[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., FLA., MISS., LA., ARK., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 3



PENNSYLVANIA:

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association blasts death penalty report



The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association blasted a recent report on the 
death penalty, describing it as a long, convoluted and inconclusive bit of 
advocacy driven by anti-death penalty opinion.

The district attorneys' 29-page response also charged that the Pennsylvania 
Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment - comprised of 
representatives from both political parties, the judiciary, prosecutors, 
defense attorneys, law enforcement, victim groups and academia - was largely 
made up of opponents of capital punishment.

"The report couldn't produce the system-wide indictment death penalty opponents 
wanted because the facts don't match their narrative," Berks County District 
Attorney John T. Adams, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys 
Association, said in a press release Monday. "Instead, we find ourselves 
responding to the same-old anti-death penalty talking points."

State Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, a Montgomery County Republican and chairman of 
task force charged with studying Pennsylvania's death penalty system, has 
called the association???s criticism of the advisory committee a red herring.

The association's response also took aim at the fact the report covered very 
little new ground except for a Penn State study released in October.

The Penn State report found, among other things, that the victim's race was a 
factor in who receives a death sentence in Pennsylvania. The association's 
response highlighted certain aspects of the report's findings, including that 
prosecutors were not found to have targeted black and Latino defendants in 
seeking the death penalty, to describe it as vindicating prosecutors' 
evenhandedness in applying capital punishment.

While short on new findings, last week's report by the Pennsylvania Task Force 
and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment did offer several recommendations 
that included reducing the number of aggravating circumstances that qualify for 
a capital sentence, barring its imposition on the mentally ill and creating a 
statewide public defender office.

Richard Long, the DAs association's executive director, said Monday that a 
statewide office wasn't necessary because money used by the federal defenders 
office can be reallocated for defense. He also argued that significant 
protections already shield the mentally ill.

"The public," Long said, "can have confidence in the death penalty system in 
Pennsylvania."

Carol Lavery and Pam Grosh - both members of the advisory committee - supported 
its rejoinder, the DAs association noted Monday.

In the wake of the report's release, Greenleaf began circulating a co-sponsor 
memo for legislation he intends to introduce when lawmakers return to 
Harrisburg that will address jury makeup, reform Pennsylvania's clemency 
requirements and create an additional safety net to correct legal errors.

(source: Reading Eagle)








FLORIDA----female faces death penalty

Florida Prosecutors Seeking Death Penalty Against Lois Riess



Prosecutors in Florida filed a notice of their intent to seek the death penalty 
for Lois Riess on Monday.

In early June, Riess was indicted by a grand jury on charges of 1st-degree 
murder with a firearm, grand theft of a motor vehicle, grand theft and criminal 
use of personal identification information of a deceased individual, $5,000 or 
more. Riess pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In court documents filed on Monday, the state outlined its reasoning for 
pursuing the death penalty, writing that Riess killed Pamela Hutchinson in Fort 
Myers Beach, Florida for "the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest 
or effecting an escape from custody; that the capital felony was committed for 
pecuniary gain; that the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a 
cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or 
legal justification."

According to authorities, Riess killed her husband David in late March at their 
home in Blooming Prairie, From there, law enforcement said she fled to Florida 
where she befriended Hutchinson. Hutchinson's body was found on the bathroom 
floor of a hotel with a towel draped over her. The medical examiner says 
Hutchinson was, "shot with a small caliber round bearing similar 
characteristics to a .22 caliber bullet and then draped with a towel."

Riess is also suspected of killing her husband David. According to court 
documents, he was killed in the bathroom of their home in Blooming Prairie with 
a .22 caliber handgun and a blanket was placed over his head. Authorities went 
as far as to say the modus operandi in both cases were "strikingly similar."

Riess was arrested on April 19 in South Padre Island, Texas.

Dodge County Sheriff Scott Rose said in late June that prosecutors in Minnesota 
were awaiting results of forensic evidence before charging her in Minnesota 
with her husband's death.

(source: KAAL TV news)

*************************

Father who beat 5-year-old son to death faces death penalty



The mother of an Orange County 5-year-old whose father was convicted of beating 
him to death told a jury Monday that she wishes she could go back in time and 
delete the day he died.

The jury will ultimately decide whether Darell Avant Sr. gets the death 
penalty.

Avant Sr. was convicted of murder and aggravated child abuse last week, which 
elevates the case into death penalty territory.

In opening statements for Avant Sr.'s sentencing, prosecutors gave a recap of 
the beating that killed Darrell Avant Jr.

They said the beating was Avant Sr.'s way of punishing the child for getting in 
trouble at school.

Prosecutors said Avant Jr. abused the trust he had as the boy's father.

The young boy's kindergarten teacher, Bonnie Copeland, testified Monday, saying 
there are now people at his school who fear sending children home when they get 
in trouble.

She said her heart still goes out to Darrell Jr.'s grieving mother.

"I wonder what you would have grown up to be. Would you have been a musician? 
You loved to whistle," she said.

The child's mother also took the witness stand and said wish she could go back 
and pick him up from school herself instead of leaving him with a killer.

"He meant the world, he meant the world to me. And no words, no words can 
explain how much he meant to me," said Jessica Phillips.

The defense had a neurologist on the stand, who said Avant Sr. has suffered a 
series of head injuries in his life and that his cognitive abilities are not as 
good as they should be.

"In a stressful situation, the difference between right and wrong gets blurred. 
You're agitated, you're impulsive, you emotional regulation is impaired," said 
Dr. Mark Rubino. "Your ability to say, 'Hey, I shouldn't do that,' doesn't pop 
up."

One of the big claims the defense made revolves around Avant Sr.'s waiting 30 
minutes after the beating to call 911. During the trial, prosecutors used Avant 
Sr.'s Google searches as evidence. They said he searched, "how to tell if an 
infant is dead," before calling 911.

The doctor said he truly may not have been able to recognize that his son was 
dead.

Testimony will continue Tuesday.

(source: WFTV news)








MISSISSIPPI:

3 Meridian men could face the death penalty



3 Meridian men could face the possibility of a death sentence in connection to 
the shooting death of a confidential informant earlier this year.

The U.S. Attorney's Office says Aubrey Maurice Jordan, 26, Monroe L. Hughes, 
III a/k/a "Roe," 39, and Cortez Lakeith Byrd a/k/a Byrd, 26, are charged and 
indicted with witness tampering resulting in death, drug trafficking and 
conspiracy.

Anton Ford was identified in a news release by the U.S. Attorney's Office as a 
confidential source for the East Mississippi Drug Task Force. Ford was shot 
Mar. 10, 2018, in the back of the neck outside of JR's Lounge.

Ford had previously participated in controlled buys on multiple occasions 
involving both Hughes and Byrd.

A trial has been set for Sept. 4, 2018, before U.S. District Judge Carlton W. 
Reeves.

Jordan was initially charged with attempted murder in connection with the 
shooting of Ford.

Ford was paralyzed but eventually died following medical complications, 
according to Lauderdale Coroner Clayton Cobler.

(source: WTOK news)








LOUISIANA:

Agreement reached over motions issue in Rapides death penalty case



At a press conference on Thursday (Oct. 26, 2017), officials announced the 
arrests of siblings Matthew Sonnier and Ebony Nicole Sonnier after three bodies 
were found in 2 different locations in Rapides Parish Oct. 18.

The prosecution claimed that what the defense sought in Ebony Nicole Sonnier's 
death penalty case is illegal, yet the defense countered that what the state 
wanted may violate the Pineville woman's constitutional rights.

The 2 sides were in court on Monday for arguments on a motion filed by the 
state which sought to keep the defense from filing ex parte requests for 
relief, which are motions filed by one side in a dispute for its benefit only. 
It also can cover hearings and court orders.

The defense had filed a memo in opposition to the motion.

The motion was filed in both Ebony Sonnier's case and that of her brother, 
29-year Matthew Sonnier. Both face the death penalty after their arrests in the 
October 2017 deaths of 3 Alexandria residents whose bodies were found in 2 
locations about 3 hours apart.

Ebony, 32, faces 2 counts of 1st-degree murder, 1 count of 2nd-degree murder 
and 2 counts of obstruction of justice. Matthew faces 3 counts of 1st-degree 
murder and 2 counts of obstruction of justice.

They are being tried separately in the deaths of 33-year-old Kendrick Dwann 
Horn, 28-year-old Jeremy Deon Norris and 42-year-old Latrice Renee White.

White's body was the 1st to be found on Oct. 18, lying on Melrose Street in 
Pineville. She had been stabbed.

The bodies of Horn and Norris were found hours later, wrapped in a pool liner 
that had been set on fire in a ditch on Old Boyce Road outside Alexandria.

Ninth Judicial District Court Judge Mary Lauve Doggett heard arguments Monday 
morning from Rapides Special Assistant District Attorney Lea R. Hall Jr. and 
defense attorney Dennis W. Moore.

Members of White's family sat in the 1st row of the gallery.

Hall told Doggett that the state had no objection to the content being sought 
and that the prosecution "would be happy" to provide that through the discovery 
process.

"They've gotta get that through discovery," he said. "That's just how it 
works."

But Moore countered that some of what the defense sought is personal 
information - Ebony's jail and medical records. It would violate her 
constitutional rights if the state got everything that the defense gathered.

He also alleged that the state was trying to find out what strategy the defense 
planned.

Both men cited several cases that have set precedent in the area, and Doggett 
conceded that it was "confusing." She took a recess for research, coming back 
to deliver her reasons for denying the motion.

She said there was no clear answer to the issue at this time. While she didn't 
prohibit the defense from filing such motions, she cautioned that it should not 
be abused.

In the end, the sides agreed that if such a motion is filed, notice will be 
given to the state. Doggett can review the issue and, if there's an objection, 
a contradictory hearing would be held.

Hall said he had no problem with that.

Much the same agreement was reached in Matthew Sonnier's case, which is being 
handled by ad hoc Judge Harry Randow. During his May 29 hearing, his defense 
attorney said she didn't foresee filing any such motions, but that it might 
become necessary.

Rapides Special Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland asked for notice when 
such motions are filed, and Randow deferred the motion.

Attorneys will have a telephone conference with Doggett in Ebony Sonnier's case 
on July 19. There are no hearings scheduled in Matthew Sonnier's case, 
according to Rapides Parish Clerk of Court records.

(source: thetowntalk.com)








ARKANSAS:

Federal Court Dismisses Judge's Lawsuit over Death Penalty Demonstration



A federal court dismissed a Pulaski County circuit judge's lawsuit against the 
state's highest court.

Judge Wendell Griffen sued the Arkansas Supreme Court last year after the 
justices barred him from hearing death penalty cases.

It all started on Good Friday 2017, when Griffen strapped himself to a cot in 
front of the governor's mansion. Earlier that day, the judge blocked the use of 
a lethal injection drug in the state's upcoming executions.

"We do not lose our humanity with the oath," Griffen said during an interview 
with Fox 16 the next day, April 15. "As a matter of fact, we can only take the 
oath because we are human."

Griffen, a baptist pastor, maintains he was portraying Jesus during a prayer 
vigil with members of his congregation. However, he wore an anti-death penalty 
pin while protesters surrounded him.

The Arkansas Supreme Court quickly barred the judge from considering any 
execution-related cases. Six months later, Griffen, with the cot in tow, 
announced at a press conference he would sue the justices.

"A judge has the right under the First Amendment to live out his or her faith 
without the government trying to tell them how to do it," he said.

Griffen resumed his spot on the cot in April 2018 for the 1-year anniversary of 
the state's 4 executions.

"We are still killing," the judge told reporters.

Now in July, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court where many 
Arkansas death row prisoners have fought for their lives, dismissed Griffen's 
lawsuit against the Supreme Court 2-1.

The panel of judges argued the order from the state's highest court did not 
violate Griffen's constitutional rights. Rather, it "reflects neutral 
principles applicable to all judges who exhibit potential for bias," wrote U.S. 
Circuit Judge Duane Benton.

However, Griffen's fight is still not over.

"We are not done here," his attorney, Mike Laux, tweeted.

Laux said he is preparing to petition the full 8th Circuit appeals court to 
review the case.

All of this is happening alongside a separate investigation by the Judicial 
Discipline and Disability Commission. The panel charged Griffen with ethics 
violations last month for his demonstration, which could result in his 
suspension or removal from the bench.

Griffen has asked the commission to dismiss its case against him.

(source: Fox News)

******************

Arkansas judge's suit over execution demonstration dismissed



A federal court has dismissed an Arkansas judge's lawsuit challenging his 
disqualification from execution-related cases over his participation in an 
anti-death penalty demonstration where he laid on a cot outside the governor's 
mansion.

A 3-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower ruling 
Monday that allowed Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen's lawsuit to 
proceed against the state Supreme Court's seven justices for prohibiting him 
from hearing death penalty cases. The justices disqualified Griffen after he 
participated in the demonstration the same day he blocked Arkansas from using a 
lethal injection drug over claims the company had been misled by the state. 
During the demonstration, Griffen was strapped to a cot and wearing an 
anti-death penalty button.

Griffen argued the disqualification violated his constitutional rights.

(source: Associated Press)

****************

Arkansas death-row inmates want to force Nebraska to turn over records



Attorneys for a group of Arkansas death-row inmates asked a U.S. District judge 
on Monday to force Nebraska to provide them information about where it got the 
fentanyl it wants to use in an upcoming execution here.

They are requesting oral arguments.

8 inmates on death row in Arkansas sued that state in April 2017 after they 
were scheduled to die in a 10-day period. By the end of the month, 4 of them 
had been put to death.

But 3 of those inmates and two others on that state's death row still have a 
pending case in federal court there challenging, among other things, Arkansas' 
use of midazolam in executions.

"Execution by firing squad would be a more humane and reliable means of death 
than the torturous chemical procedure defendants now use," argued their Little 
Rock attorney, John Williams.

He gave several examples, including Marcel Williams' execution in 2014, where 
it took 45 minutes for his Arkansas executioners to find a vein; and Joseph 
Wood gasping and snorting for nearly two hours after being injected with 
midazolam and hydromorphone before he finally died in 2014 in Arizona.

In court records filed last month, Williams contended a protocol that uses 
diazepam and fentanyl would "significantly reduce the substantial risk of pain 
and suffering inherent in the midazolam protocol."

He said Nevada and Nebraska both have obtained the drugs for use in executions.

In order to find out how Nebraska got its drugs, attorneys for the Arkansas 
inmates are seeking information the Nebraska prison has about fentanyl 
suppliers.

"Available information suggests that fentanyl is a more humane alternative to 
Arkansas' current use of midazolam, which has been linked to several executions 
in which inmates suffered prolonged, tortured deaths," their attorneys argued 
in a brief filed Monday in federal court in Lincoln.

In it, they contend information Nebraska has about its source is necessary to 
determine whether the drug could be made available to Arkansas for use in 
executions, a required element of their claim.

At stake, they say, is the right of at least 17 men to not be subjected to 
cruel and unusual punishment during their executions.

But the prison and the Nebraska attorney general's office have refused to 
provide it, they say. So they are seeking an order compelling them to comply 
under a subpoena issued in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

They are seeking documents or communications related in any way to Nebraska's 
efforts to obtain fentanyl for executions, including information about its 
current supply, when the state expects to obtain more and its source.

They also want to know what Nebraska knows about availability of fentanyl for 
use in executions and suppliers.

In a brief, the Arkansas attorneys said attorneys for Nebraska said information 
the state has would be irrelevant to the Arkansas lawsuit and providing it 
"would disrupt the (Nebraska prisons') ability to obtain fentanyl and other 
lethal injection substances from existing supplier(s)."

The AG's office also said, as it did in three other lawsuits filed in Lincoln 
seeking similar information under public records laws, that the information 
being sought was confidential under Nebraska laws.

Last month, a Lancaster County judge said information that didn't contain names 
of execution team members was public record and should be released.

The state is appealing that decision and hasn't turned over the information.

The AG's office will have 21 days to file an answer in the federal case.

(source: tribuneledgernews.com)








USA:

Justice Kennedy: He swung left on the death penalty but declined to swing for 
the fences



[Carol S. Steiker is the Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law and Faculty 
Co-Director of the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School. 
Jordan M. Steiker is the Judge Robert M Parker Endowed Chair in Law and 
Director of the Capital Punishment Center at the University of Texas at Austin 
School of Law.]

