Death Penalty Law Research Guide - Yale Law School Library · Death Penalty Law Research Guide ... and jury instructions, aggravating ... Statutes at Large does not have an index

DeathPenaltyLawResearchGuide

1stEdition

JorgeXavierCamachoYaleLawSchool

AdvancedLegalResearch

Spring2008

TableofContents

I

I.Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

II.PrimarySources..................................................................................................................31.Introduction ...................................................................................................................................32.StatutesandLegislation .............................................................................................................4A.Introduction..................................................................................................................................................4B.PrintResources ...........................................................................................................................................5i.Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 5ii.StatutesatLarge ..................................................................................................................................................... 5iii.UnitedStatesCode................................................................................................................................................ 6a.GeneralIndex...................................................................................................................................................... 7b.PopularNamesIndex...................................................................................................................................... 8

iv.UnitedStatesCodeAnnotated(West).......................................................................................................... 9v.UnitedStatesCodeService(Lexis) ...............................................................................................................10vi.UnitedStatesCodeCongressionalandAdministrativeNews(West) ..........................................11vii.StateCodes,Statutes,andLegislation.......................................................................................................12

C.OnlineResources .....................................................................................................................................12i.Lexis‐Nexis................................................................................................................................................................12ii.Westlaw ....................................................................................................................................................................14

3.CaseLaw........................................................................................................................................ 17A.Introduction...............................................................................................................................................17B.PrintResources ........................................................................................................................................18i.FederalCourtReportersandDecisions .......................................................................................................18a.UnitedStatesSupremeCourt ....................................................................................................................181.UnitedStatesReports .............................................................................................................................182.SupremeCourtReporter(West)........................................................................................................193.UnitedStatesSupremeCourtReports,Lawyer’sEdition(Lexis) ........................................20

b.FederalDistrictandAppellateCourts ...................................................................................................231.FederalReporter(West) .......................................................................................................................232.FederalSupplement(West) .................................................................................................................24

ii.StateCourtReportersandDecisions ...........................................................................................................24a.OfficialReporters ............................................................................................................................................24b.WestNationalReporters .............................................................................................................................25

iii.LegalEncyclopedias...........................................................................................................................................25a.CorpusJurisSecundum ................................................................................................................................25b.AmericanJurisprudence..............................................................................................................................26c.AmericanLawReports .................................................................................................................................271.AmericanLawReportsSeries .............................................................................................................282.AmericanLawReportsFederal ..........................................................................................................29

C.OnlineResources .....................................................................................................................................30i.Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................30ii.Lexis‐Nexis ..............................................................................................................................................................32a.CaseResearch...................................................................................................................................................32b.Shepard’s............................................................................................................................................................34

iii.Westlaw...................................................................................................................................................................36a.CaseResearch...................................................................................................................................................36b.KeyCite ................................................................................................................................................................38

iv.HeinOnline..............................................................................................................................................................394.Procedure..................................................................................................................................... 415.JuryInstructions ........................................................................................................................ 43

III.SecondarySources......................................................................................................... 451.Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 452.Treatises ....................................................................................................................................... 46

TableofContents

II

A.Introduction...............................................................................................................................................46B.Westlaw .......................................................................................................................................................47C.Lexis‐Nexis..................................................................................................................................................49D.TheLegalInformationBuyer’sGuideandReferenceManual .............................................52

3.LawReviewArticles.................................................................................................................. 54A.Introduction...............................................................................................................................................54B.PrintSources .............................................................................................................................................54i.Morris .........................................................................................................................................................................54

C.OnlineSources ..........................................................................................................................................55i.Lexis‐Nexis................................................................................................................................................................55ii.Westlaw ....................................................................................................................................................................57iii.HeinOnline .............................................................................................................................................................59iv.OfficialJournalWebsites..................................................................................................................................60

4.LegislativeHistories ................................................................................................................. 625.Books ............................................................................................................................................. 64A.Introduction...............................................................................................................................................64B.Morris ...........................................................................................................................................................65C.Orbis ..............................................................................................................................................................66D.WorldCat .....................................................................................................................................................68

6.BNACriminalLawReporter ................................................................................................... 70IV.Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 72

Introduction

1

I.Introduction

Researchintothedeathpenaltyandcapitalpunishmentcanpotentiallycoverawide

rangeofsources,areasoflaw,andmedia.Thecomplexityofmoderndeathpenalty

jurisprudence,andthedisparitybetweenstateandfederalapproachestothedeath

penaltyhasresultedinthecreationofanareaoflawthatissimultaneouslybroad

anddeep.Issuesofdueprocess,cruelandunusualpunishment,statesovereignty,

habeascorpus,defendant’srights,prosecutorialdiscretion,victim’srights,and

proceduralfinalityaremerelysomeoftheissuesthatresearchintothedeath

penaltycancover.Additionally,deathpenaltylawisconstantlyaffectedby

statutorylaw,caselaw,andtheinterplayoffederallawandstatelaw.Withthese

complexlegalrelationshipsconstantlypushingandpullingeachother,itiseasyto

beinitiallyoverwhelmedbythethoughtofdelvingintothiscrucialareaofthelaw.

Thepurposeofthelegalresearchguideondeathpenaltylawistoeasethe

intimidationresearchersmayfeelandprovideasolidstartingpointforcapital

punishmentresearch.

Deathpenaltylawresearchmaybeapproachedinthesamewayasotherlegal

research.Usingacommonresearchpneumonicdevice,“TAPP,”deathpenalty

researchersmaybeabletosimplifyandfocustheirsearches,thusyieldingmore

relevantandaccurateresults,regardlessoftheresearchmedium(ie:print

resources,internetresources,etc.).“TAPP,”whichstandsfor“things,actions

(includingdefenses),people,andplaces,”maybeusedasawayofinitiallydividinga

searchbasedonitscontingentparts.Forexample,asearchonhabeascorpuslaw

foramentallyilldefendantconvictedofmurderinGeorgiaasrelatedtothedeath

penaltymaybeinitiallydividedasfollows:

T: habeascorpus,mentalillness

A: murder,insanitydefense

P: mentallyilldefendant

P: Georgia,U.S.CourtofAppealsforthe11thCircuit

Introduction

2

Whilethisschemetodividesearchesmayseemelementary,itcanbeveryhelpful

whenresearchingdeathpenaltylawusingcertainsources,notablyindexes,legal

encyclopedia,andonlinedatabases.Thisschememayalsobeusedtogetabetter

understandingofthescopeofasearch,aswellasthelikelyareasoffocus.For

example,knowingthatthisresearchqueryisfocusedonGeorgia,aresearcherwill

knowtoonlysourcesdealingdirectlywitheithertheStateofGeorgia,orthe11th

CircuitofwhichGeorgiaisaconstituent.Thiscanbehelpfulwhendealingwithvast

onlinedatabasesorprolificprintresources.

Thekeytoanysuccessfulsearchistonarrowandfocusthesearchandtoproperly

utilizeresearchmaterialstotheirhighestpotential.Thisguideisintendedto

provideanunderstandingofhowtodojustthat.

Otherpossiblesearchtermsdividedusingthe“TAPP”pneumonicmayinclude:

T: race,victimimpactstatements,collateralreview,directappeal,

federalhabeasreview,juriesandjuryinstructions,aggravating

factors,mitigatingfactors,futuredangerousness,Cokerv.Georgia,

Furmanv.Georgia,Atkinsv.Virginia,“deathisdifferent”

jurisprudence

A: incapacitation,(un)constitutionality,put‐uponrule,hearsay,post‐

convictioncounsel,rape,felonymurder,pleabargaining,

(in)effectivenessofcounsel,collateralreview,discrimination

P: juvenileoffenders,black/whitedefendants,mentallyretarded

defendants,accomplices,victims

P: federaldistrictcourts,statetrialcourts,U.S.SupremeCourt,state

supremecourts,federalappellatecourts,judicialcircuits,Georgia,

Texas,Virginia,Connecticut,California

PrimarySources

3

II.PrimarySources1.Introduction

Findingtherelevantlawonadeathpenaltyissuefromaprimarysourceisperhaps

themostimportanttaskforadeathpenaltyresearcher;itisalso,inmanyways,the

mostdifficulttask.

Deathpenaltylawcanvarywidelyfromstatetostate,federalcircuittofederal

circuit.Thedeathpenaltypracticesofstatesgenerallyandthefederalgovernment

generallyarealsodivergent.Innobetterwaythanbylookingattheletterofthelaw

inajurisdictioncanadeathpenaltyresearcherbestunderstandthewaycapital

punishmentoperateswithinthatparticularjurisdiction.

Thus,itisofcrucialimportancethatanydeathpenaltyresearchereffectivelylocates

themostrelevantlawonhisorherdeathpenaltysubject.Withoutaccurateand

relevantresultsintodeathpenaltylaw,adeathpenaltyresearcherwillbe

particularlyill‐equippedtoapproachlegalquestionsontheirsubject,sincedeath

penaltylawisaparticularlyvolatileareaofthelaw.

Thepurposeofthissectionistoprovideafoundationforapproachingboth

statutoryresearchandcaselawresearch,bothofwhicharevitaltoeffectivedeath

penaltylawresearchgenerally.Usingthe“TAPP”pneumonic,andnarrowingour

researchtospecificsearchesinlinewiththeparticularfactsofacase(ratherthan

generalsearches),wecanensurewestartoffontherightfootwithoursearch.

PrimarySources

4

2.StatutesandLegislation

A.Introduction

Statutesplayacentralroleindeathpenaltylaw,shapingtheproceduralrulesfor

deathpenaltycases,establishingthebaselineeligibilitystandardsfordefendants

(includingageandmentalcapacity),andoutliningtheuseofaggravatingand

mitigatingcircumstancesindeterminingwhetherdeath‐eligibledefendantsare

ultimatelysentencedtoexecution.

Statutoryresearchisthusofcentralimportancetopractitionersandacademics

alike,sincestatutesestablishesthefoundationuponwhichthedeathpenaltyis

carriedoutbystatesandthefederalgovernment.Statutesarealsoofcrucial

importanceinestablishingtheproceduralgroundsforshiftingcapitalcasesfrom

statecourtsandstatereviewtofederalhabeasandappellatereview.Withthe

doctrineofproceduraldefaultdominatingmuchoftheconsiderationofjudges

presidingovercapitalcases,itiscruciallyimportantthatresearchersunderstand

theproceduresinplaceatboththestatelevelandthefederallevel.No

understandingofthepertinentproceduralrulesiscompletewithoutfirstlookingat

theparticularstateandfederalstatutesthatestablishcapitalpunishment

procedure.

Statutoryresearchisalsoimportantforobservingthestandardssetinplacefor

determiningwhichcrimesreceivethedeathpenalty,andwhatthestandardsof

proofareformakingthosedeterminations.Onamerelyintellectuallevel,itis

curioustoseethedifferentstandardsinplacefordeatheligibilityindifferent

jurisdictions,andacademicresearcherswillfindthiskindofblack‐letterresearch

illuminating.

Clearly,statutoryresearchisnottheend‐allofdeathpenaltyresearch.Caselaw

playsanenormousroleintheinterpretationandapplicationofstatutorylaw,and

secondarysourcescanbehelpfulinilluminatingcertaincuriositiesaboutcapital

punishment.However,formostresearchers,statutoryresearchisthemost

PrimarySources

5

importanttask,andanyresearchershouldensurethatheorsheisdiligentin

lookingupanystatuterelevanttotheirsearchquery.

B.PrintResources

i.Introduction

Statutoryprintresourcesaretrulyundervaluedmaterials.Inmanyways,theyare

superiortotheironlinecounterparts.Conductingstatutoryresearchusingprint

resourcesischeaper,oftentimesquicker,andcanbemorefruitfulthansimilar

researchconductedonline.Effectiveuseofvariousindexes,whenavailable,can

helpresearchersquicklyfindrelevantmaterial.Evenforresearcherswhoareadept

withonlineresources,theymayfindusingprintresourcestobeamorepleasant

experience.Thebestwaytouseprintresourcesistocrossreferenceinformation

fromonesourceinanother.Forexample,lookingupinformationusingtheindexof

theofficialU.S.Code,andthencheckingtheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotatedorUnited

StatesCodeServicecanenhanceanyfederalstatutoryresearch.Cross‐referencing

differentsourcesisfurtherdiscussedinthesectionsbelow.All‐in‐all,researchers

shouldnotignoreprintresources.Infact,fordeathpenaltystatutoryresearch,

researchersmaywanttostartoutwithprintresourcessincedoingsowillhelp

researchersviewstatuteswithinthecontextofotherstatutesandotherCode

sections.Thiscangiveresearchersagreaterunderstandingofboththemeaning

andoperationofstatutes.

ii.StatutesatLarge

TheUnitedStatesStatutesatLargeisanofficialpublicationoftheUnitedStates

GovernmentPrintingOfficethatpublishesthefulltextofeverypubliclawpassedby

theUnitedStatesCongress.StatutespassedbyCongressarepublishedinthe

StatutesatLargelongbeforebeingcodifiedandpublishedintheUnitedStatesCode.

Assuch,theStatutesatLargeisamorerecentlyupdatedresourcethantheU.S.

Code.However,theStatutesatLargeisitselfbehindbyafewyears.Forthemost

up‐to‐dateinformationonfederalstatutorylaw,researchersshouldreferencethe

PrimarySources

6

UnitedStatesCodeCongressionalandAdministrativeNews(West),discussedon

page11.

Unfortunatelyforresearchers,theStatutesatLargedoesnothaveanindexordigest

volume.Assuch,theonlywaytofindinformationinitistoknowthePublicLaw

Numberofthestatuteyouareresearching,ortoknowduringwhichsessionof

Congressastatutewaspassedandtolookitupmanuallywithintheappropriate

volume.Becauseofthislimitation,theprintversionoftheStatutesatLargeisbest

usedwhencitingtoreferringtotheofficiallypublishedtextofastatuteisnecessary,

andwhentheresearcherknowspreciselywhatheorsheislookingup(namely,that

heorsheknowsthePublicLawNumberofthestatuteheorsheisresearching).

Assumingthataresearcherknowspreciselywhatheorsheislookingfor(ie:the

AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996,Pub.L.No.104‐132,110Stat.

1214),heorshecanlookuptheappropriatevolumeoftheStatutesatLargeand

findthefull,officialtextofthestatute,aswellascitationstothelegislativehistoryof

thestatute.TheStatutesatLargealsocontainsinformation,inthemarginsofthe

statute,thatindicatewhereeachsectionofthestatuteisorwillbecodifiedinthe

U.S.Code.Thisinformationcanbeusefulwhenconductingfurtherresearchintothe

statutesinceresearcherscancrossreferencetheCodesectionindicatedinthe

statutesatlargewitheithertheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotated(discussedatpage9)

ortheUnitedStatesCodeService(discussedatpage10),whichwillprovidemore

informationonthatparticularsectionofthestatute.BecausetheStatutesatLarge

donotprovidemuchmoreinformationthanwhathasbeendiscussedalreadyinthis

section,moststatutoryresearchshouldbeconductedusingotheravailable

resources.

iii.UnitedStatesCode

TheUnitedStatesCodeistheofficialstatutorycodeforfederallawintheUnited

States.NeweditionsoftheCodearepublishedroughlyeverysixyears,meaning

thatprintversionsoftheCodemaynotalwayscontainthemostup‐to‐date

PrimarySources

7

statutoryinformation.Formoreup‐to‐datestatutoryinformation,researchers

shouldrefertotheStatutesatLarge,discussedonpage5,andtheUnitedStates

CodeCongressionalandAdministrativeNews,discussedonpage11.TheCodealso

hassupplementalvolumeswhichincludemorerecentadditionstotheU.SCode.

Thesesupplementalvolumes,whichcontainupdatedindexesandpopularnames

tables,shouldbereferencedinadditiontothemainvolumesoftheCodeinorderto

ensureacomprehensivesearchoftheCode.

DespitetheinfrequencywithwhichtheofficialCodeisupdated,itremainsan

immenselyimportantresourceforstatutoryresearch.TheCodeitselfprovidesa

GeneralIndexandaPopularNamesIndexthatishelpfulinfindingrelevantsections

oftheCodeineverycategoryoffederalstatutorylaw.BecausetheCodeisdivided

intoanumberofTitles,eachcoveringaspecificareaoflaw,manystatutesare

brokenupamongthevariousTitles,especiallywhenthestatutestouchupon

diverseareasofthelaw.Forexample,whilemostdeathpenalty‐relatedstatutesare

codifiedwithinTitle18oftheCode(dealingwith“CrimesandCriminalProcedure”),

someportionsofstatutesarecodifedinTitle381(dealingwith“VeteransBenefits”),

amongothers.UsingtheGeneralIndexandthePopularNamesIndex,discussed

below,willhelpquicklyfindsectionsrelevanttofederaldeathpenaltylawthatmay

bescatteredthroughouttheCode.

a.GeneralIndex

TheGeneralIndexisawordindex,akintoWest’sDescriptiveWordIndex,that

allowsresearcherstofindCodesectionsbasedontheirsubjectmatter.Thesection

oftheGeneralIndexthatmostdirectlyrelatestothedeathpenaltyis,appropriately

enough,filedunder“DeathPenalty.”2WithinthissectionoftheGeneralIndex,

researcherscanfindanumberofsubtopics,eachreferringtoaspecificsectionofthe

1See,e.g.,38U.S.C.§1973;38U.S.C.§1954.2TheGeneralIndexsectionon“SentenceandPunishment”mayalsoincluderelevantinformation,howeverthesubsectiononthedeathpenaltyrefersbacktothe“DeathPenalty”section.

PrimarySources

8

Codethatcoversthatsubtopic.Forinstance,thesubsectionon“Aggravating

Factors”refersreadersto18U.S.C.§3592,theU.S.Codesectiononfederalstatutory

aggravatingandmitigatingfactors.AgreatwaytotakeadvantageoftheGeneral

IndexistofirstfindrelevantCodesectionsusingtheIndex,thenlookupthe

relevantCodesectionsineithertheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotated,ortheUnited

StatesCodeService.UnlessresearchersneedtorefertotheofficialCode

publication,lookingupCodesectionsineitherofthesetwounofficialpublications

cangreatlyenhancethefruitfulnessoftheresearcher’sefforts.

b.PopularNamesIndex

TheU.S.CodealsohasaPopularNamesIndexvolumeinwhichresearcherscanlook

upthepopularorshortformnamesofstatutes,andthenfindlimitedinformationon

thestatute,namelythePublicLawNumberandthecitationtothestatuteinthe

StatutesatLarge.ThePopularNamesIndexislocatedinthefinalvolumeoftheU.S.

Code,aswellasthefinalvolumeofU.S.Codesupplements.Itshouldbenotedthat

thePopularNamesIndexofthesupplementalvolumesoftheCodeincludethe

popularnamesonlyoftheactswithinthesupplement,anddonotincludethe

popularnamesofactswithinthemainvolumesoftheCode.Assuch,ifaresearcher

failsthefindalistingforastatutewithinthePopularNamesIndexoftheCode

supplement,heshouldrefertothePopularNamesIndexofthemainvolume,which

willincludetheremainderofthePopularNamesIndex.Forexample,researchers

willfailtofindalistingfortheAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof

1996inthePopularNamesIndexoftheCodesupplement,butwillfindalistingfor

theActinthePopularNamesIndexofthemainvolumeoftheCode.

BecauseofthelimitedutilityofthePopularNamesIndex,itisnotaterriblyvaluable

resourceforresearchers.Itsbestuseistofindstatutesbyname,whichwilllead

researcherstothestatute’scitationwithintheStatutesatLarge,aswellassome

limitedinformationonitscodificationwithintheU.S.Code.

PrimarySources

9

iv.UnitedStatesCodeAnnotated(West)

TheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotated(USCA)isapublicationproducedbyWestthat

includesthefulltextoftheentireU.S.Code,theU.S.Constitution,andvariousfederal

rules,includingannotationsandcommentariesonthemeaning,interpretation,

operation,andtreatmentofthosesources.Becauseoftheseannotations,theUSCA

ispreferabletotheofficialU.S.Codeforresearchpurposes.

LiketheU.S.Code,theUSCAmaintainsaGeneralIndexthatisusedinthesameway

astheofficialU.S.CodeGeneralIndex.TheUSCAGeneralIndexisorganized

alphabeticallybytopic,andjustlikeintheU.S.CodeGeneralIndex,themost

relevantsectionwithintheUSCAGeneralIndexisthe“DeathPenalty”section.3

Withinthissection,researcherscanfindanumberofsubtopicsdealingwithevery

issueregardingthedeathpenaltythathassomerelevantcodificationwithintheU.S.

Codeorwithinanyoftheaforementionedsources(ie:theU.S.Constitution,federal

rules,etc.).However,unlikeintheofficialU.S.Codeorofficialversionsofthe

Constitutionorfederalrules,theUSCAversionofthosesourcescontainsinvaluable

commentaryandannotationsthatcanpropelresearchforward.Forexample,the

USCAGeneralDigestsubsectionunder“DeathPenalty”ontheaggravatingfactors

forespionagerefersresearchersto18U.S.C.§3592.Lookingthissectionupinthe

USCAwillrevealthefulltextofthatsection,plusnotesonthevarioustreatmentof

thatsectionwithinthecourts.Forexample,onenoteindicatesthatthe“especially

heinous,atrocious,cruel,ordepraved”aggravatingfactorisnotunconstitutional

undereithertheFifthorEighthAmendments,andprovidesacitationtothecase

thatheldthatoutcome.4

3Isuspect,thoughhavenotconfirmed,thattheUSCAGeneralIndexisanearlyidenticalduplicationoftheofficialU.S.CodeGeneralIndex,butwithsomeadditionalcitationstoUSCA‐specificsections.418U.S.C.A.§3592note1(West2000)(citingU.S.v.Chanthadara,928F.Supp.1055(D.Kan.1996)).

PrimarySources

10

TheUSCAalsomaintainspocketpartupdates,soresearchersshouldbekeento

alwayschecktheinsideofthebackcoverofeveryUSCAvolumetheyreferenceto

ensurethattheygetthemostup‐to‐dateinformationandcommentaryonthe

sectionstheyresearched.

Finally,liketheU.S.Code,theUSCAmaintainsastatutorytablesindexinwhich

researcherscanlookupstatutesbypubliclawnumber,andfindwhereeachsection

ofthatlawhasbeencodified.LookinguptheAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeath

PenaltyAct,forexample,revealsthattheActhasbeencodifiedacrosstheentireU.S.

Code,withsectionsappearingunderTitles8,18,42,50,andothers.TheUSCA

statutorytablesindexcanthusbeveryhelpfulinpinpointingpreciselywhere

statuteshavebeencodified.

v.UnitedStatesCodeService(Lexis)

TheUnitedStatesCodeService(USCS),publishedbyLexis,isnearlyidenticaltothe

UnitedStatesCodeAnnotatedpublishbyWestinthatitprovidesannotationsand

commentaryforeverysectionoftheU.S.Code,aswellasfortheU.S.Constitution

andvariousfederalrules.Becauseoftheidenticalwayinwhichbothsourcesare

organized,andbecauseoftheidenticalpurposeandfunctionofboth,thissection

willnotconcernitselfwithhowtousetheUSCS,sincereaderscanusethesame

approachtousingtheUSCSasusingtheUSCA,discussedintheprevioussection

startingonpage9.Rather,thissectionwillonlystressthat,thoughthetwo

publicationsareorganizedinnearlyidenticalways,andthoughtheybothcontain

similarannotationsandinformation,theydonotprovideidenticalinformation.As

such,researcherswhocheckonesourceshouldinvariablychecktheother,since

theremaybedifferentinformationorcitationsprovidedineach.AswiththeUSCA,

theUSCSmaintainspocketpartupdatesattheendofeverymainvolume.

Researchersshouldneverfailtocheckthosepocketpartsforadditionalandmore

recentannotations.OnethingthatisdifferentintheUSCSisthattheUSCS

maintainsadditionalindexesattheendofeveryvolumepertainingtoaCodeTitle.

So,forexample,thefinalvolumeonTitle18containsawordindexspecificallyfor

PrimarySources

11

thatTitle.ThefinalvolumeforeveryCodeTitlecontainsaTitle‐specificindex,

whichcanhelpinnarrowingthescopeofasearchtoaspecificTitle.BecauseCode

Titlespertaintospecificareasofthelaw,theseTitle‐specificindexescanbehelpful

inlimitingasearchtotheareaoflawrepresentedintheTitle.However,notall

sectionsoftheCoderelevanttothedeathpenaltyarecodifiedwithinTitle18,for

example,sousingtheTitle‐specificindextolimitasearchtothatTitlemayresultin

incompletesearchresults.

vi.UnitedStatesCodeCongressionalandAdministrativeNews(West)

TheUnitedStatesCodeCongressionalandAdministrativeNews(USCCAN),

publishedbyWest,publishesfederallawspassedbyCongressandwhichare

normallypublishedintheStatutesatLarge.Themainkeydifferencebetweenthe

StatutesatLargeandUSCCANisthatUSCCANprovideslegislativehistoriesforthe

lawsitspublishes,whenavailable.USCCANisdividedintovolumespertainingto

specificcongressionalsessions.Thefinalvolumesforeverycongressionalsession

containlegislativehistorymaterialsforthestatutespassedwithinthatsession.For

example,thevolumeforthe1994FederalDeathPenaltyAct,Pub.L.No.103‐322

TitleVI,108Stat.1959,containsacitationtothelegislativehistoryoftheact,

locatedwithinthelegislativehistoryvolumeforthatcongressionalsession.The

USCCANlegislativehistoryvolumeforthe103rdCongressionalsession,during

whichthe1994FederalDeathPenaltyActwaspassed,containsroughlyeighty

pagesworthoflegislativehistorymaterials,includingcitationstothosematerials

andthefulltextofthosematerials.Forresearcherslookingintothedevelopment

andcreationoffederaldeathpenaltylaws,theselegislativematerialscanbe

invaluable.USCCANprovidesthebest(andreallyonly)compilationsoffederal

legislativehistorymaterialsinprintamongthesourcesdiscussedinthisguide.In

additiontolegislativehistorymaterials,USCCANprovidespopularnamesindexes,

statutorytables,andwordindexesforeachcongressionalsession.Thiscanbe

helpfulforfindingadditionalrelatedstatutespassedduringaparticular

congressionalsession.However,thereisnoindexcoveringtheentireUSCCAN

PrimarySources

12

collection.Assuch,USCCANisbestusedwhenresearchersknowpreciselywhat

theyarelookingforwithinaparticularvolumeorseriesofvolumes.

vii.StateCodes,Statutes,andLegislation

Statestatutorymaterialsarepublishedinmuchthesamewaythatfederalstatutory

materialsarepublished.Generally,therearecompilationsofstatestatuteswith

annotations,plusdigestsandindexesfornavigatingthroughthematerial.West

publishesmanyofthesestatestatutoryseries,andtheyareorganizedinmuchthe

samewaythatWest’sUnitedStatesCodeAnnotatedisorganized.Forthesereasons,

researcherscanusethesamemethodologyforapproachingstatestatutoryresearch

inprintasisdescribedinthesectionofthisguideonusingtheUnitedStatesCode

Annotated,startingonpage9.JustliketheUSCA,West’sstatestatutoryseries

includeannotatedversionsofthestateconstitutionandofstateproceduresand

rules.Theseresourcescanthusbetremendouslyhelpfulinfindingrelevant

statutorymaterials.Becauseeachstatutoryvolumeisdifferent,theycannotbe

effectivelydiscussedinfullinthissection.However,bylearninghowtonavigate

throughtheUSCAandotherfederalstatutorymaterials,researchersshouldfeel

comfortablewithconductingsimilarresearchusingstatestatutorymaterials.The

printresearchmaterialsforeachofthesejurisdictionsarenearlyidentical,soeven

unfamiliarstatestatutorymaterialscanbeeasilynavigatedusingfamiliarresearch

methodologies.

C.OnlineResources

i.Lexis‐Nexis

Lexis‐Nexismaintainsitsonlinestatutorydatabasesinthe“FederalLegal–U.S.”and

“StatesLegal–U.S.”sectionsonits“SearchbySource”page.Clickingonthe“Federal

Legal–U.S.”linkrevealsanumberofusefulresourcesfornavigatingthroughLexis’s

statutorymaterials,includingLexis’sownUnitedStatesCodeServiceandadatabase

fortheUnitedStatesStatutesatLarge.ClickingontheUnitedStatesCodeService

linkwillopenupthetableofcontentsfortheUnitedStatesCodeService,whichcan

PrimarySources

13

bemanuallybrowsed.Unfortunately,thereisnoindex,sonavigatingthroughthe

CodeServicecanbedifficultandfrustrating.

WhilethereisasearchfunctionforLexis’sCodeService,itdoesnotyielddesired

resultsasquicklyasWestlaw’ssearchfunction.Lexisallowsyoutoeithersearch

throughthetableofcontentsoftheUnitedStatesCodeService,ortosearchthrough

thetextofit.Asearchofthetableofcontentsislimitedsinceitonlysearches

throughthetitlesofeachofthecodesections.Assuch,evenwhenasimplesearch

for“death”isconducted,itproducesnumerousirrelevantresultssincetheissueof

deathappearsinanumberofCodesectionswhollyunrelatedtothedeathpenalty.

Amorespecificsearchfor“deathpenalty”yieldsnoresultsfromtheU.S.Codeatall.

ThebestbetaresearchhasistoconductasearchthroughthetextoftheCode

Serviceandtoevaluateeachsearchresultsindividually.Aswithanykindoftext‐

basedsearching,itisbesttobeasspecificaspossible.However,withthedifficulty

ofknowingwhichterminologytosearch,thiscanbeafrustratingeffort.

Unfortunately,theredoesnotseemtobeabetterwayofconductingstatutory

researchsince,again,thereisnoindextotheUnitedStatesCodeService.

NeitheristhereatableofcontentsfortheUnitedStatesStatutesatLargedatabase

thatLexismaintains.Thus,theonlyoptionforsearchingthroughthisdatabaseisto

conducttext‐basedsearches,whichispresentsallthedifficultiesassociatedwith

text‐basedsearching.Thebestwaytoovercomethedifficultiesassociatedwith

text‐basedsearchingistomakewiseuseofthefieldoptions.Forexample,usingthe

“Short‐Title”fieldoptioncoupledwiththeterm“AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeath

PenaltyAct”leadsdirectlytothefulltextoftheAEDPA.Enteringthatsearchterm

withoutthe“Short‐Title”fieldoptionyieldseightresults,theseventhofwhichisthe

actualtextoftheAEDPA.Thus,usingthefieldoptiongreatlyreducedtheworkload

involvedinfindingthemostrelevantmaterial.

Lexisalsomaintainsanextensivedatabaseonstatestatutesandcodes.Likethe

UnitedStatesCodeService,thestatecodesmaintainedbyLexisaregenerally

dividedbysubjectareasandthushavetablesofcontentsthatcanbebrowsed.In

PrimarySources

14

somestates,portionsrelevanttothedeathpenaltymaybeclassifiedunderthestate

PenalCode.Inotherstates,thoserelevantportionsmaybeclassifiedunderthe

stateCriminalCode.Accordingly,itisworthlookingatthetableofcontentsofthese

codesfirstratherthanconductingtext‐basedsearches,inordertoavoidthepitfalls

oftryingtofigureouttherightsynonymwhenconductingatext‐basedsearch(ie:

“capitalfelony”versus“capitaloffense,”etc).Generally,themostrelevantresults

willbeyieldedbyaperusalofthetableofcontentsratherthanatext‐basedsearch.

However,wheretext‐basedsearchesarenecessary,researchersshouldtake

advantageofthefieldoptionstopinpointthescopeofthesearchanddirectlytarget

theirqueries.

ii.Westlaw

FindingstatutesonWestlawisamucheasierendeavorthanfindingthemonLexis‐

Nexis.TofindastatuteonWestlaw,simplyselectthejurisdictionforwhichyou

wanttoconductstatutoryresearch(ie:AllFederal),andthenselect“StatutesIndex”

fromtheupperright‐handcornerofthesearchpage.Assumingwehadselected“All

Federal”asthejurisdictionwewereresearching,andwerenowattheStatutes

Indexpage,wecouldsearchthroughtheindextoseealloftherelevantfederal

statutescodifiedintheU.S.Code.TheStatutesIndexpageallowsforquick

searchingoftheindex,makingnavigatingthroughiteveneasier.Theindexis

arrangedalphabetically,andassuchentering“deathpenalty”inthesearchboxof

the“A”sectionoftheStatutesIndexpagewillimmediatelytakeyoutothe

AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996,oneofthemostimportant

federaldeathpenaltystatutesintheU.S.Code.Continuingthesearchwilltakeyou

to“CapitalOffenses”withinthe“C”sectionoftheindex,fromwhichresearcherscan

clickonthelinkandbedirectedtoacomprehensivelistofU.S.Codesections

touchinguponvariousaspectsoftheimpositionofthedeathpenalty,includingthe

PrimarySources

15

codesectionsgoverningaggravatingfactors,5capitalhabeascorpus,6andthe

impositionofdeathfortreason,7amongcountlessothers.

