All-American justice

James Morton casts a critical glance over the US justice system and discusses the death penalty, the use of DNA to prove innocence, and whether television cameras should be allowed in jury rooms

When I was in New York recently the papers there were full of the death penalty phase in the case of 38-year-old John Taylor, convicted of what became known as the Wendy's massacre in Queens back in May 2000.

Even the most pro-abolitionist people to whom I spoke thought that if the death penalty were to be imposed in any case, then Taylor was the most likely candidate to face the needle (as lethal injection replaced the electric chair when New York reinstated capital punishment in 1995).

He and a mentally retarded co-accused had ushered workers at the Wendy's fastfood restaurant into a refrigerator and had then shot them all, killing five before making off with the day's takings of around $2,500.

Two had survived, one by pretending to be dead and the other by spitting out the bullet which had lodged in his head.

The case was being handled by lawyers from the State Capital Defender Office.

The office was established in 1995 to ensure that problems such as those in Texas - where lawyers had taken a dislike to clients and not filed appeals in time, or slept through trials - were eliminated.

Since 1995, the district attorneys in the New York City boroughs have investigated seeking the death penalty in 730 cases and filed notice in 44.

The office works with, and vets, lawyers in private practice who are willing to handle death penalty cases, and it has handled about 20% of first-degree murder trials.

There is little doubt that at every stage the lawyers find the work emotionally exhausting, but with the appeal process lasting 12 or so years, the real crunch is not going to come for another three or four years at the earliest.

As for Taylor, the jury was committed to a death sentence, despite an apology in court, pleas that his mother had mistreated him and that he loved his children.

Only three thought 'he had devoted himself to them all their lives' the same number who thought his mother's conduct was any sort of mitigation and certainly not enough to get him life without parole.

He will be sent to the Clinton Correctional Facility near the Canadian border to start his appeals process.

Time is running out yet again for Amos King, convicted of rape and murder back in 1977 and temporarily reprieved in early December by Florida Governor Jeb Bush after a claim that while a new DNA test may not prove his innocence, it will at least cause real doubts about his guilt.

Barry Scheck, director of the Innocence Project, says that a new method - Y-DNA - may help clear him.

So far, 116 prisoners have been exonerated after conviction and serving long sentences following DNA testing.

Meanwhile, down in Houston there is a fine old battle going on over whether television cameras should be allowed in the jury room in the case of an alleged gang member, 17-year-old Cedric Harrison, who is accused of shooting and killing a man in a carjacking.

Judge Ted Poe has ruled that there could be an unmanned camera in the ceiling on the theory that the jurors would soon forget it was recording and there was no empirical evidence they would not speak candidly.

The television company behind it all says it will be 'educational' and that's certainly right.

Before the appeal court stopped jury selection and began reviewing the judge's decision, 14 jurors were excused on the sole ground that they did not want to be videotaped.

Arizona and Wisconsin have occasionally allowed cameras in criminal trials and it is not uncommon for them to be used in civil cases where they are used for education and research.

An interesting case is that being brought against the University of Michigan.

It is a bit of a friendly action - if that's not an oxymoron - and is somewhat similar to our case when Edgar Wallace sued the Jockey Club over the rule that the death of an owner automatically scratched a horse from running, but with rather more serious consequences.

Several white students allege that despite having better admission grades they have fallen foul of positive discrimination practices and had their places allotted to less academically qualified students from the ethnic minorities.

The white students have sued and their cases are to be heard by the Supreme Court, with rulings expected in July.

In recent years, courts in Texas and Georgia have ruled against affirmative action, as positive discrimination is also called, in universities - and the decision is bound to be close.

In the past, four of the nine justices have favoured affirmative action and four have not, while Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been in the middle.

It is her vote which is the one most likely to settle the matter.

Finally, the Supreme Court judges are going to consider Texas's anti-sodomy law.

The US Constitution does not protect relations between same-sex couples and the justices were not sympathetic back in 1986 when the issue was last heard.

This time the court may be more tolerant.

If it is, another 12 states would have to change their laws.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist