capital defense lawyers in the South. Each student is assigned to work with an attorney on one or more of that attorney's cases. In the course of the casework, the students do legal research on issues in the cases, visit their clients in prison or jail, gather case-related documents, e.g., from trial attorneys' files or public sources (through trips to courts and other agencies or by means of subpoenas or public record act requests) and interview lay and expert witnesses, and, in some cases jurors. In addition to working on their cases, the students, under the general supervision of Professor Shatz, each undertake a larger legal or empirical research project aimed at developing a systemic challenge to the particular state's death penalty law or practice.

The work is challenging, both legally and emotionally. A few of the students have had the satisfaction of seeing their work bear fruit. In 2002, in Mississippi, Amy Flynn developed the mitigation evidence that caused a jury to reject the death penalty for her client, and David Brody wrote the brief that caused the Mississippi Supreme Court to set aside his client=s default and permit the client to litigate his claims. In 2003, in Texas, Alma Lagarda and Laurel Gorman developed the evidence of mental retardation that saved three clients from execution. In 2004, in Arkansas, Jason Horst and Stephanie Smith had the satisfaction of seeing one of their clients released from death row on a mental retardation claim. Most of the time, however, the students contribute small pieces to very large cases, so they will never know how their work contributed to the ultimate outcome. Occasionally, the students experience failure. In 2003, in Arkansas, Megan Rosichan and Robert Tadlock worked around the clock for a month to prevent an execution and were unsuccessful. In 2004, in Texas, Amy Goldman spent a substantial portion of her time preparing a clemency petition for her client, but the petition was denied, and he was executed. Whatever the outcome for particular clients, however, the students all finish the summer having learned about the death penalty, about the practice of law and about the circumstances under which people live. They know that the tasks they did would not have been accomplished but for their efforts and that they made a contribution to the struggle against the death penalty.

APPLICATION PROCESS - SUMMER, 2009

The 2009 program will send 6 USF students to work for defense attorneys in the South. After the four training sessions in March and April, the program will run June 1 - August 7. Each student will receive a stipend of $4,000 to cover travel expenses to the South and living expenses while there. The program will provide each pair of students with a rental car for the summer.

Applications for the program are due by January 30, 2009. Any student who has completed at least one year of law school is eligible to apply. A student wishing to apply should submit the following by e-mail to Professor Shatz (shatzs@usfca.edu):

1. a cover letter describing his or her interest in participating in the program;
2. a current resume; and
3. a law school grade report.

SCHOLARSHIP

Alameda County Research

In 2003, the KTC Project and Professor Shatz received a grant from the Butler Family Fund to undertake a substantial research project on the death penalty in Alameda County, California. Four students spent the summer working in the KTC Alameda Program, gathering data from more than 1300 murder prosecutions initiated during a 25-year period, and, in addition working with capital defense attorneys on Alameda County cases.  In 2007, Professor Shatz published the first  law review article based on this research:  Steven F. Shatz, The Eighth Amendment, the Death Penalty, and Ordinary Robbery-Burglary Murderers:  A California Case Study, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 719 (2007).

Law Review Comments

Three students who participated in the Southern Internship Program turned their summer research projects into law review comments.

Laurel Gorman, who spent the summer of 2003 working for the Texas Defender Service in Houston, Texas, argues in her comment that defendants convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of evidence produced by police crime labs shown to have repeatedly lost, mishandled and misinterpreted evidence in their custody may challenge their convictions or sentences as a denial of due process. See L. Gorman, The Brady Solution: A Due Process Remedy for those Convicted With Evidence From Faulty Crime Labs, 39 USF L.Rev. 725 (2005).

James Higgins, who spent the summer of 2003 working for the Office of Capital Defense Counsel in Jackson, Mississippi, argues in his comment that the Mississippi “killing to avoid arrest” aggravator, a factor that is used to make a defendant death-eligible, is so vague as to create a risk of arbitrariness in its application, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See J. Higgins, Avoiding Furman: The Unconstitutionality of Mississippi’s Killing to Avoid Arrest Aggravator, 39 USF L. Rev. 175 (2004).

Megan Rosichan, who spent the summer of 2003 working for Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender in Little Rock, Arkansas, argues in her comment that Arkansas, having undertaken to provide indigent defendants with counsel for capital post-conviction proceedings, must provide them with competent counsel in order to accord them due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See M. Rosichan, A Meaningless Ritual? The Due Process Mandate for the Provision of Competent Counsel in Arkansas Capital Post-conviction Proceedings, 38 USF L. Rev. 749 (2004).