Westlawalsoofferssearchingforstatutesbypopularname,whichcanbehelpful

whensearchingforstatuteswhenthepopularnameofthestatuteisknownbutnot

itscitationorlocationwithintheU.S.Code.Thepopularnamesindexcanbe

accessedbyclickingonthe“Pop.NameTable”linkattheupperright‐handcornerof

thesearchscreenforstatutes.Containedwithinthepopularnamesindexisthe

AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996,thefulltextofwhichis

directlyaccessiblefromtheindex.

OtherfederalstatutematerialscanbefoundwithintheWestlawDirectory,and

includetheWestlawU.S.PublicLawsdatabases.Unfortunately,thereisnoonline

indexforthesedatabases,andtheycanonlybeaccessedbyconductingaterms

search.Thisposesanumberofdifficultiesforresearcherssinceevenasimple

searchfor“AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct”failedtoyieldthepublic

lawresultforthatcase.Rather,theyieldedresultsincludedsectionsofotherlaws

thatamendedpartsoftheAEDPA.Numerousvariationsweretried,including

“AEDPA,”“A.E.D.P.A.,”and“AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996,”

butnoneyieldedthefulltextofthepubliclaw.Interestinglyenough,thesearchdid

yieldpubliclawsthatwereenactedbythesameCongressandwhichwere

companionpiecestotheAEDPA.Evenwhenfieldoptionswerespecifiedduringthe

search(ie:searchingthroughthesummaryofthelawbyusingthesummaryfield

constrictor),thesearchdidnotyieldthetextoftheAEDPA.Theinabilityofthese

searchestoyieldsatisfactoryresultshighlightsonedisappointinglimitationofwhat

wasanotherwiseimpressivestatutorydatabase.

Statestatutescansimilarlybesearchedfor,eitherthroughtheirtableofcontentsor

throughtheStatutoryIndexforthatstate’scode,orboth,dependingonthestate.

518U.S.C.§3592.628U.S.C.2261etseq.718U.S.C.2381.

PrimarySources

16

Whenavailable,thetableofcontentsshouldbebrowsedfirstsinceitisusually

betterorganizedthantheindex.Bybrowsingthetableofcontents,youcanstart

withabroadtopicandthennarrowthefocusofthesearch.Withtheindex,mostof

thecategoriesarealreadynarrowed,resultinginamuchhighernumberof

categoriesinitiallydisplayed,whichcanbeoverwhelming.

PrimarySources

17

3.CaseLaw

A.Introduction

Ifstatutesprovidetheskeletonfordeathpenaltylaw,caselawcertainlyprovides

thebodyandlife.Withoutcaselaw,themeaningofdeathpenaltystatutesoutlining

standardsfordeath‐eligibilitywouldremainambiguous,andtherewouldbeno

indicationsastohowthedeathpenaltyactuallyoperateswithinajurisdiction.For

example,statutorylanguage,suchas“atrocious,heinous,orcruel”wouldbewithout

meaningintheabsenceofcaselawtointerpretandapplyit.Thus,caselaw

researchisanindispensiblecompaniontostatutoryresearch,andshouldbe

conductedwithasmuchdiligenceandthoroughness.

Aswithstatutoryresearch,itishighlyimportantthatcaselawresearchbefocused

onthespecificjurisdictionpertainingtothesearchquery.Thus,researchintostate

lawshouldbefirstconductedwithinthecaselawofthatspecificstate,followedby

caselawfromthefederalcircuittowhichthatstatebelongs,ifappropriate.

Additionally,U.S.SupremeCourtcaselawshouldbereferencedwhenevera

researcherisconductinganykindofresearchintofederalcaselaw,orwhenever

thereisanaspectofstatedeathpenaltylawthathasbeenchallengedon

constitutionalgrounds.Becauseeachfederalappellatecircuithasitsownunique

make‐upofjurisprudentialphilosophies,itmaybehelpfultoconductbroader

searchesintohowdifferentcircuitsinterpretfederallaw.However,thestarting

pointforfederalappellatelawshouldbecircuittowhichthestatesrelevanttothe

searchquerybelong.

Also,becauseofthefrequentlyshiftingnatureofcourtjurisprudence–bothatthe

stateandfederallevel–ondeathpenaltycaselawandlegislation,itisofvital

importancethatcasesbeproperlycheckedfortreatmentbyothercourts.This

sectionwilldiscusshowtousesomeofthemorecommoncitatorservicesprovided

byWestandLexis‐Nexistocheckfortreatment.Inaddition,thissectionwilldiscuss

howtoutilizecitatorservicestofindcaselawtreatmentofdeathpenaltystatutes.

PrimarySources

18

B.PrintResources

i.FederalCourtReportersandDecisions

a.UnitedStatesSupremeCourt

DecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtarepublishedinthreemainseries:the

UnitedStatesReports,theSupremeCourtReporter(West),andtheUnitedStates

SupremeCourtReports,Lawyer’sEdition(Lexis).TheUnitedStatesReportsarethe

officialpublicationofU.S.SupremeCourtcases,andtheSupremeCourtReporter

andtheSupremeCourtReports,Lawyer’sEditionareunofficialpublications.For

thisreason,theUnitedStatesReportsshouldbereferencedwhenresearchingthe

officialdecisionofcases;forotherresearchpurposes,theSupremeCourtReporter

andtheLawyer’sEditionshouldbereferenced.Thevalueofeachresourcetodeath

penaltyresearchiselaborateduponbelow.

1.UnitedStatesReports

AstheofficialpublicationofU.S.SupremeCourtcases,theUnitedStatesReports

shouldbethepublicationcitedtoinalllegalmaterials,whenavailable.However,

beyondthisuse,theUnitedStatesReportsarelessusefulforresearchpurposes.

Withineachvolume,theUnitedStatesReportscontainonlyanofficiallistof

presidingJustices,alistofU.S.SupremeCourtcasesincludedthevolume,atableof

casescitedbythecourtintheiropinionspublishedinthevolume,andatableof

statutescitedbythecourtintheiropinionspublishedinthevolume.TheUnited

StatesReportsalsoinclude,obviously,officiallypublishedCourtdecisions.For

exploratoryresearchpurposes,thesematerialsareoflittlevalue.Volume408ofthe

UnitedStatesReports,forexample,containsnoinformationwithinitthatwould

indicatethatFurmanv.Georgia,8publishedwithinitspages,isalandmarkdeath

penaltycase.TheonlywaytofindthisoutistofindFurmanandreadit.TheUnited

StatesReportsseriesdoesnotincludeanindexorencyclopedia,oranyother

8408U.S.238(1972)(declaringthedeathpenalty,aspracticedatthetimebyanumberofstates,unconstitutional).

PrimarySources

19

referencematerialsthantheonesalreadymentioned.Assuch,theUnitedStates

Reportsshouldbeavoidedforexploratoryresearchpurposes,andshouldonlybe

consultedwhenreferencingtheofficialpublicationforUnitedStatesSupremeCourt

casesisnecessary.

2.SupremeCourtReporter(West)

TheSupremeCourtReporter,publishedbyWest,containsatremendousamountof

information,thoughfindingthatinformationinvolvesafewmorestepsthanfinding

similarinformationusingLexis’sLawyer’sEdition.Nonetheless,theextraeffortis

worthit.

ToeffectivelyusetheSupremeCourtReporter,researchersshouldfirstusethe

DescriptiveWordIndexvolumeoftheSupremeCourtReporter.Thisvolume

containswithinitKeyNumbercitationsforspecificareasoflaw.Fordeathpenalty

researchers,thisvolumeisparticularlynecessarysincetheSupremeCourtReporter

Digestdoesnotcontainaspecificsectiondedicatedtodeathpenaltyissues.Rather,

virtuallyalloftheKeyNumbersrelatedtothedeathpenaltyarecontainedin

variouspartsoftheKeyNumberssectiononsentencingandpunishment,with

additionalKeyNumbersinthecriminallawandconstitutionallawsections.The

DescriptiveWordIndexvolumebringstogetherallofthesescatteredkeynumber

sections,eliminatingtheneedtopourovermultiplevolumesoftheSupremeCourt

ReporterDigestwhensearchingforrelevantmaterial.

TheDescriptiveWordIndexincludesasection,appropriatelyclassifiedunder

“DeathPenalty,”dedicatedtoKeyNumbersrelatingtodeathpenaltycases.These

KeyNumberstouchuponnearlyeveryconceivableareaofdeathpenaltylaw,

includingtopicssuchastheageofthevictimandoffender,thebrutalityofthe

offenseunderdeathpenaltylaw,futuredangerousnessoftheoffender,mental

healthissues,juryissues,proportionalityissues,andpost‐convictionrelief,amonga

multitudeofothertopics.Assuming,forexample,aresearcherwerelookingfor

informationonstatutorycreationofmitigatingfactors,theresearcherneedonly

PrimarySources

20

firstlookintheDescriptiveWordIndex,scanthe“DeathPenalty”sectionuntilheor

shefindsthesubsectiononStatutes,andthenfindsthesubtopicof“Aggravating

circumstances,creationanddefinition,”whichistiedtoKeyNumber1625ofthe

SentencingandPunishmentsectionoftheDigest.LookingupthatKeyNumberin

theDigestrevealsanumberofSupremeCourtcasesonthatissue,includingZantv.

Stephens,462U.S.862(1983);Proffittv.Florida,428U.S.242(1976);andAravev.

Creech,507U.S.463(1993),amongmanyothers.Thissectionalsocontainsbrief

summariesofthemainpointsoflawineachcase,andincludescitationstothe

officialUnitedStatesReportsvolumeinwhichthecasewaspublished,aswellasthe

SupremeCourtReporterandLawyer’sEditionvolumesinwhichthecaseis

published.

CasespublishedinthemainvolumesoftheSupremeCourtReporterinclude

summariesofthebackgroundofthecaseoftheholdinginthecase.Alsoincluded

arerelatedKeyNumbersthatsummarizeandcategorizethemainpointsoflawin

thecase.Casesarealsoaccompaniedbyasyllabuswhich,thoughnotanofficialpart

oftheopinion,areprovidedbytheReporterofDecisionsoftheCourtand

summarizethepostureandunderlyingreasoningbehindthecase.Finally,thereare

citationstopetitionerandrespondentbriefs,whenavailable,aswellasany

appendixesincludedintheopinionbytheCourt.

ThoughtheSupremeCourtReporterrequiresslightlymoreefforttonavigatethan

doestheLawyer’sEdition,itremainsanincrediblypowerfulresource.Researchers

shouldbeawarethatDigestvolumesandIndexvolumescontainpocketpartsthat

shouldalwaysbereferencedforupdatedmaterial.Additionally,thereareInterim

EditionsandpaperbackeditionsthatincludecasesfrommorerecentCourtterms

thathaveyettobepublishedinabound,hardbackedition.

3.UnitedStatesSupremeCourtReports,Lawyer’sEdition(Lexis)

TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtReports,Lawyer’sEdition(Lawyer’sEdition),

publishedbyLexis,isaninvaluableprintresourceforconductingresearchinto

PrimarySources

21

UnitedStatesSupremeCourtcasesdealingwiththedeathpenalty.Unlikethe

officialUnitedStatesReports,theLawyer’sEditionmaintainsanindexvolumethat

allowsresearcherstofindSupremeCourtcasesaccordingtolegalsubjectmatter

area.Theindex’ssectionon“CapitalOffensesandPunishment”isextensive.This

sectionincludesparallelcitationstotheofficialreporter,theLawyer’sEdition,and

theSupremeCourtReporterbyWestforanumberofdeathpenaltycases,including

thosedealingwiththeuseofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,burdensof

proof,commutationofsentence,civilrightsanddiscrimination,insanity,ineffective

assistanceofcounsel,andmany,manymoretopics.Thiskindofdetailed

cataloguingofSupremeCourtcasesisinvaluablefordeathpenaltyresearchers,who

willlikelyfindrelevantcaseswitheasebysimplyreferringtothisdigest.Theonly

downsidetotheindexisthat,whileitcontainscitationstocases,itdoesnotinclude

thenameofcases.Forexample,theindexcasecitationforthetopicof“Interracial

crime,defendantconstitutionallyentitledtohaveprospectivejurorsinformedof

raceofvictimandquestionedonracialbias”includesacitationto“90L.Ed.2d27,

476U.S.28,106S.Ct.1683”butdoesnotmentionthenameofthecase(Turnerv.

Murray)ortheyearinwhichthedecisionwaspublished(1986).However,the

indexdoescitetothefirstpageofthedecision,fromwhichthenameofthecasecan

beeasilygleaned.

TheLawyer’sEditionalsomaintainsaseparatedigestseries,separatefromthe

index,thatcontainsmoredetailedinformationthantheindex,includingcasenames

andsummaries.Whereastheindexiscontainedwithinonlyafewvolumes,the

digestispublishedinseveralvolumes.Thedigestalsocontainscross‐referencesto

relevantportionsofthedigestthattouchuponthesummarizedcase.Forexample,a

casemaybesummarizedinthe“CriminalLaw”sectionandcontainacross‐

referencetothe“ConstitutionalLaw”sectionofthedigest.Fordeathpenalty

researchers,themostrelevantsectionofthedigestiscontainedwithinthe“Criminal

Law”section,startingat§91,“(F)DeathSentence,”whichcontainsinformationon

SupremeCourtcasesdealingwitheveryaspectoffederaldeathpenaltycaselaw.

Digestvolumestypicallyhavepocketpartsthatshouldbereferencedforrecentness.

PrimarySources

22

OnceacaseisfoundintheappropriateLawyer’sEditionvolume,aplethoraof

supplementalinformationisincludedwiththedecisionofthecase,including

citationstopertinentAmericanJurisprudenceandAmericanLawReportssections,

citationstoLexisHeadnotestopicsandsubtopics,citationstopertinent

constitutionalprovisions,summariesoftheopinionsandholdingswithinthecase,

andmuchmoreinformation.Theendofeachvolumealsocontainsfurther

annotationsandbriefssubmittedforthecasesreportedinthevolume.However,

fullbriefsareavailableforonlysomeofthecases.Othercases,includingTurner,

haveonlysummariesofthebriefssubmittedforthatcase.Nonetheless,the

informationinthissupplementalsectioncanbeinvaluableforresearchers.

TheLawyer’sEditionalsomaintainsanumberofsupplementalvolumes,includinga

statutorytablesvolume,alatercaseservicevolume,andacitatorserviceand

correctionsvolume.Thestatutorytablesvolumeallowsresearcherstolookup

provisionsoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,theUnitedStatesCode,statutes

publishedintheStatutesatLarge,andvariousfederalrules,andreferenceSupreme

Courtcasesthatdealwiththoseareas.Fordeathpenaltyresearchers,thiscanbe

immenselyhelpfulsincearesearcherneedonlylookup,forexample,theEighth

AmendmentandinstantlybeabletoseecitationstoanumberofCourtcasesthat

dealwithit.Thelatercaseservicevolumecontainsupdatedinformationonthe

treatmentofcasespublishedwithincertainvolumesbyfuturecourts.Italso

containssomecommentaryandanalysis,andotherrelevantinformationfor

selectedvolumes.Thecitatorserviceandcorrectionsvolumeincludesupdated

informationonthetreatmentofcasesbyfuturecourts,aswellascorrected

informationforcasespublishedintheLawyer’sEdition.Becauseoftheimportance

ofhavingbothcorrectandup‐to‐dateinformation,thesesupplementalvolumes

shouldalwaysbeconsulted.

Finally,thereisaLawyer’sEditionAdvancevolumethatcontainsmorerecentcases

thathaveyettobepublishedinhardbackboundvolume.Forthemostrecentcourt

cases,theseAdvancevolumesshouldbeconsulted.

PrimarySources

23

b.FederalDistrictandAppellateCourts

1.FederalReporter(West)

TheFederalReporter,publishedbyWest,isthepredominantcasereporterforcases

fromtheFederalAppellateCourts,includingthevariouscircuitcourtsandthe

FederalCourtofClaims.EverycasepublishedwithintheFederalReporterhas

summariesofitsmainpointsoflawlistedbeforetheopinionofthecase.Each

summaryisassignedaKeyNumber,whichreflectshowthatsummaryhasbeen

classifiedwithinthecaseDigest.Mostofthecasesummariesthatpertaintodeath

penaltylawareclassifiedunderthe“SentencingandPunishment”KeyNumbers

topic.

ThebestwaytofindcasesistousetheFederalReporter’sDescriptiveWordIndex.

LiketheDescriptiveWordIndexfortheSupremeCourtReporter,theIndexforthe

FederalReporterallowsresearcherstolookuptopicsandfindtheKeyNumber

categoryunderwhichthattopicisclassified.InlinewithWest’spolicyofuniformity

initsKeyNumbersclassificationsystem,thesameKeyNumberspertainingtothe

deathpenaltyforSupremeCourtCasesalsopertaintothedeathpenaltyforother

federalcourtcases,includingthosereportedintheFederalReporter.Assuch,the

mostdirectlyrelevanttopicstothedeathpenaltyintheFederalReporter

DescriptiveWordIndexare,appropriatelyenough,locatedunder“DeathPenalty,”

justastheywereintheSupremeCourtReporterDescriptiveWordIndex.Under

“DeathPenalty”areanumberofsubtopics,eachpertainingtoaspecificareaof

deathpenaltycaselaw,including“aggravatingcircumstances,”“evidence

admissibility,”and“mentalcompetencyofdefendant,”amongcountlessothers.

NexttoeachsubtopicisareferencetotheKeyNumbercategorydirectlyrelatedto

thatsubtopic.OncearesearcherhasfoundaKeyNumber,heorshecanlookthat

KeyNumberupintheFederalPracticeDigest(West’sdigestfortheFederal

Reporterseries),whichcompilesalltherelevantpointoflawsummariesforthat

subtopicandliststhemalongsideoneanother,withdirectcitationstothecases

fromwhichtheycame.Thus,researcherscangetaquickglimpseintothemajor

PrimarySources

24

pointsoflawonaspecifictopicofthedeathpenalty,andproceedfurtherwiththeir

researchbylookingupthecitedcasesfromwhichthesummariesweretaken.

ResearchersshouldbeawarethatvolumesoftheDescriptiveWordIndexandofthe

FederalPracticeDigestcontainpocketpartsontheinsideofthebackcoverwhich

containupdatedKeyNumberreferencesandsummaries.Assuch,researchers

shouldalwaysrefertothesepocketpartsforthemostrecentinformation.

2.FederalSupplement(West)

TheFederalSupplement,publishedbyWest,publishescasesfromthenation’s

variousfederaldistrictcourts.LiketheFederalReporter,theFederalSupplementis

bestsearchedusingtheDescriptiveWordIndex,followedbytheFederalPractice

Digest(whichlistsbothdistrictcourtandcourtofappealsopinions).Becausethe

searchmethodologyfortheFederalSupplementisidenticaltothatusedforthe

FederalReporter,researchersshouldrefertotheprevioussection,startingatpage

23,formoredetailedinformationonfindingdeathpenalty‐relatedcasesinthe

FederalSupplement.

ii.StateCourtReportersandDecisions

Statecourtcasesarereportedinbothofficialstatereportersandthenational

reporterspublishedbyWest.Formanystates,casesareofficiallyandexclusively

publishedintheWestnationalreporters.Becauseeachstatehasadifferentpolicy

onwhereitsdecisionsareofficiallypublished,researchersshouldreferencethe

Bluebookorotherwiseverifywhichpublicationstocitewhencitingcases.For

researchpurposes,however,West’spublicationsaremuchmorepreferable,since

officialstatereportersnotpublishedbyWestgenerallydonothaveindexesorother

digestmaterialstohelpresearchersfindspecificcaselaw.

a.OfficialReporters

Asstatedabove,officialstatecasereportersaregenerallyunhelpfulwhenitcomes

toconductingcaselawresearchbecausefew,ifany,providedigestmaterialsor

PrimarySources

25

indexmaterialstohelpnavigatethroughthem.Therealimportanceofofficial

reporterscomefromthefactthattheycontaintheofficialprintingsofcaselawfor

theirrespectivestates,andthattheymayneedtobecitedoverallotherreporters

accordingtostandardBluebookcitationrules.Forexactinformationonwhich

reportersshouldbecitedtoforspecificstatesandjurisdictions,researchersshould

refertotheBluebookorofficialcitationguidelinesfortheirjurisdiction.

b.WestNationalReporters

Forresearchpurposes,nootherstatecasereporterprovidesbetterresourcesthan

West’snationalreporters.BecauseoftheuniformorganizationofWest’sKey

NumberssystemandDigestsystem,researchersshouldrefertothesectionon

conductingprintresearchusingtheFederalReporter,locatedonpage23,which

outlineshowtoconductcaseresearchusingWest’sprintmaterials.

iii.LegalEncyclopedias

a.CorpusJurisSecundum

CorpusJurisSecundum(CJS)operateslikemanyprimarysourcecompilationsin

thatthereisanaccompanyingtermsdigestinwhichresearcherscanlookuplegal

topicsandwhichprovidereferencestomainvolumesofCJSforpertinentcase

informationonthattopic.Thedigesttopicsmostrelevantfordeathpenalty

researcharelistedunder“CapitalOffenses”intheGeneralDigestofCJS.Topics

listedunder“CapitalOffenses”includetopicsdealingwithaggravatingfactors,

competency,andjuryissues.

OneconfusingaspectaboutusingCJSinprintfordeathpenaltyresearchisthatthe

referencesintheGeneralDigestseemedtoonlyvaguely,ifatall,relatetodeath

penaltycases.Somereferences,includingtheoneforaggravatingfactors,seemedto

refertosectionsofthedigestthathadabsolutelynothingtodowithcapitaloffenses,

orevenaggravatingcircumstances.Also,becauseCJSvolumesdonotcontain

volume‐specificindexesattheendofeachvolume,thereisnorealwaytoget

aroundthisdifficulty,asispossibleforAmericanJurisprudence(seesectionon

PrimarySources

26

AmericanJurisprudenceinprint,startingonpage26).Thesepeculiaritiesonly

exacerbatedthefactthatCJSseemstocontainonlyfewreferencestodeathpenalty‐

relatedtopicsinitsGeneralDigest.Forthesereasons,CJSinprintisnotthebest

secondarysourceavailablefordeathpenaltyresearch.However,itmaybewortha

lookifothersourcesyieldunsatisfactoryresults.Unfortunately,CJSisunlikelyto

providemuchmoreinformationthanwhatisalreadyincludedinothersources.CJS

maintainssupplementalvolumeupdatesforitsGeneralDigest,andpocketpart

updatesforitsmainvolumes.Researchersshouldalwaysrefertotheseupdated

materialswhenconductingresearchusingCJS.Becauseofthedifficultiesinusing

theprintversionofCJS,researchersarebetteroffusingotherprintresourcesfirst,

ortheonlineversionofCJSwhichdoesnotsufferfromthesameinaccuracies.

ForinformationonaccessingtheonlineversionofCJS,refertothesectionon

Westlawtreatisesatpage47.

b.AmericanJurisprudence

AmericanJurisprudence(AmJur)isalegalencyclopediaorganizedmuchinthesame

waythatCorpusJurisSecundumisorganized.TheAmJurseriesisacompilationof

legalcitationsandsummariesofcasesonawiderangeoflegaltopics.Normally,the

bestwaytonavigatethroughthisencyoclopediawouldbetousetheAmJurGeneral

Index,whichisarrangedalphabeticallybytopic.Themostrelevanttopicsinthe

Indexfordeathpenaltylawarelistedunder“CapitalOffensesandPunishment.”

Unfortunately,theAmJurGeneralIndex,liketheoneforCJS,isrifewithincorrect

referencesthatdonotleadtoaccurateinformationondeathpenaltylaw.For

example,thereferenceforaggravatingcircumstancesunder“CapitalOffensesand

Punishment”citestoasectionofthemainvolumethatpertainstotherighttoa

speedytrial,andwhichhasnothingtodowiththeissueofaggravating

circumstancesgenerally,oratall.Aninterestingcuriosityabouttheseinaccuracies

isthattheyarenotreproducedinthewordindexforeachofthemainvolumes.For

example,thewordindexforoneofthemainvolumesoncriminallawcontainsa

referencefor“aggravatingcircumstances”toasectionnotmentionedatallinthe

PrimarySources

27

GeneralIndex.Ashappenstobethecase,thereferenceinthemainvolumeindex

pointstothecorrectsectionofthatvolumedealingwithaggravatingcircumstances.

Thiscuriositypresentsbothanopportunityandadifficultforresearchers.The

opportunityisthatresearchersmaystillbeabletofindrelevantinformationin

AmJurdespitetheinaccuraciesoftheGeneralIndex.Thedifficultyisthatinorderto

findrelevantinformation,researcherswillhavetoindividuallysearchtheindexesof

eachAmJurvolume.Onewaytoreducethisburdenistofocusontheindexesfor

theAmJurvolumesdealingspecificallywithcriminallaworotherareasrelatedto

thedeathpenalty.However,becauseinformationfortheseareasmaybecontained

withinanumberofdifferentvolumes,thiscanstillrequiretremendouseffort.

BecauseofthedifficultyinusingAmJurforthereasonsdescribedabove,

researchersarebetteroffeitherusingotherresearchmaterialsfirst,orusingthe

onlineversionofAmJur,whichdoesnotsufferfromthesamedifficultiesastheprint

version.

ForinformationonaccessingtheonlineversionofAmericanJurisprudence,referto

thesectiononWestlawtreatisesatpage47,andthesectiononLexis‐Nexistreatises

onpage49.

c.AmericanLawReports

TheAmericanLawReports(ALR)areanimportantresourceinnearlyeveryareaof

law,includingdeathpenaltylaw.Theyincludedetailedanalysisofawiderangeof

issues,andincludeannotationsandcasecitationstohelpresearchersidentifyblack

letterlawontheirsubject.

Fordeathpenaltyresearchers,boththeALRSeriesreportersandtheALRFederal

reportersareofvalue.TheALRSeriesreporterscoverstatecases,whiletheALR

Federalreporterscoverfederalcases,includingthosefromdistrictandappellate

courts.ALRreportersalsoincludecitationstolegalencyclopediaresources,

includingtheAmericanJurisprudenceSeriesandCorpusJurisSecundum,whichare

discussedonpages26and25,respectively.

PrimarySources

28

AswithalldigestresourcesliketheAmericanLawReports,researchersshouldbe

keentoalwayscheckforpocketpartslocatedattheendofeveryvolume.Failingto

dosomayresultinretrievingoutdated,andthereforelargelyuselessmaterial.

ForinformationonaccessingtheonlineversionoftheAmericanLawReports,refer

tothesectiononWestlawtreatisesatpage47.

1.AmericanLawReportsSeries

TheAmericanLawReportsSeries(ALRSeries)coversstatecases,includingdeath

penaltycases.ThebestwaytomaneuverthroughthevastlibraryofALRSeries

volumesistofirstconsulttheALRSeriesDigest,typicallyshelvedimmediatelyafter

thefinalALRSeriesvolume.TheALRSeriesDigestisarrangedalphabeticallyby

areaoflawtopic.Fordeathpenaltyresearchers,themostimmediatelypertinent

sectionisfiledunder“CriminalLaw,”subsectionVI,“JudgmentorSentence;

Punishment.”9Thissubsectionisfurtherdividedintomorespecificsubtopicsonthe

issueofjudgmentandsentencing,including“CruelandUnusualPunishment,”

“PunishmentofSecondOffensesandHabitualCriminals,”“SuspensionorStayof

ImpositionorExecutionofSentence,”and“Parole;Probation;Reprieve;Pardon;

Commutation,”amongothers.Theonlysubsectioncontainingthewords“death

penalty”is“§181DeathPenaltyandModeofExecutingIt,”whichitselfonly

includesacitationtoAmericanJurisprudence.However,othersubsectionsciteto

theALRSeriesvolumes,whichcontaindirectcitationstostate‐specificcaselaw.

ResearchersshouldbeawarethattheALRSeriesVolumesdonotthemselves

containpocketpartswithupdatedmaterials.Rather,thereisaseparatelibraryof

supplementalALRSeriesmaterialscalledthe“ALRLaterCaseService”thatcontains

updatedcaselawfortheALRSeries.TheLaterCaseServiceisdividedintoa

numberofvolumes,eachprovidingupdatedinformationforaspecifiedrangeof

9TheALRSeriesDigestsectionon“SentenceandPunishment”refersresearcherstosubsectionVIoftheCriminalLawsectionwithoutprovidinganyadditionalcitationsorreferences,andthereisnoDigestsectionon“CapitalPunishment”or“DeathPenalty.”

PrimarySources

29

ALRSeriesvolumes.TheLaterCaseServicevolumesalsocontainpocketparts

withinthem,providingevenmorerecentlyupdatedinformation.Researchers

shouldbekeentoreferencethesesupplementalmaterialsalways.

2.AmericanLawReportsFederal

TheAmericanLawReportsFederal(ALRFederal)coversfederallawinthesame

waythattheALRSeriescoversstatelaw.LiketheALRSeries,theALRFederal

maintainsadigestwhichprovidesthebestresourceforfindingmaterialwithinthe

ALRFederalvolumes.TheALRFederalDigestisalsodividedalphabeticallybyarea

oflawtopic,themostrelevanttodeathpenaltylawbeingthe“CapitalOffensesand

Punishment”section.10Thissectioncoversanumberofsub‐areasofdeathpenalty

law,includingtheoperationofthe1994DeathPenaltyAct,theuseofaggravating

andmitigatingfactors,andtheissueofdeterrenteffectargumentsindeathpenalty

law.

TheALRFederalvolumesincludesummariesoftherelevantcaselawontheissue,

withcitationstobothcasesandothersupplementalmaterials,includingAmerican

Jurisprudence.Generally,theALRFederalcoversdeathpenaltytopicswithgreater

depththandoestheALRSeries.

TheALRFederalseriesalsocontainsanotherseparatelymaintaineddigestcalled

theALRFederalTablesdigest.Thisdigestcontainsanalphabetically‐arranged

listingofeverycaselistedintheALRFederal,withinformationonwhichALR

volumesandsectionsmentionsit.Forexample,lookingupFurmanv.Georgia11in

theALRFederalTablesdigestrevealsthatFurmanisdiscussedin6ALRFed2d213,

§13.

10TheALRFederalDigestsectionon“DeathPenalty”refersresearcherstothesectionon“CapitalOffensesandPunishment,”withoutprovidinganyadditionalinformationorreferences.11408U.S.238(1972)(declaringthedeathpenalty,aspracticedatthetimebyanumberofstates,unconstitutional).

PrimarySources

30

UnliketheALRSeries,eachALRFederalvolumecontainsitsownpocketpart,which

researchersshouldneverfailtoreferenceforupdatedmaterial.

C.OnlineResources

i.Introduction

Likestatutoryresearch,caseresearchinrecentyearshasbecomeincreasingly

digitized,andmoreandmoresourcesarebeingputonline.Someprintresources

areevenbecomingobsolete–namelycitatorslikeShepard’s–andarenowalmost

exclusivelyonlineresources.Becauseoftheeasewithwhichcasescanbelookedup

andShepardizedforvalidity,manyresearchersareturningprimarilytoonline

research.BecauseLexis‐NexisandWestlawofferconvenientlinkstootherrelated

materials,includinglinkstoonlinelegalencyclopediasandtreatises,itiseasytosee

whyonlineresearchisthepreferredmethodofresearchforsomanypeople.This

sectionisdedicatedtohelpingdeathpenaltyresearchersmaneuverthroughthese

onlinedatabasesforcaseresearch,andtohelpthemtakefulladvantageofthe

servicesofferedbytheseresources.

Toensurethatonlinecaseresearchyieldsthebestresults,wewillusetwoseminal

casesfromtheareaofdeathpenaltylawtohelpusmeasurethesuccessofthe

methodologypresentedbelow.Theideaisthatifweconductsearchesthatyield

thesecases,whicharecentraltodeathpenaltycaselaw,thenwecanbesurethat

theresearchmethodologypresentedbelowissoundandwillyieldaccurateand

relevantresults.ThetwotestcaseswillbeAtkinsv.Virginia12andCokerv.

Georgia.13Itshouldbenotedthat,usingtheTAPPpneumonic,wecanhelpguide

oursearch.Inthefirstinstance,wewillbelookingforfederalcaselawontheissue

12536U.S.304(2002)(holdingthattheexecutionofthementallyretardedviolatestheEighthAmendment’sbanoncruelandunusualpunishment).13433U.S.584(1977)(holdingthattheEighthAmendment’sbanoncruelandunusualpunishmentprecludedtheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyforthecrimeofrapeofanadultwomenwhenthevictimwasnotmurdered).

PrimarySources

31

oftheexecutionofmentallyretardeddefendants.Thus,ourTAPPcategoriesmay

looklikethis:

T: EighthAmendment,CruelandUnusualPunishment

A: executions,mentalincapacity,mentalretardationdefense

P: mentallyretardeddefendant,mentallyincapacitateddefendant

P: U.S.SupremeCourt,federalappellatecourts

Inthesecondinstance,wewillbelookingforfederalcaselawontheissueofthe

impositionofthedeathsentenceforadefendantconvictedonlyoftherapeofan

adultwoman.Thus,ourTAPPcategoriesmaylooklikethis:

T: CruelandUnusualPunishment

A: executions,proportionality

P: defendantconvictedofrape,rapevictimnotmurdered

P: U.S.SupremeCourt,federalappellatecourts

Bydividingthesearchqueryintothesecategorieswecangetabettersenseofwhat

thesearchmayentail,andwewillbebetterabletoidentifyrelevantcasemarkers

anddirectorytopicswithintheLexisandWestlawcaselawdirectories.