As in many other areas of the law, Justice Anthony Kennedy often provided the 
key 5th vote in death penalty cases during his 3 decades on the Supreme Court. 
Swinging to the right, Kennedy was a frequent supporter of restrictions on the 
availability of federal habeas review of capital cases, a skeptic of claims 
challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection and a relatively reliable 
vote against granting stays of execution in end-stage capital litigation. 
Kennedy will likely be remembered more, however, for his swings to the left, 
because he was the author of numerous opinions that broke new ground in the 
court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Most importantly, he was the primary 
architect of the court's proportionality doctrine that led to exemptions from 
the death penalty for offenders with intellectual disability, juvenile 
offenders and nonhomicide offenders. He also ultimately joined decisions 
embracing a broad right of capital defendants to present and have fully 
considered all relevant mitigating evidence. Finally, he was the 1st justice to 
raise concerns about the extensive use of solitary confinement on death row. 
Overall, he solidified the court's role in subjecting American death penalty 
practices to frequent and detailed - though not particularly intrusive - 
constitutional regulation. Kennedy never joined calls from members of the court 
(Justices Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg) to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty as a 
punishment, but his jurisprudential glosses on the court's proportionality 
doctrine arguably strengthen the case for judicial abolition.

In 1989, at the end of his 1st full term on the court, Kennedy joined majority 
opinions rejecting claims that offenders with intellectual disability and 
juvenile offenders should be categorically exempt from capital punishment under 
the Eighth Amendment. Many observers thought that these decisions represented 
the end of the road for proportionality challenges to the scope of the death 
penalty. But starting in 2003, the court's proportionality jurisprudence was 
expanded in a series of 5 key majority opinions, all of which were joined by 
Kennedy, and 3 of which he authored. The 1st, Atkins v. Virginia, authored by 
Stevens, overturned 1 of the 1989 decisions and declared the death penalty 
unconstitutional for offenders with intellectual disability. Stevens noted that 
16 states had outlawed the execution of offenders with intellectual disability 
between 1989 and 2003 and explained that the "consistency of the direction of 
change" suggested an emerging consensus against the practice. Stevens also 
noted in a footnote that there was "additional evidence" of "a much broader 
social and professional consensus" in the views of expert organizations, 
representatives of diverse religious communities, the world community and the 
general public as reflected in polling data - a footnote upon which Justice 
Antonin Scalia bestowed a sarcastic "Prize for the Court's Most Feeble Effort 
to fabricate 'national consensus.'"

2 years later, Kennedy built on Stevens' decision in Atkins when he authored 
the opinion for the court in Roper v. Simmons, overturning the second 1989 
decision and declaring the death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile 
offenders. The number of states rejecting the practice was identical to that in 
Atkins, and Kennedy doubled down on the "world opinion" aspect of Stevens' 
footnote, defending in ringing terms the relevance of international practice to 
constitutional decision-making: "It does not lessen our fidelity to the 
Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express 
affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply 
underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of 
freedom."

In 2008, Kennedy wrote for the court in Kennedy v. Louisiana, applying the 
Atkins/Simmons framework to reject the death penalty for offenders convicted of 
raping children. Only a handful of states had authorized death sentences in 
such cases, so the legislative nose count was quite lopsided against the 
practice. However, Kennedy wrote the opinion more broadly than the case 
required in 2 ways. First, he made clear that the holding was not limited to 
the crime of child rape but rather extended to all crimes against individual 
persons short of murder. Second, Kennedy rested the court's decision in part 
upon the troubling tensions within the court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence 
that had led Blackmun to call for the constitutional abolition of the death 
penalty in his dissent from denial of certiorari in Callins v. Collins shortly 
before his retirement. In Kennedy's view, the court's work was "not all 
together satisfactory" and thus called for "confining the instances in which 
capital punishment may be imposed."

The final 2 proportionality cases broke down the wall separating the Eighth 
Amendment's application in capital and noncapital cases. In 2010 in Graham v. 
Florida, Kennedy wrote for the court holding unconstitutional a sentence of 
life without parole (LWOP) for juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide 
crimes, applying the proportionality analysis that had been developed in 
Atkins, Simmons and Kennedy. 2 years later in Miller v. Alabama, Justice Elena 
Kagan extended Kennedy's analysis in Graham to preclude the mandatory 
imposition of an LWOP sentence on juvenile offenders convicted of homicide. 
Kagan built on Kennedy's reasoning likening the sentence of juvenile LWOP to 
the death penalty, because it is an unusually severe penalty and the harshest 
one constitutionally available for juveniles. These juvenile LWOP cases further 
entrenched and expanded the court's Eighth Amendment proportionality doctrine 
and for the 1st time suggested that it had application beyond the hermetic 
world of capital litigation.

