Skip to main content
Log in

A Comparison of Retained and Appointed Counsel in Cases of Capital Murder

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

We examined the role of counsel as a source of arbitrary and capricious sentencing in cases of capital murder. The method is a reanalysis of the data of Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski (1990) on 606 cases of capital murder in Georgia in the 1970s. Controlling for variables describing the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime, a death sentence was more likely when defense counsel was appointed rather than retained privately. This was a consequence primarily of the prosecutor's decision to seek a death sentence rather than jury bias in sentencing. Our data support the conclusion that sentencing under the Georgia statute was in the 1970s, and is today to some degree, arbitrary and capricious.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Anon. (1994). Texas county in forefront of executions. New York Times, 1994 (August 7), 31.

  • Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A., Jr. (1981). Procedural reform study of jury murder conviction in Georgia, 1970–1978 (Computer file). 2nd release. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa College of Law (Producer). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A., Jr. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, A. (1985). Some distribution patterns for the Georgia death sentence. U. C. Davis Law Review, 18, 1327–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, R. M. (1994). Capital punishment in two judicial circuits in Georgia: A description of the key actors and the decision-making process. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, W. J. (1984). Legal homicide: Death as punishment in America. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, W. J. (1995). The capital jury project: Rationale, design, and preview of early findings. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1043–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright, S. B. (1994). Counsel for the poor: The death sentence not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer. Yale Law Journal, 103, 1835–1883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanzo, M., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, M., Strasser, F., & Lavelle, M. (1990). Fatal defense. The National Law Journal, 12, 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).

  • Foley, L. (1987). Florida after the Furman decision: The effect of extralegal factors on the processing of capital offense cases. Behavioral Science and the Law, 5, 457–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. E., & Stevenson, B. A. (1992). Solving Alabama's capital defense problems: It's a dollars and sense thing. Alabama Law Review, 44, 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726 (1972).

  • GA. Code #27-2534.1(b) (1978).

  • Geiner, W., & Amsterdam, J. (1987). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty cases. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1954).

  • Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 411–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987).

  • Keil, T. J., & Vito, G.F. (1988). Capital sentencing in Kentucky: An analysis of the factors influencing decision making in the post-Gregg period. Journal of Criminal law and Criminology, 79, 483–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

  • Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, J., & Howe, J. (1995). Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided? Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1161–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolick, D. (1991). In land of death penalty, accusations of racial bias. New York Times, July 9, 1.

  • Mehta, C., & Patel, N. (1993). Logxact-turbo. Cambridge, MA: Cytel Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., & Kazyaka, A. M. (1988). The administration of the death penalty in South Carolina: Experiences over the first few years. South Carolina Law Review, 39, 245–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radelet, M., & Pierce, G. (1985). Race and prosecutorial discretion in homicide cases. Law and Society Review, 19, 587–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report to Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. (1990). Death penalty sentencing (GAO/GGD-90-57). Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office.

  • Rosenberg, T. (1995). The deadliest D.A. The New York Times Magazine, July 16, 20.

  • Sorensen, J. R., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Prosecutorial and jury decision-making in post-Furman Texas capital cases. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 743–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vick, D. W. (1995). Poorhouse justice: Underfunded indigent defense services and arbitrary death sentences. Buffalo Law Review, 43, 329–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).

  • Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885).

  • Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Beck.

About this article

Cite this article

Beck, J.C., Shumsky, R. A Comparison of Retained and Appointed Counsel in Cases of Capital Murder. Law Hum Behav 21, 525–538 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024827807469

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024827807469

Keywords

Navigation