Asafinalnote,thesectionsonconductingonlinecaseresearchintoLexis‐Nexisand

Westlawaremeanttodemonstratehowcaselawresearchisbestdoneusingthese

onlineresourcesbyprovidingasamplesearchprocedureforfindingrelevantcase

law.Onlinecaselawresearchcanbeperformedanynumberofways,butthe

methodsdemonstratedinthesubsequentsectionsaregenerallytheeasiestways

andyieldthemostaccurateresults.Thehopeisthatbydemonstratinghowto

conductonesamplesearchineachoftheseresources,researcherswillbelearnhow

toconductsearchesforothertopics.

PrimarySources

32

ii.Lexis‐Nexis

a.CaseResearch

ThebestwaytostartoffwithcaseresearchonLexis‐NexisistouseitsHeadnotes

catalogue,whichoperatesinthesamewaythatanindextoalegalencyclopedia

does.ToaccessLexis’sHeadnotes,clickonthe“Search”tabnearthetopofthepage,

andthenclickonthe“byTopicorHeadnote”linkjustbelowthetab.TheHeadnotes

pagewillcontaintwosearchoptions.Thefirstistodoatext‐basedsearchfor

headnotes.ThesecondoptionistobrowsethroughLexis’sheadnotescatalogue.In

ordertoavoidthepitfallsoffindingtherightsearchphraseamonganearlyinfinite

numberofsynonymoussearchphrases,itisbesttostartoffbybrowsingthrough

theLexisheadnotescatalogue.

Thecatalogueisdividedintoanumberofdifferentareasoflaws.Themostclearly

relevantfordeathpenaltyresearchisthe“CriminalLaw&Procedure”headnote.

Clickingonthatheadnotewillopenupalistofsubtopicsrelatedtocriminallawand

procedure,manyofwhicharedirectlyrelevanttodeathpenaltylaw.Asampleof

relatedsubtopicsincludesCounsel,Juries&Jurors,Defenses,JuryInstructions,

PostconvictionProceedings,Appeals,HabeasCorpus,andmostobviously,

Sentencing.

Assumingweweresearchingforthefederalcaselawontheexecutionofmentally

retardedpersons,butdidnotknowthenameofthecontrollingcaseontheissue,

thiswouldLexis’sheadnotespageonCriminalLaw&Procedurewouldbeagreat

placetostart.Knowingthatweweredealingwiththeissueofsentencingmentally

retardedpersonstodeath,thebestplacetogoonthesubtopicspagewould

intuitivelybethe“Sentencing”subtopic.Pleasenote,whennavigatingthroughthe

subtopics,researchersshouldclickonthelittleplussignnexttothesubtopic,rather

thanclickingonthesubtopicitself.Clickingontheplussignwillopenupmore

subtopiclistings,whileclickingonthesubtopiclinkwillopenupasearchpage,

whichshouldnothappenuntiltheresearcherhasnarroweddowntheirheadnotes

totheheadnotemostdirectlyrelevanttotheirresearchquery.

PrimarySources

33

ClickingontheplussignnexttoSentencingwillopenupmoresubtopics,including

thesubtopicsof“Imposition,”“MentalIncapacity,”and“Proportionality,”allof

whicharepotentiallyrelevanttooursearchforthefederalcasecontrollingthe

impositionofthedeathpenaltyonmentallyretardedpersons.Beforeselectinga

headnotetosearch,itisbesttocontinueclickingontheplussignsnexttorelevant

headnotestoseeifitssubtopicsfurtherbringyouclosertothetopicofyoursearch

query.Forexample,clickingontheplussignnexttothe“Imposition”subtopic

revealssubtopicson“Evidence,”“Findings,”“StatutoryMaximums,”and“Victim

Statements,”amongothers,butnonethatseemdirectlyrelatedtotheissueof

executingmentallyretardeddefendants.Similarly,thesubtopicof“Proportionality”

hasnoplussignnexttoit,indicatingtherearenonarrowersubtopicsbeforethat

heading.Becausethe“MentalIncapacity”subtopicseemsmostdirectlyrelatedto

theissueoftheexecutionofthementallyretarded,thatiswhereweshallfocusour

search.Becausethereisnoplussignnexttothesubtopicof“MentalIncapacity,”we

mustclickonthesubtopiclinktocontinueoursearch.

Doingsowillopenupasearchpageinwhichweindicatethejurisdiction,sources,

andsearchtermswewanttosearch.Becauseweareinterestedonlyinfederalcase

law,weneedonlyindicate“Federal”asourjurisdiction,andbecausewearelooking

forthecontrollinglawonthematter,weneedonlyindicate“U.S.SupremeCourt

Cases,Lawyers’Edition”asthesourcewewillsearch.Finally,becauseweare

lookingforcaselawontheexecutionofmentallyretardedpersons,wecaninput

“mentallyretarded”or“mentalretardation”asoursearchterms,thoughsearch

termsareoptional.Inordertoavoidthepitfallsofsynonymoussearchterminology,

weshouldleavethe“SearchTerms”optionblank,andaddsearchtermsonlyifour

firstsearchdoesnotyieldsatisfactoryresults.

EnteringnosearchtermsyieldsovereightySupremeCourtcasesontheissueof

mentalincapacityandtheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Withouthavingtogo

backtotheprevioussearchpagetonarrowdownthesearchbyaddingsearch

terms,wecaninsteadusethe“FOCUS”searchboxnearthetopofthepage,which

willconductasearchthroughtheyieldedresults.Becauseitwouldbeoneroustogo

PrimarySources

34

througheachindividualcasetocheckitsrelevance,theFOCUSboxisagreat

resourcetohelpnarrowdownthesearchtothemostrelevantresults.Entering

“mentallyretarded”intotheFOCUSsearchboxreducesthenumberofyieldedcases

tojustundertwentycases,amuchmoremanageablequantityandonemoredirectly

relatedtooursearchquery.

Lexisprovidesan“Overview”statement,whichquicklysummarizesthecoreissues

andholdingoftheyieldedcases.Byreadingtheseoverviewstatements,researchers

canquicklydeterminetheusefulnessoftheyieldedcases,whicharearrangedby

descendingorderofrecentness.Readingtheoverviewsummariesofthefirsttwo

casesyieldedbyourFOCUSsearchindicatethattheyarenotdirectlyrelevanttoour

issue,whichistheconstitutionalityofexecutingthementallyretardedunderthe

EighthAmendment.However,theoverviewofthethirdyieldedcasereads:“Noting

anationalconsensusagainstimposingthedeathpenaltyonmentallyretarded

offenders,theCourtconcludedsuchpunishmentwasexcessiveandheldthatthe

EighthAmendmentrestrictsastate'spowertotakethelifeofasuchanoffender.”

Thiscaseisdirectlyrelevanttooursearchquery,andjustsohappenstobethecase

ofAtkinsv.Virginia,the2002U.S.SupremeCourtcasethatbannedtheimpositionof

thedeathpenaltyagainstmentallyretardeddefendants.Oursearchmethodology

seemstobesoundsinceityieldedtheseminalcaseonthisissue.However,our

researchisonlyhalfcompletedatthispoint.Thenextimportantstepistocheckthe

validityofthecasetoseeifitstillcarriesprecedentialweight.Forthis,weuse

Lexis’sShepard’scitator,discussedinthenextsection.

b.Shepard’s

Lexis‐Nexis’sonlinecitatoristheShepard’scitator,whichisperhapsthemostwell

knownlegalcitatorservice.Asmentionedintheintroductionofthissectionon

onlinecaseresearch,Lexishasintegrateditscitatorserviceintoitsonlinecase

researchsystem.Thismeansthatanytimeacaseappearsaspartofasearch,oris

lookedupdirectly,asmalliconwillappearnearitindicatingitssubsequent

PrimarySources

35

treatmentaslawbyothercourts.Dependingonthetreatmentofthecase,theicon

willchangetoeitherindicatepositivetreatment,negativetreatment,orneutral

treatment.Themostimportantfunctionoftheiconisthatitservesasalinktoview

thefullShepard’sreportonhowthecasehasbeentreatedaslaw.

TakingtheAtkinsv.Virginiacasethatwasyieldedinoursearchintheprevious

section,wecanseethatinboththesearchresultspagenexttothenameofthecase,

andnearthetopofthepagewhenthefulltextofthecaseisloaded,appearsasmall

rediconintheshapeofastopsign.ThisistheShepard’sicon,andthefactitis

currentlyintheshapeofaredhexagonindicatesthatthecasehasbeentreated

negativelybyfuturecourts.ClickingontheiconrevealsthefullShepard’sreportfor

Atkins,includingnegativetreatmentofthatcase.Becauseweareconcernedabout

federallawonthesubject,wewanttoseeiftheU.S.SupremeCourtreverseditsown

opinion,oriftheU.S.Congressenactedaconstitutionalamendmentsupersedingthe

Atkinsdecision(whichistheonlywayaU.S.SupremeCourtrulingontheU.S.

Constitutioncanbelegislativelyoverruled).TheShepard’sreportallowsustoview

theentirehistory,oronlythenegative,positive,orneutralhistory.Becausethe

negativehistoryiswhatmostconcernsus,wecanclickonthe“AllNeg”linknearthe

topofthepagetonarrowtheShepard’sreportaccordingly.Doingsowillshowthat

Atkinshasbeendistinguishedfrommanysubsequentcases,allonthelower

appellatelevelsandstatesupremecourtlevels.Nonetheless,neithertheU.S.

SupremeCourtnortheU.S.CongresshasoverruledAtkins,andassuchitremains

thecontrollinglawontheissueoftheconstitutionalityoftheexecutionofmentally

retardeddefendants.

Forthosepracticingatthelowerappellatelevel,findinghowthecasehasbeen

distinguishedbylowercourtsandstatesupremecourtscanbeimmensely

important,sincehowacasehasbeentreatedisvirtuallyasimportantaswhatthe

caseitselfsays.Shepard’sconvenientlydividesitssummaryreportbyjurisdiction,

sothatjurisdiction‐specificcasescanbeeasilyidentifiedandaccesseddirectlyfrom

theShepard’sreport.Assuch,theShepard’scitatoronLexisisaninvaluable

PrimarySources

36

resourceforresearchers,andcanserveasalaunchingpadforfurtherresearchinto

caselaw.

AnovelwaytofindpertinentcaselawusingShepard’sandothercitatorservicesis

toShepardizestatutesandotherlegislativematerials.Doingsowillbringupalistof

casesthatcitethestatuteinasummaryformatsimilartowhenacaseis

Shepardized.Thiscanbeatremendousresourceforresearcherslookingintoboth

statutorylawandthecaselawthatinterpretsit.

iii.Westlaw

a.CaseResearch

LikeLexis‐Nexis,Westlawmaintainsalawtopicsdirectoryfromwhichcase

researchisbestdone.CalledKeyNumbers,theWestlawsystemoperatesinmuch

thesamewaythatLexis’sHeadnotesfunction.KeyNumbersaredividedbysubject

matterarea,andcontainwiththemincreasinglynarrowersubtopicsthatcanhelp

focusaresearcher’ssearchefforts.AlsolikeLexis’sHeadnotes,Westlaw’sKey

Numberssystemisreallythebestwaytofindthemostrelevantcaselawonmost

anylegaltopics,includingthewidearrayoftopicswithindeathpenaltylaw.

ToaccessWestlaw’sKeyNumbersdirectory,firstgototheKeyNumberslinkatthe

topcenteroftheWestlawresearchpage,thenclickonthe“WestKeyNumberDigest

Outline”link.ThisopensuptheKeyNumbersdirectory,containingover450Key

Numbertopics.TheKeyNumbermostdirectlyrelatedtotheissueofdeathpenalty

lawisKeyNumber350H,“SentencingandPunishment.”Clickingontheplussign

nexttotheKeyNumberrevealsanumberofsubtopicsthataredifferentthanthe

subtopicscontainedwithLexis’sHeadNotesdirectory.TheyKeyNumbersubtopic

mostrelevantfordeathpenaltyresearchissubtopicVIIIofKeyNumber350H,

simplycalled“TheDeathPenalty.”Thissubtopicisfurtherdividedintonarrower

categories,including“PersonsEligible,”“FactorsAffectingImpositioninGeneral,”

“FactorsRelatedtoOffense,”“FactorsRelatedtoOffender,”“FactorsRelatedto

StatusofVictim,”“Proceedings,”and“ExecutionofSentenceofDeath.”Fromthese

PrimarySources

37

subtopics,whicharefurtherdividedintoevennarrowertopics,youcanfindmost

anyrelevantdeathpenaltycase.

Assumingweweredoingcaselawresearchintowhetheradefendantconvictedonly

oftherapeofanadultwomancouldbesentencedtodeath,forwhichCokerv.

Georgiawouldprovidethecontrollingcaselaw,weshouldbeabletofindthatcase

byfirstbrowsingthroughWestlaw’sKeyNumberdirectoryandthenconductinga

searchoncewehavefoundthenarrowestkeynumberrelevanttoourquery.

Tofurthernarrowthesearch,wecanproceedtoclickontheplussignnextto

“FactorsRelatedtoOffense,”sinceweareprimarilyinterestedinwhetherthedeath

sentencecanbeimposedonadefendantconvictedonlyofrape.Clickingtheplus

signrevealsevenmorenarrowedcategories,including“NatureofDegreeof

Offense,”whichseemstobethebestsuitedforfindingwhatthecaselawisonthe

deathpenaltyforrape.Clickingontheplussignnextto“NatureofDegreeof

Offense”revealstwomorecategories,“InGeneral,”and“Murder.”Sinceourcase

expresslydoesnotincludemurder,wecanconductoursearchusingthe“In

General”category.Tosearchacategory,firstclickonthecheckboxnexttothe

category,thenclick“SearchSelected”atthebottomofthepage.WhilemultipleKey

Numbercategoriesandsubcategoriescanbesearchedsimultaneously,researchers

shouldalwaysbeawarethatdoingsomayresultinagreaternumberofsearch

results,thusincreasingthelikelihoodthatirrelevantmaterialwillbeyielded.For

thisreason,itisadvisablethatsearchesfirstbeconductedwithinthenarrowestKey

Numbercategory,withotherrelatedcategoriesaddedonlyiftheinitialsearch

yieldsunsatisfactoryresults.

Clickingthe“SearchSelected”buttonwillopenasearchpagewhereresearcherscan

indicatethejurisdictiontheywanttosearchandwheretheyhavetheoptionof

includingsearchtermsrelatedtotheirquery.Researchersalsohavetheoptionof

searchingreferencematerialsaswell,thoughthiswillentailhighercostsfor

searchers.Finally,researcherscanchoosetoordertheyieldedresultsbytheir

recentness,orbyhowfrequentlycitedtheyhavebeen.Becausewearesearching

PrimarySources

38

forthecontrollinglawontheissueofrapeandtheimpositionofdeath,selecting

“MostCitedCases”isprobablythebetterorderingoption.Also,becauseoursearch

specificallyinvolvesrape,weshouldenter“rape”asasearchterm.Finally,sincewe

areinterestedonlyinthefederalcaselawonthematter,weshouldselect“Federal”

and“U.S.SupremeCourt”asourjurisdiction.

Conductingthesearchwiththesetermsyieldsonlyoneresult:Cokerv.Georgia.

Again,aswithconductingcaselawresearchonLexis‐Nexis,findingthecaseisonly

thefirststep.Thesecondstepistoensurethatthecaseisstillvalidauthority.For

this,Westlawprovidesitsowncitatorservice,calledKeyCite.Keyciteisdiscussed

below.

b.KeyCite

AswithLexis‐Nexis’sShepard’sservice,Westlaw’sKeyCiteserviceinsertsalittle

iconadjacenttoeverycasesearchresultandatthetopofthefulltextofeverycase.

Theicon,liketheShepard’sicononLexis,changesaccordingthehowthecasehas

beentreated.ForCoker,theKeyCiteiconindicatesthatithashadsomenegative

treatmentbyfuturecourts,buthasnotbeenoverruled.Clickingontheiconwill

leaddirectlytothefullKeyCitereport,whichindicatesthatCokerhasbeen

distinguishedbyanumberoflowerfederalappellatecourtsandbysomestate

supremecourts,butthatitsholdinghasnotbeentreatednegativelybytheU.S.