In addition to crafting a substantial expansion of the court's proportionality 
doctrine, Kennedy also provided a key vote to strengthen the pre-existing 
requirement that defendants be permitted to introduce all relevant mitigating 
evidence in capital sentencing. When Kennedy arrived in 1988, the court was 
just beginning to wrestle with the tension between the 2 most conspicuous 
pillars of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence: the commitment to "guiding 
discretion" in sentencing proceedings to prevent arbitrariness, and the 
guarantee of "individualized sentencing" to ensure defendants could present 
(and have considered) all mitigating evidence that might support a sentence 
less than death. In 1989, the court held in Penry v. Lynaugh that the Texas 
death penalty statute that it had provisionally approved in 1976 was inadequate 
to facilitate consideration of a defendant's evidence of childhood abuse and 
intellectual disability. Kennedy joined Scalia's dissent, which argued that an 
expansive approach to individualized sentencing was inconsistent with the 
court's commitment to narrowing discretion in capital cases. The stakes of the 
case were high because Texas was emerging as the most active executing state in 
the country, and the decision threatened to reverse scores of death verdicts 
obtained under the challenged statute. Kennedy wrote a crucial decision a few 
years later in Johnson v. Texas narrowing the Penry majority's holding. He 
reasoned that states need only provide for "some" consideration of a 
defendant's mitigating evidence and need not ensure that such evidence is 
considered in all of its dimensions. That decision allowed Texas to continue 
its leading role in executions.

In a series of subsequent decisions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor urged a more 
robust reading of the individualization requirement, arguing that capital 
defendants should be afforded "full consideration" of their mitigating 
evidence. It wasn't constitutional, in her view, to limit consideration of a 
defendant's mitigating evidence to narrow questions concerning whether the 
defendant acted "deliberately" or whether the defendant would be dangerous in 
the future. Instead, states are required to provide a vehicle for jurors to 
consider mitigating evidence as it relates to a defendant's reduced moral 
culpability. Kennedy ultimately changed course and provided the crucial 5th 
vote in 2 2007 decisions, Brewer v. Quarterman and Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 
upholding this broader individualization right. Without Kennedy's change of 
heart, the court might well have resolved the tension between guidance and 
individualized sentencing by jettisoning the individualization requirement 
entirely.

Although Kennedy did not join others on the court in calling for a 
reconsideration of the death penalty as a punishment, he took a particular 
interest in a widespread aspect of its present administration - the housing of 
death-row inmates in solitary confinement. His interest in this issue was 
striking because it was not based on inmates challenging such incarceration in 
litigation before the court. During oral argument in 2015 in Davis v. Ayala, a 
case concerning race discrimination in jury selection, Kennedy seemingly out of 
the blue asked counsel about the nature of his client's death-row confinement, 
including how long the inmate was allowed outside of his cell. Kennedy 
ultimately provided the crucial 5th vote to overturn relief for the inmate on 
the race-discrimination ground, stating that his rejection of the inmate's 
claim was "unqualified." But he wrote separately in Ayala to call attention to 
the fact that the inmate had spent more than 25 years in solitary confinement 
on death row. He emphasized specific details of that confinement, including 
that the inmate's windowless cell that was no larger than a parking spot and 
that the inmate had little opportunity for interaction or conversation with 
anyone. Kennedy highlighted the "human toll" of such confinement, and asserted 
that despite its cruelty, the practice of solitary confinement had not been 
subject to adequate public scrutiny. He closed by quoting Dostoyevsky, who 
famously observed that "the degree of civilization in a society can be judged 
by entering its prisons."

Kennedy's concern about the cruelty of solitary confinement provides some 
support for Breyer's global attack on the death penalty, particularly Breyer's 
insistence in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross that the death penalty combined 
with lengthy solitary confinement amounts to double punishment that is both 
excessive and cruel. Indeed, Kennedy separately queried whether lengthy 
death-row confinement is consistent with "the purposes that the death penalty 
is designed to serve," raising the question of his own accord during oral 
argument in Hall v. Florida, another case not formally presenting the issue. 
Ultimately, though, in his refusal to unsettle the death penalty status quo, 
Kennedy seemed more inclined to gauge the degree of civilization in American 
society by its prisons than by its execution chambers.

(source: Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Justice Kennedy: He swung left on 
the death penalty but declined to swing for the fences, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 2, 
2018, 11:27 AM), 
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/justice-kennedy-he-swung-left-on-the-death-
penalty-but-declined-to-swing-for-the-fences/)