SupremeCourt,andthatithasnotbeensupersededbyanactofCongress.14As

14Atthetimeofthiswriting,theU.S.SupremeCourthadyettodecideonKennedyv.Louisiana,acaseinwhichtheCokerprecedentwouldbere‐examinedbytheCourt.DependingontheoutcomeofKennedy,theCokerdecisionmayormaynotcontinuetobethecontrollingcaselawstandardforthisissue.ThisfactonlyfurtherreinforcestheneedtodoputacasethroughacitatorservicelikeShepard’sorKeyCiteinordertofullyunderstandtheprecedentialauthorityofacase.Italsohighlightstheimportanceofkeepingup‐to‐dateonrelevantcurrentevents,sincenowhereintheKeyCitereportdoesitindicatethattheCokerdecisionisbeingre‐examinedbytheCourtinKennedy.Thishighlightsonelimitationofanycitatorservicereport.However,bothShepard’sandKeyCiteofferservicesthatalertuserswhenevertherehasbeenachangeinthesubsequenthistoryofacase.Forexample,

PrimarySources

39

such,Cokerremainsthecontrollingcaselawonthematterofwhetheradefendant

maybeexecutedfortherapeofanadultwomanwhoisnotkilled.

KeyCitealsoallowsuserstoviewagraphicalrepresentationofthehistoryofacase,

whichcanhelpusersvisualizehowthecasehasbeentreated.Normally,the

practicalvalueofthisfeaturedoesnotquitereachthenoveltyvalueofit,sincethe

graphicalviewofferslittleadvantageoverthestandardtextualKeyCitereport.

However,fordeathpenaltyresearch,thegraphicalviewmayhelpresearchers

betterunderstandtheproceduralhistoryofacase,sinceitneatlyproducesa

hierarchicalflowchartthatindicatesanykindofhabeasorparallelreviewbyother

courts,inadditiontoanyotherkindofrelevantcasehistory.Becauseitisof

tremendousimportancefordeathpenaltyresearcherstounderstandtheprocedural

postureofacase(giventhecentralroleplayedbybothstandardprocedureand

habeasprocedure,andtheuniqueinterminglingoffederalandstateproceduresin

deathpenaltycases),thisgraphicalrepresentationcanbehelpful.

LikeinLexis‐Nexis,anovelwaytofindpertinentcaselawusingKeyCiteisto

KeyCitestatutesandotherlegislativematerials.Doingsowillbringupalistofcases

thatcitethestatuteinasummaryformatsimilartowhenacaseisKeyCited.This

canbeatremendousresourceforresearcherslookingintobothstatutorylawand

thecaselawthatinterpretsit.

iv.HeinOnline

HeinOnlinemaintainsimagefilesofnearlyeveryvolumeoftheUnitedStates

Reports,theofficialcasepublicationoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Forthis

reason,HeinOnlinecanbeausefulresource.However,HeinOnline’ssearch

functionsareseverelylimitedascomparedtothemorerobustsearchcapabilitiesof

Lexis‐NexisandWestlaw,andassuchislessusefulforconductingcaselawresearch.

signingupforanalertforCokerwillensurethataresearcherisnotifiedifandwhenCokerisre‐examinedinKennedyoranyothercase.Thisfunctioncanbeinvaluableforkeepingup‐to‐dateonrelevantcaselaw.

PrimarySources

40

Forexample,searchingthroughHeinOnline’sholdingsyieldsonlythenameand

citationofcases,anddoesnotincludeanysummariesoftheholdingorany

overviewofthecase.Assuch,researcherswouldhavetoperformtheoneroustask

ofreadingthrougheveryyieldedresulttoassessitsrelevancetotheresearcher’s

query.Whileconductingasearchfor“deathpenaltyandrape”didyieldCokerv.

Georgiaasthesecondhit,withoutknowingbeforehandthatCokerwasthenameof

thecasethatprovidedthecontrollinglawonthatsubject,researcherswouldbe

forcedtoreadthroughthefirstyieldedresultbeforemovingontoCoker.Ifthe

resultshadbeenarrangedbyrecentness,theCokerdecisionwouldnothave

appeareduntilthenearendoftheresultspage,andtheresearcherwouldhavehad

towadethroughmanymoreirrelevantcases.Additionally,becauseHeinOnline

doesnotprovideacitatorservice,itisimpossibleforaresearcherusingHeinOnline

todeterminetheprecedentialauthorityofacasepulledup.Assuch,HeinOnlineis

bestusedasanarchiveforU.S.Reportsimages,ratherthanasaprimaryresearch

tool.

PrimarySources

41

4.Procedure

Becauseproceduresfortheadministrationofthedeathpenaltyvarywidelyfrom

jurisdictiontojurisdiction,itcanbedifficulttofindinformationonspecific

proceduralpractices.Forageneraloverviewofdeathpenaltyprocedure,

researchersshouldlooktoRandallCoyne’sandLynEntzeroth’sbook“Capital

PunishmentandtheJudicialProcess.”15Theirbookoffersinformationonawife

rangeofprocedure‐relatedissues,includingconstitutionallimitationsondeath

eligibility,theroleofaggravatingandmitigatingfactors,theuseofpsychiatric

experts,informationonfederalhabeascorpusreview,includinginformationon

statebarrierstofederalreview,andtheselectionofacapitaljury,amongother

topics.Becausecapitalproceduresarereallyanamalgamationofrelated

proceduresubiquitousinthelegalsystem,includingrulesofevidence,sentencing

rules,andothers,thissectionisdedicatedtofindingcompilationsofcourtrulesfor

specificjurisdictions,namelystates.Fromthisbasicguide,researchersshouldbe

abletofindtherelevantinformationtheyareseeking.

Lexis‐NexisandWestlawprovideproceduralmaterialonspecificjurisdictionson

theirdatabases.Lexis’ssourcesonjurisdiction‐specificproceduresaremaintained

inits“StatesLegal–U.S.”section,andaredividedbystate.Withaparticularstate’s

legalpage,courtrulescanbeaccessedbyselectingthe“FindStatutes,Regulations,

AdministrativeMaterials&CourtRules”link,andthenclicking“CourtRules”onthe

right‐handsideofthepage.DoingthisforTexas,forexample,willshowtheTX–

TexasState&FederalCourtRulessection,whichcontainsinformationonTexas

Staterulesofevidence,rulesofjudicialadministration,codeofjudicialconduct,

disciplinaryrulesofprofessionalconduct,andtherulesofdisciplinaryprocedure,

amongothers.Alsocontainedwithinthissourcearerulesontheselectionand

appointmentofcounselindeathpenaltycasesandrepresentationinstatedeath

penaltyhabeascorpusproceedingsunder28U.S.C.§2254.Thebestwayto

15RANDALLCOYNE&LYNENTZEROTH,CAPITALPUNISHMENTANDTHEJUDICIALPROCESS(2006).

PrimarySources

42

navigatethroughthesesourcesistobrowsethetableofcontentsofthesource,and,

ifnecessary,toconductasearchofthetableofcontentsratherthanasearchofthe

textofthesourceitself.Limitedsearchestothetableofcontentswillhelpwith

controllingtheaccuracyofyieldedresults,andwillalsohelpresearchersmore

quicklydetermineifthematerialtheyneediscontainedwithinthesource.

Westlawalsomaintainsawideselectionofcourtrules,accessiblefromtheWestlaw

Directoryunder“U.S.StateMaterials,”“U.S.States,”andthenwithintheindividual

statebeingresearched.Onceastatehasbeenselected,therelevantrulesand

materialsarelocatedwithinthe“CourtRules&Orders”link.Doingthisfor

California,forexample,willrevealtheCaliforniaCourtRulestreatise,amongother

potentiallyrelevanttreatises.AsonLexis‐Nexis,thebestwaytomaneuverthrough

thesesourcesistobrowsethroughtheirTableofContents.BrowsingtheTableof

ContentsoftheCaliforniaCourtRulestreatisewillrevealrulesofevidencefromthe

evidencecode,rulesfortheCaliforniaSupremeCourtandotherlowercourts,rules

fromthepenalcode,andotherrelevantrules.However,itshouldbenotedthatnot

allofthecourtrulesmaterialswillbebrowsable.TheCriminalJustice–California

CourtRulestreatise,forexample,doesnothaveaTableofContents.

PrimarySources

43

5.JuryInstructions

Theimportanceofjuryinstructionsindeathpenaltycasesisevidentfromthe

abundanceofcourtcasesregardingtheproprietyofcertainjuryinstructionsover

others.Assuch,itcanbeusefultoconductresearchintohowjuriesareinstructed

inordertogetabetterunderstandingofhowthedeathpenaltyisadministered.

Thebestwaytofindrelevantjuryinstructionsisthroughonlineresources,

particularlyLexis‐NexisandWestlaw.

LexisoffersfederaldeathpenaltyjuryinstructionsinitsModernFederalJury

Instructions–Criminaltreatise.Thetreatiseisaccessiblebyclickingthe“Briefs,

Motions,Pleadings,&Verdicts”linkonLexis,then“JuryInstructions,”“FederalJury

Instructions,”andfinally“ModernFederalJuryInstructions–Criminal.”Thebest

waytonavigatethroughthetreatiseistobrowsethroughthetableofcontents.The

deathpenaltyjuryinstructionisavailableunder“GeneralInstructions,”then

“Chapter9AFederalDeathPenalty.”Inthischapter,youcanreadsections

providinganintroductiontotheuseofjuryinstructionsfordeathpenaltycases,a

descriptionofthepenaltyphaseundertheFederalDeathPenaltyAct,asectionon

treatmentofintent,aggravatingfactors,andmitigatingfactors,informationon

determinationofsentences,andasamplespecialverdictform.

Lexisalsomaintainsalimitedselectionofsamplejuryinstructionsforstatedeath

penaltycases.ForCalifornia,forexample,LexisofferstheCaliforniaJury

InstructionsCriminaltreatise.Part8(I)(B)ofthistreatiseoffersanintroductionto

deathpenaltycasesinCalifornia,withsectionsonfindingsofmentalretardation

duringthepenaltyphase,factorsforconsideration,convictionofothercrimes,and

concludinginstructions,amongotherinformation.Unfortunately,Lexisoffersjury

instructionsforfewerthantwentydeathpenaltystates,andeventhensomestate

juryinstructionstreatises(includingtheoneforTexas)donotofferspecific

instructionsrelatedtodeathpenaltycases.ThusLexis’sofferingscanbehitormiss,

andarefarfromcomprehensive.However,theofferingstheydohavearevery

PrimarySources

44

valuablefordeathpenaltyresearcherslookingintodeathpenalty‐relatedjury

instructions.

WestlawmaintainsmanyofthesamejuryinstructionsholdingsasLexis‐Nexis,

includingtheabovementionedModernFederalJuryInstructions–Criminaland

CaliforniaJuryInstructionsCriminal.Thesejuryinstructiontreatisescanbefound

bygoingtotheWestlawDirectory,clickingonthe“Litigation”link,thenclickingon

the“JuryInstructions”link,andfinallybyclickingonthe“PatternJuryInstructions”

link.Anotherlinklocatedbelowtheoneforpatternjuryinstructions,titled“Jury

InstructionFilings”canalsobeusefulbecauseitincludesinstructionssubmittedin

actualcases,ratherthanthemodelinstructionsprovidedinthematerialsfromthe

patternjuryinstructionslisting.LikeLexis‐Nexis,Westlaworganizesitsmaterials

alphabeticallybyStatename.Lexis‐Nexismaintainsasimilarofferingofjury

instructionsfilingsforspecificstatesandjurisdictions.

LikeLexis,WestlawallowsforTableofContentsbrowsingofitsjuryinstruction

sources.Thismaynotbereadilyapparenttoresearchers,however,sinceclicking

onasourcewillautomaticallyopenasearchbox.However,intheupperright‐hand

partofthesearchscreen,thereisalinktotheTableofContentsofthesource.As

withsearchingonLexis‐Nexis,browsingtheTableofContentsofsourcesismuch

preferredtoconductingtext‐basedsearchessinceitallowsresearcherstoavoidthe

pitfallsofhavingtofigureoutwhichsynonymoussearchphraseswillyieldthebest

results,anditallowscost‐consciousresearcherstoavoidhavingtopayformultiple,

costlysearches.

SecondarySources

45

III.SecondarySources1.Introduction

Intheworldofdeathpenaltylaw,primarysourcesreignsupreme.However,

secondarysourcescanplayanimportantrolebothinunderstandingthe

progressionofcapitalpunishment,andinanalyzingcrucialissuesattheforefrontof

deathpenaltylaw.

Whiledeathpenaltylawlacksthekindsoflegaltitanswhosesecondarysources

materialsserveaspersuasiveauthorityforthepurposesofadjudication(thereare

noWigmoresorCorbinsforthedeathpenalty),secondarysourcesmaynonetheless

highlightcertaindevelopmentsorissuesconcerningthedeathpenaltythatcanbe

valuable.Forthepractitioner,secondarysourcesplayalimitedrole,butforthe

academic,secondarysourcescanbeimmenselyhelpfulinunderstandingdeath

penaltylawdoctrineandtheimpactandimplicationsofthedeathpenaltymore

generally.

Historiesandaccountsofthedeathpenaltycanbeincrediblyinformativeandmay

provideinsightsintothedevelopmentofpertinentlegaldoctrineandthesocial

developmentsthatinfluencedeathpenaltylawandjurisprudence.Books,law

reviewarticles,andlegislativehistoriescanproviderelevantbackgroundandcan

shedlightonthetrajectoryofdeathpenaltylaw.Forthisreason,secondarysources

canbeusefultodeathpenaltyresearchesofallstripes,evenifthepracticalvalueof

thesesourcesislimited.

Becauseofthediversearrayofsecondarysourcesthatdealwithcapital

punishment,navigatingthesesourcescanbedaunting.Thissectionisdevotedto

helpingdeathpenaltyresearcherswadethesecondarysourcewatersandfind

relevantsecondarymaterial.

SecondarySources

46

2.Treatises

A.Introduction

Unlikemorecommercialareasoflaw,suchascontracts,deathpenaltylawdoesnot

haveauthoritativetreatisesthatarereferencedandcitedbyjuristshasbeing

particularlyauthoritativeonthesubject.Thislikelystemsfromthecomplicated

natureofdeathpenaltylaw,andtheidiosyncraticapplicationofdeathpenaltylaw

fromjurisdictiontojurisdiction.Asfrequentlystatedthroughoutthisresearch

guide,jurisprudentialandlegislativephilosophiesonthedeathpenaltyvarygreatly,

andnosinglesourceisconsideredtobeauthoritative.

Nonetheless,therearesomesourcesthatremaindistinctfromothersourcesinthat

theyattempttoprovideaholisticviewofthestatusofdeathpenaltylawinAmerica,

asopposedtosimplyprovidinghistoriesorcritiquesofcapitalpunishment.Despite

notbeingincorporatedaspersuasiveorauthoritativesourcesthewayWigmoreand

Corbinhavebeenincorporatedintocontractlaw,Ibelievetherearesourceswhich

canbeconsidereddeathpenaltytreatises16insofarasthey“[deal]formallyand

systematicallywith[this]subject.”17Thissectionisdedicatedtofindingthose

sources.

Itshouldbenotedthatdeathpenaltylawtreatisesshouldnotbecitedasauthority,

persuasiveorotherwise,andshouldbeviewedasbackgroundsourcesthatprovide

insightandinformationintohowthedeathpenaltyworksinAmerica,andhow

deathpenaltyphilosophyisshapedandapplied.Deathpenaltytreatisesarebest

reservedforeitheracademicresearch,orforbackgroundresearchthatmayhelp

informapractitioner’slegalarguments.Theyshouldnotbetreatedaslegal

authoritiesinanyway.Properlyusingtreatiseswillhelpensurefruitfulresearch

andwillhelpresearchersavoidthemurkypitfallsofinappropriatelegalapplication.

16See,e.g.,THEDEATHPENALTYINAMERICA:CURRENTCONTROVERSIES,(HugoAdamBedeau,ed.,1997)17NewOxfordAmericanDictionarydefinitionofatreatise

SecondarySources

47

B.Westlaw

Westlawmaintainssomeveryhelpfultreatisesthatcover,interalia,deathpenalty

lawandprocedure.NotabletreatisesincludeWrightandMiller’sFederalPractice

andProcedure18,whichincludesrelevantsectionsonfederaldeathpenaltylaw,and

LaFaveetal’sCriminalProcedure,whichcontainsthoroughdiscussionsofcriminal

procedureandrelevantdeathpenaltycasesandissues.19

FindinglegaltreatisesonWestlawisalittletricky,sincethelistingofSecondary

Sourcesonthemainpagedoesnotcontainalinktolegaltreatises,andclickingthe

“Additionalmaterials”linkdoesnotrevealanytreatises.Rather,aswithother

resourcesonWestlaw,thebestwaytoaccessWestlaw’sextensivelistingoflegal

treatisesistoclickonthe“Directory”linkatthetop‐centerofthepage,andthento

clickonthe“Treatises,CLEs,PracticeGuides”link.Unfortunately,asthelinktitle

suggests,clickingonthe“Treatises,CLEs,PracticeGuides”linkwillrevealWestlaw’s

completelistingofthosesources,un‐separatedbysourcetype.Inotherwords,the

listingoftreatisesisinterspersedwithWestlaw’sofferingsofCLEmaterialsand

PracticeGuides.WhilethereisalinkthatallowsyoutoviewonlyWestlaw’slisting

ofCLEmaterialsandPracticeGuides,combined,thereisnolinkthatwillshowa

dedicatedlistingofonlytreatisematerials.

However,thereisalinkthatallowsresearcherstoconductasearchofallof

Westlaw’streatisematerials.Thelink,“TextsandTreatises”,opensupasearch

pagewhereresearcherscanconducteitheraTermsandConnectorssearchora

NaturalLanguageSearch.Aswithmosttextsearching,themostrelevantresultswill

beyieldedwhentheresearcherhasaspecificqueryinmind.Forexample,asearch

of“deathpenalty”willyieldfarmoreresultsthanamorespecificsearchwhich

includesinformationonthedefendant,thejurisdiction,thenatureofthecrime,and

thespecificissuetobeaddressed(ie:effectivenessofcounselormitigating

18CharlesAlanWrightandArthurR.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure(2008).19WayneR.LaFaveetal.,CriminalProcedure(2008).

SecondarySources

48

evidence).Textsearchesaregenerallynotrecommendedforsomeonewithouta

specificsearchqueryinmind,sincethepotentialforfruitlesssearchingishigh.

Becausethelanguageofdeathpenaltylawincludesmanyinterchangeable

synonyms,20fulltextsearchesshouldbereservedforwhenresearchersfully

understandthecontentofthesourcetheyaresearchingandthevocabularythatthe

sourceuses.

Becauseatextsearchofthe“TextsandTreatises”databasesearchesalargenumber

oftreatisesdealingwithdifferentareasoflaw,theresultsthatareyieldedmaybe

irrelevantorincongruouswiththeresearcher’sintendedquery.Forexample,

searchesofthe“TextsandTreatises”databasemayyieldresultsfromcriminal

proceduremanualsofspecificstates,oronjurisprudentialguidestospecific

jurisdictions.Becausethepotentialforalargenumberofirrelevantresultsishigh,

itisveryimportantthatthisdatabasebesearched(ifatall)withatightlycontrolled

andfocusedvocabularythatexpressestherelevantjurisdiction(ie:stateorfederal),

thespecificdefendantclass(ie:juvenilesorthementallyill),specificoffenses(ie:

firstdegreemurderorfelonymurder),andanyotherrelevantinformation(ie:

habeascorpusorinsanitydefense).Itisalwaysbesttostartwithahighlyfocused

searchandthenbroadenthesearchbyusinglessspecificvocabulary,ifneeded.

Doingthisgreatlyimprovestheprobabilitythatrelevantresultswillbeyielded

quickly,andallowstheresearchertoslowlybroadenthescopeofhisorhersearch

untiltherelevantmaterialisfound.

Anotherwaytonavigatethroughthetreatiselisttolookatthelistofsourcesonthe

“Treatises,CLEs,PracticeGuides”pageandexploretreatisesindividually.Whilethis

isnotthequickestmethodofgoingthroughthesesources,itdoesincreasethe

probabilitythatrelevantsearchresultswillbeyieldedsinceresearcherswillknow

exactlywhichsourcetheyaresearchingthrough.Inexploringthesesources

20Examplesofinterchangeablesynonymsinclude“deathpenalty”and“capitalpunishment”;“capitaloffense”and“capitalfelony”;and“mentallyill”and“mentallyincompetent,”amongothers.

SecondarySources

49

individually,itisbesttolookatthetableofcontentsforeachsource,ratherthan

conductingatextsearch,becauseofthedifficultyofknowingtheprecisevocabulary

thatwillyieldthebestresults.Tablesofcontentscanbeaccessedbyclickingonthe

TableofContentslinkattheupperright‐handpartofthepageafteratreatisehas

beenselected,thoughitshouldbenotedthatnotalltreatisematerialshaveatable

ofcontents.Additionally,browsingthetableofcontentsallowstheresearcherto

honeinontheexactinformationheorsheneeds,whilealsobeingableto

understandthecontextinwhichthatinformationisplacedwithinthesource.

Understandingthecontextwillhelpwithknowinghowtobestusethesource,and

mayhelptheresearcherfindadditionalinformationthatmightbecomerelevant

overthecourseoftheresearcher’sinvestigation.

AsamplingofotherrelevanttreatisesavailableonWestlawincludes:

• CriminalPracticeManual• FederalEvidence(Mueller&Kirkpatrick)• IndianaPracticeSeries–CriminalProcedurePretrial;IndianaPractice

Series–CriminalProcedureTrial• JurySelection:TheLaw,Art,andScienceofSelectingaJury• LegalEthics–TheLawyer’sDeskbookonProfessionalResponsibility;

LegalMalpractice• ManualonRecurringProblemsinCriminalTrials• CorpusJurisSecundum(CJS)• AmericanJurisprudence(AmJur)• West’sAmericanLawReports(A.L.R.)Digest• FederalPractice&Procedure

C.Lexis‐Nexis

Lexis‐Nexismaintainsadeepandextensiveonlinelibraryofdeathpenalty‐related

treatisematerials,thoughtheyremainlargelyhiddenfromview.Acursoryperusal

oftheirtreatiselibraryrevealslittlerelevantmaterialondeathpenaltylaw,buta

closerexaminationoftheirlegaltreatisesyieldsagreatdealofrelevantmaterial

usefulforacademicandpracticalpurposesalike.

FindingLexis’streatisematerialsposesthebiggestobstacle.Tofindtherelevant

materials,aresearchershouldfirstclickonthe“SecondaryLegal”linkonthe

SecondarySources

50

“SearchbySource”pageoftheLexisresearchsite.Then,clickonthe“AreaofLaw

Treatises”linknearthecenterofthe“SecondaryLegal”page.Clickingonthislink

opensupanintimidatinglylonglistoftreatiseguidesondifferentareasoflaw.The

researchermayimmediatelynoticethatnoneofthetreatiseguidesaredirectly

relatedtothedeathpenalty,capitalpunishment,orevensentencinglaw,whilenot

surprisinglytherearetreatisematerialsonmoregeneralareasoflawlikecontracts.

However,itisonthispageandwithinthelistedmaterialsthatdeathpenalty

researcherswillfindaveritabletreasuretroveofmaterials.Additionaltreatise

materialsmaybefoundbybrowsingthroughthevariousothersubsectionsofthe

SecondaryLegalsectionofLexis‐Nexis.Inparticular,the“Jurisprudences&

Encyclopedias”sectionhasalinktoAmericanJurisprudence,oneofthemostwidely

usedlegalencyclopediasandoneofthemosthelpfulforconductingdeathpenalty

research.

Whileitisimpracticaltoexploreeachrelevanttreatiseinthisguide,itisworth

exploringonetreatiseasanexampleofthekindofmaterialthatcanbeuncovered

fromthelistedmaterials.Thelistcontainsmanystate‐specifictreatisesthatdeal

withstatecaselawandjurisprudenceonspecificlegalissues.Manyofthelisted

sourcesdealwiththecriminallawofdeathpenaltystates,anditiswithinthese

treatisesthatdeathpenaltyresearcherswillfindtheirmostfruitfulresults.

Taking,forexample,theTexasSentencing21treatiselocatedonthetreatiselist,we

canfindagreatdealofinformationonmaterialsdealingwithcapitalpunishment

sentencinginthatstate.22Bybrowsingthistreatise’sTableofContents,wefirstfind

21MatthewBender&Co.(2007).22Becauseofthewide‐rangingvocabularyofdeathpenaltylaw,itmaybedifficulttofindpreciseinformationwithoutknowingthepreciselanguageadoptedbythewritersofthesetreatises.Forexample,someonemayfindnothingwhendoingasearchfor“capitaloffense”thoughmayfindagreatdealofinformationwhendoingasearchfor“capitalfelony”withinthesamesourcematerial.Forthisreason,itissuggestedthatdeathpenaltyresearchersfirstlookatthetableofcontentsforthesetreatisesratherthanproceedingimmediatelytoafull‐textsearchofthetreatise.Browsingthetableofcontentsmayhelparesearcherimmediatelyfindrelevant

SecondarySources

51

achapteron“PunishmentRanges”,andthenfindasub‐chapteron“Felony

Offenses.”Clickingonthe“FelonyOffenses”linkbringsustothetextofthatsub‐

chapteroftheTexasSentencingtreatise.Onthispage,agreatdealofinformationis

displayed.Toquicklyfindrelevantinformationoncapitalpunishment,itmay

helpfultoconductabrowsersearch/findforgenerallyrelatedmaterials.For

example,conductingabrowsersearchfortheterm“capital”bringsustothesection

ofthetextdealingwithcapitalfelonies.Asithappens,itisinthispartofthetext

wherethemostrelevantinformationondeathpenaltysentencinginTexaswillbe

foundwithinthistreatise.Thoughthetextofthe“CapitalFelony”sectionconsistsof

amerefewsentences,thesectiondoescitetofootnotesthatprovidefurther

information.Forexample,footnote7citestoaportionoftheTexasStateCodethat

dealsdirectlywiththedeathpenalty.Footnote8cites,interalia,tothelandmark

U.S.SupremeCourtcaseofRoperv.Simmons.23Footnote9includesinformationon

findinginformationonTexasdeathpenaltysentencingprocedure.Becausethis

treatiseisonline,thesefootnotescontaindirectlinkstothetextofthesecitations,

convenientlyallowingadeathpenaltyresearchtomovefromthissourcetoother

sourceswithintheLexisdatabase.Assuch,Lexis’sonlinetreatisescanserveas

goodstartingpointsfordeathpenalty‐relatedsearches.However,findingthis

informationcanbeburdensomebecauseitishidden.Assuch,researchersshould

beopen‐mindedandcreativewithhowtheyapproachsearchesconductedwithin

thesematerials.

material,whileconductingafull‐textsearchmayfrustrateboththeresearcherandhisorhersearchifpreciseandaccuratelanguageisnotusedinthesearch.Aswithalllegaldatabasesearches,ifaresearcherisconductingafull‐textsearch,itisbesttousepreciseandcontrolledvocabularywhenconductingasearch.ParticularlyusefulonLexisistheabilitytosearchfortermsthatappearwithinasetrangefromoneanother(ie:withinthesameparagraph,orwithinasetnumberofwordsfromoneanother).Properlyandeffectivelyusingthesesearchfunctionswillyieldmorerelevantresults.23543U.S.551(2005)

SecondarySources

52

BecauseLexis,likeWest,maintainsexclusivecontractstopublishspecifictreatises

online,itmaybehelpfulforadeathpenaltyresearchertoconsultbothonline

databases,ifpossible,sincesearchesineachdatabasemayyielddifferentresults.

AsamplingofotherrelevanttreatisesavailableonLexisincludes:

CaliforniaEvidenceCourtroomManual

CriminalJuryInstructionsfortheDistrictofColumbia

FloridaCriminalDefenseTrialManual;FloridaEvidenceManual

GeorgiaCriminalLawCaseFinder

KentuckyInstructionstoJuries–Criminal

Michie’sVAJurisprudenceonCriminalLaw;VirginiaEvidentiary

Foundations

AmericanJurisprudence(AmJur)

AmericanLawReports

D.TheLegalInformationBuyer’sGuideandReferenceManual

TheLegalInformationBuyer’sGuideandReferenceManualisareference

publicationwithcompiledinformationonbooks,treatises,andotherreference

materialscoveringawiderangeoflaw.Itisavailableatthelawschoollibrary

ReferenceDesk,aswellasLevel5ofthelibrary(thoughcheckMorrisforprecise

locationandavailability).

Initially,adeathpenaltyresearcherlookingatthisManualmaybepuzzledatwhyit

isincludedinthisresearchguidesincetheguidedoesnotcontainasection

dedicatedtothedeathpenalty,capitalpunishment,habeascorpus,general

punishment,orevensentencinglaw.WhiletheManualdoesomitinformationon

thosespecificareasoflaw,itnonethelessremainsveryusefulatcompiling

informationonotherareasoflawrelevanttodeathpenaltyresearch.

Specifically,theManualprovidesinformationontreatisesandreferencematerials

thatcoverstatecaselaw,statestatutorylaw,andstateprocedure.Forexample,the

SecondarySources

53

Manual’ssectiononTexascontainsinformationoncompilationsofTexasstate

codesandsessionlaws,24Texascourtreports,25Texascourtrules,26anddigests

coveringTexasstatejurisprudence.27TheManualcontainssimilarinformationfor

othercapitalpunishmentstates,includingAlabama,California,Florida,andGeorgia,

amongothers.

ManyofthematerialsreferencedintheManualareavailableattheYaleLawSchool

library,andmany(particularlymaterialspublishedbyWestandLexis‐Nexis)are

availableonline.WhiletheManualmaynotprovidedirectinformationondeath

penaltylawtreatises,itdoesprovideinformationontreatisescoveringrelatedareas

oflaw,includingprocedure,statutorylaw,andcaselaw.Assuch,forresearchers

whomaynotknowwhichsourcestoconsultontheseareasoflaw,itcanbe

valuable.

24VERNON’SANNOTATEDTEXASSTATUTESANDCODES(West).25TEXASCASES,1ST–TD.(WEST);SOUTHWESTERNREPORTER(West).26TEXASRULESOFCOURT:STATEANDFEDERAL(West);VERNON’STEXASRULESANNOTATED–CIVILPROCEDURE(West).27TEXASJURISPRUDENCE3D.(West).

SecondarySources

54

3.LawReviewArticles

A.Introduction

Lawreviewarticles,despitetheirtypicallyacademiccontentandaudience,canbeof

greatuseforbothacademicresearchersandpractitionersalike.Lawreviewarticles

relevanttodeathpenaltyresearchtouchuponawidearrayoflegalareas,including

criminallawandprocedure,jurisprudence,andtheory.Theycanprovidepositive

accountsofthelawasitistoday,ortheycanprovidevaluablehistoriesofhow

deathpenaltylawandrelatedareasoflawhavechangedovertime.Theycanhelp

identifycurrenttrendsindeathpenaltylaw,ortheycanpresentnormative

argumentsforhowdeathpenaltylawshouldbechangedoramended.Foralldeath

penaltyresearchers,lawreviewarticlescanbeveryvaluable.Thissectionis

dedicatedtohelpingdeathpenaltyresearchersfindthemostrelevantarticleson

theirresearcharea.

B.PrintSources

i.Morris

YaleLawSchoolmaintainsanextensive,thoughnotcompletecollectionofmany

majorlawreviews.UsingMorris,thelawschool’slibrarydatabase,youcanfind

bothelectronicresourceslinkingtolawreviews,andprintversionsofvariouslaw

reviews.

ThemostconvenientwaytofindlawjournalsusingMorrisistodoasearchforit

usingtheMorrissearchfunction.Simplytypethenameofthelawrevieworjournal

intothesearchbox,andselect“JournalTitle”fromthedropdownmenuorselect

the“JournalTitle”radiobutton,dependingonwhichscreenthesearchisbeing

conducted.Formanyjournals,therewillbesearchresultslinkingtoelectronic

resourcesforthesearchedjournal,aswellasprintresourcesindicatingthelibrary

locationanddaterangeindicatinghowfarbackthelawlibrary’scollectionrunsfor

thatparticularjournal.Electronicresourcesaredenotedbyacomputericon,and

SecondarySources

55

printedmaterialsaredenotedbyanopenbookiconwiththewords“printed

materials”appearingbeneath.

Researcherscanalsobrowsejournallistingsbyentering“lawreviews”intothe

searchboxandselectingthe“subjectmatter”option(orthe“subject”option,

dependingonthesearchpage)andhittingthesearchbutton.Pleasebeadvisedthat

searching“lawjournals”willyieldinaccurateresults.Thesearchresultsfor“law

reviews”willopenupanextensivelistingoflawreviewsdividedbygeographic

location.Assuch,thismethodofsearchingforlawreviewshouldbereservedfor

whenresearchersknowthegeographiclocationofthelawreviewtheyare

researching.Generally,thiswayoffindinglawreviewsisinefficient,and

researchersarebetterservedbydoingadirectsearchforthelawrevieworjournal

theyareresearching.

SpecificlawreviewarticlescannotbesearchedforusingMorris.Morris’slimited

functionalitydoesnotallowforjournalarticlesearching,andMorisisbestusedfor

findinglawjournalsthemselves,ratherthanthespecificarticlescontainedwithin

them.

Orbis,YaleUniversity’slibraryonlinedatabase,issimilarlylimitedinits

functionality,andsearchresultsforlawreviewsandjournalsaremirrorsof

searchesconductedonthelawschool’sdedicatedMorrissite.Assuch,itisbestto

useMorrisratherthanOrbis,sinceOrbis’slaw‐relatedholdingsarevirtuallyall

housedatthelawschoolorthelawschool’soffsitearchive,whichareallcatalogued

onMorris.

C.OnlineSources

i.Lexis‐Nexis

Lexismaintainsanextensivedatabaseoflawreviewandlawjournalarticles.

Availableunder“LawReviews&Journals”undertheir“SecondaryLegal”section,

Lexisallowsuserstoeithersearchgeneraljournaldatabases(suchasthe“USand

CanadianLawReviews,Combined”database),ormorespecificdatabases,suchas

SecondarySources

56

the“ABAJournal”database.Lexisalsoallowsuserstosearchdatabasescontaining

journalsarrangedbytopic,jurisdiction,orschool.

Forconductingresearch,thesedatabasescanbeveryhelpful.Searchesconducted

onthesedatabasesshouldbeapproachedasanyotherdatabasesearch,with

specificityoftermsbeingthekeytofindingaccurateandrelevantresults.Aswith

anyotherkindofdatabaseresearching,usersshouldbeawarethatdeathpenalty

lawinparticularisfilledwithinterchangeablesynonyms,whichcanmakefinding

relevantresultsparticularlydifficult.Forexample,searching“deathpenalty”with

yielddifferentresultsthansearching“capitalpunishment.”Similarly,searching

“capitaloffense”willyielddifferentresultsthansearching“capitalfelony”or“capital

crime.”

Also,inordertohelpfindthemostrelevantresults,itisbesttotakeadvantageof

Lexis’ssegmentsearching,whichallowsuserstosearchtermswithinthevarious

fieldsofthelawreviewarticle,includingthesummaryfieldandthetopicfield.

Thesetwofieldsinparticularcanbeveryhelpfulinnarrowingthenumberoflaw

reviewarticlesyieldedduringthesearchsincedoingageneraltermsand

connectorssearchornaturallanguagesearchwillyieldalllawreviewarticlesthat

containthephrases“deathpenalty”or“capitalpunishment”withinthetextofthe

article,evenifthearticledoesnothavetodoprimarilywiththattopic.

Alternatively,Lexisalsoallowsuserstosearchonlythetextofarticles,oronlythe

titlesofarticles.Byusingtherighttermsandconnectorsandtherightsegment

searches,researcherscanconstructveryspecificsearchqueriesthatmayyieldthe

bestresults.Forexample,searching

SUMMARY("deathpenalty"&"futuredangerousness")

yielded54results,allofwhichhaddirectlytodowiththeissueoffuture

dangerousnessindeathpenaltylaw.Similarly,searching

SUMMARY("capitalpunishment"&"futuredangerousness")

SecondarySources

57

yielded13results,eachhavingdirectlytodowiththeissueoffuturedangerousness

andcapitalpunishment.Thesesearchresultssimultaneouslyhighlightthe

importanceofusingtherightsegmentsearchestofindthemostrelevantmaterial,

andinconductingmultiplesearchesusingsynonymoustermsandphrasesinorder

tofindalargerquantityofmorerelevantmaterial.

Partofthekeytoconductingthemostsuccessfulsearchesistonotonlyenterthe

rightsearchterms,butalsotosearchtherightdatabases.Whileconductinga

generalsearchinthemostbroadjournaldatabasewillyieldalargenumberof

results,notalloftheresultsofthatsearchwillberelevant,andresearchersmayfind

themselveswadingthroughalotofirrelevantmaterial.Assuch,researchersshould

takeadvantageofthespecificityallowedbyLexisinsearchingdatabaseswith

narrowercoverage.Belowisalistofdatabasesthatareofparticularinterestto

deathpenaltyresearchers.Itshouldbekeptinmind,however,thatmanydeath

penalty‐relatedjournalarticlesarepublishedingenerallawreviews,liketheYale

LawJournalortheHarvardLawReview,sosearchesofdatabasesofgenerallaw

reviewscanbehelpful.However,topic‐specificdatabasesshouldalsobeexploited

fortheirclearrelevancetodeathpenaltylaw.

ParticularlyrelevantjournaldatabasesonLexisinclude:

ABACriminalJusticedatabase

LawPracticedatabase

ABAJournaldatabase

CriminalLawReviewArticlesdatabase

MilitaryLawReviews,Combineddatabase

ConstitutionalLawLawReviewsdatabase

ii.Westlaw

Westlawoffersasimilarjournalsearchdatabaseundertheir“SecondaryLegal”

section,thoughtheWestlawdirectoryoflawreviewdatabasesdoesnotoffer

databasesbasedontopicoflaworjurisdiction.Theresultisthatthenumberof

SecondarySources

58

searchabledatabasesislower,andthattherearefewerdatabasesofparticular

relevancetodeathpenaltyresearchers.However,Westlawdoesmaintainan

extensivegeneraldatabasethatcoversvirtuallyallofthejournalscoveredinthe

Lexisgeneraldatabase.

ThesameprinciplesapplyforWestlawastheydoforLexisandanykindofdatabase

searching:specificityiskey!Westlawalsoofferssegmentsearching,buttheir

offeringofsegmentfieldsisnotasextensiveasLexis’s.Theonlyavailablesegments

whensearchingWestlaw’sgeneraljournaldatabase–JournalsandLawReviews‐

US–arecitation,prelim,title,source,author,andtext.Becauseofthislimited

functionality,searchingWestlawfordeathpenalty‐relatedjournalarticlescanbea

moreinvolvedprocess,andcanbelessfruitful.ThefactthatWestlawalso

automaticallygroupssearchresultsbywhichjournaltheywerepublishedin,rather

thanbyrelevance,makesthesearchprocessmoregruelingthanonLexis,where

searchesareautomaticallysortedbyrelevance.

FindingtherightdatabasesonWestlawisalsolessintuitivethanonLexisbecause

clickingonthe“JournalsandLawReviews”linkonthemainsearchpagewillnot

openupthedirectorypage.Rather,thatlinkopensupasearchpage,whereyoucan

conductasearchofWestlaw’sgeneraljournaldatabase.Forthosewhoseekmore

precisionintheirsearches,orforthosewhoaresimplycost‐conscious,thiskindof

generalsearchingcanyieldagreateramountofirrelevantmaterial,andismore

expensivetoconductthanmorefocusedsearchesofspecificdatabases.Tofind

Westlaw’smorespecificdatabases,researchersshouldgototheWestlawDirectory

andthenclickonthe“LawReviews”linkunderthe“LegalPeriodical&Current

Awareness”section.Fromthispage,researcherscanbrowseWestlaw’sdatabase

offeringsforjournalsearching.However,journalsaredividedonlybyfirstletter

andstateoforigin.Therearenotopic‐specificjournaldatabases.

Forthesereasons,WestlawislesspreferablethanLexiswhenitcomestosearching

fordeathpenaltylawreviewarticles.Thelackoftopic‐specificdatabases,andthe

SecondarySources

59

lackofmoresegmentsearchoptionsmeansthatresearcherswillhavegreater

difficultyfindingarticlesusingWestlawthantheylikelywouldusingLexis.

iii.HeinOnline

HeinOnlinemaintainsanextensive,thoughincomplete,collectionoflawjournal

articlesfromnearlyeverymajorlawjournal.ThemainresearchpageofHeinOnline

includeslinkstotheirLawJournalLibrary,withsub‐linksto“AmericanBar

AssociationJournals,”“CoreU.S./MostCitedLawJournals,”“CriminalJustice

Journals,”and“Most‐CitedLawJournals,”amongothers.Forourpurposes,these

fourlinkswillbethemostdirectlyuseful.Allfourlinkswillleadtobothdirectories

ofthespecifiedlawjournaldatabase,andtoa“CitationNavigator”searchfunction

thatallowsforsearchingforarticlesbycitation.

Additionally,HeinOnlineoffersageneraltermssearchengineforsearchingthrough

itsvariousholdings.However,thissearchfunctionisnotnearlyasrobustasthe

searchfunctionsofferedbyLexisandWestlawfortheirdatabases.Whilethis

searchoptionisavailableforconductingjournaldatabasesearchesforallof

HeinOnline’sjournalholdings,forthesakeoffocusingthesearchandcontrollingthe

numberofyieldedsearchresults,itisadvisabletofirstclickononeofthefourlinks

mentionedabovebeforeconductingasearch.Thiscanhelpnarrowthesearchand

willhelpyieldmorerelevantresults.Tosearcheachdatabase,firstclickonthe

databasename(ie:clickonthe“AmericanBarAssociationJournals”link),andthen

clickonthe“Search”tabnearthetop‐leftofthepage.

Foreachdatabaselink,thiswillopenupasearchtoolthatallowsforeitherbasic

searching,oradvancedsearching.Aswithmostsearching,thebestsearchesare

conductedusingtheadvancedsearchfunction.HeinOnline’sadvancedsearch

functiondisplaysallthejournalsinthespecifieddatabase,andallowsforeither

individualsearchingofoneormultipledatabases,orforsearchingtheentire

catalogueofjournalsinthedatabase.Tonarrowdownthelistofyieldedresultsto

thosemostdirectlyappropriateforjournal‐relatedsearching,onlythe“Articles,”

SecondarySources

60

“Comments,”and“Notes”buttonsshouldbecheckedunder“SectionTypesTo

Search.”Totheextentthatbookreviewsmaybeimportanttotheresearcher’s

search,the“Reviews”optionmayalsobechecked.Thereisanoptiontoinclude

electronicallymaintainedjournalarticlesthatareheldoutsideoftheHeinOnline

database.Forthesakeofexpandingthescopeofthesearch,thisoptionshouldbe

checked.Forresearcherswhoonlywanttoyieldresultsthatarepublishedinprint

format,thisboxshouldbeunchecked.Keepinmind,themorepreciseoptionsthat

areset(ie:specifieddateranges,specifiedjournals,etc.),themoreprecisethe

yieldedresultswillbe.

Oncealloftherelevantoptionsarechecked,researchersmustchoosewhichsearch

termstheywillinput.Aswithalldatabasesearching,themoreprecisethelanguage,

thebettertheresults.Forexample,searching(“deathpenalty”&“Cokerv.Georgia”)

willyieldresultsdirectlyrelatedtothatcase,theissueofcruelandunusual

punishmentundertheEighthAmendmentforthecrimeofrape,andotherdirectly

relatedarticles.Alternatively,searchingjust“deathpenalty”orjust“Cokerv.

Georgia”willyielddifferentresultsthatmayormaynotbedirectlyrelatedtothe

researcher’sintendedquery.Foralistofpossiblesearchtermsthatcanhelp

narrowtheyieldedsearchresultstomoredirectlyrelevantmaterials,seetheTAPP

examplestableintheIntroductiontothisguide.28

iv.OfficialJournalWebsites

MostAmericanlawjournalsmaintainwebsites,ansomeincludearchivedand

searchableholdingsthatmaybevaluablefordeathpenaltyresearchers,particularly

becausemanyoftheseholdingsareaccessibleatnocost.Whilethebestlawjournal

searchingisconductedusingeitherLexis‐Nexis,Westlaw,orHeinOnline,

researchersmaynonethelessfinditusefultogodirectlytothewebsitesof

individuallawjournalsandconductsearchingthere.Eachjournal,however,hasa

differentpolicyonhowtomaintainitsholdingsandhowmuchoftheirarchiveto

28Seesupra,p.5.

SecondarySources

61

makeaccessibletothegeneralpublicforfree.Manyjournalsonlyprovide

informationonwhatisbeingpublishedinthecurrentissue,whileothersallowfor

full‐textaccesstoitsholdingsgoingbackmanyissues.

FindLawmaintainsanonlinelistingofAmericanLawReviewsandJournalsonits

website(availableathttp://stu.findlaw.com/journals/),andprovideslinkstolaw

reviewsdividedbymajorarea.Fordeathpenaltyresearch,themostimportant

journallistingsbysubjectmatterarelistingsforCivilRights,ConstitutionalLaw,

CriminalLaw,EthicsandProfessionalResponsibility,Forensics,Jurisprudence,and

Litigation.Theselistings,andtheGeneralLawReviewslisting,providelinkstothe

websitesofeachspecificlawjournal.

SecondarySources

62

4.LegislativeHistories

Aswithmostareasoflaw,findinglegislativehistoriesfordeathpenalty‐related

statutescanbedifficult.Legislativehistoriescarryvirtuallynopracticalweightin

theadministrationofcapitalpunishmentandinthedevelopmentofcapital

punishmentjurisprudence.However,theycanbeofvaluetoresearchers

conductinghistoricalresearchintothedevelopmentofstateandfederaldeath

penaltystatutes.Unfortunately,thereisnosingle,definitivesourceforlegislative

historymaterials.Eventhefederalgovernmentdoesnotregularlypublish

legislativematerialsinasinglesource,andassuchresearchintolegislativehistories

canbefrustrating.Statelegislativehistoriesareanearnightmaretonavigate

through,andmanycomeinunconventionalforms,includingnewspaperclippings

andaudiotapes.

Generally,thebestwaytofindlegislativehistoriesforstatutesistofirstfindthe

statuteitselfandseeifthesourcepublishingthestatuteincludesanyinformationon

legislativehistoryforthatstatute.29Commonstatutorypublications,suchasthe

UnitedStatesStatutesatLarge,theUnitedStatesCodeCongressionaland

AdministrativeNews(West)(USCCAN),andtheCongressionalInformationService

(CIS)oftenprovideinformationonhowtofindthelegislativehistoriesofstatutes,

whenavailable.Muchofthisinformationisavailableontheonlinecounterpartsto

thesepublications.

Forexample,Lexis‐NexisprovideslinkstoaCISlegislativehistorydocument30for

theAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct(AEDPA).31TheCISlegislative

documentfortheAEDPAprovidesinformationonrelatedCongressionalhearings,a

summaryofthemainpointsoftheAct,relatedbillssubmittedtoCongress,and

variouscitationstotheCongressionalRecord.Westlawsimilarlyprovides

legislativehistoryinformationontheironlinesite,andintheirprintpublications.

29Seesuprap.4forinformationonfindingstatutes.30104CISLegis.Hist.P.L.132.31Pub.L.No.104‐132,110Stat.1214(1996).

SecondarySources

63

HeinOnlinealsooffersalimitedselectionoflegislativehistorymaterialsintheir

onlineU.S.FederalLegislativeHistoryLibrary.Liketheirotherdatabases,this

databasemaybesearchedorbrowsed.Forthepurposesoffindingrelevant

materialsmorequickly,thelegislativehistoryinformationshouldbebrowsedfor

ratherthansearchedforwhentheresearcherhastherelevantinformationthat

wouldallowforeffectivebrowsing(namelytheCongressionalsessionnumberfor

thestatutetheyareresearching).Forexample,tofindlegislativehistory

informationontheAEDPA,aresearcherneedonlyclickonthe“SourcesofCompiled

LegislativeHistoryDatabase”link,clickonthe“104thCongress(1995‐96)”link,and

thenclickonthe“AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct”link.The

informationfortheAEDPAincludesprimarilylinksandcitationstovariousarticles

relatedtotheAEDPA.HeinOnline’slegislativehistoryholdingsarelimited,butcan

beainimportantresourceforresearchintothisarea.HeinOnlinemaintainsanother

legislativehistorydatabasecalledtheU.S.FederalLegislativeHistoryTitle

Collection,thoughitsholdingsareevenmorelimitedthanthatoftheSourcesof

CompiledLegislativeHistoryDatabase.Probablytheonlytangentiallyrelated

legislativehistoryprovidedintheTitleCollectionarethematerialsrelatedtothe

1964CivilRightsAct.32

Findinglegislativehistoryinformationforstatestatutescanbemoredifficult.

Luckily,theUniversityofIndianaSchoolofLawLibrarymaintainsresearchguides

onhowtoconductlegislativehistoryresearchforallfiftystates.33Becauseofthe

widelyvaryingdegreetowhichindividualstatesmaintainlegislativehistories,these

researchguidesareinvaluabletoanyresearcherconductingresearchinthisarea.

32Pub.L.No.88‐352,78Stat.241.33Theguidesareavailableathttp://www.law.indiana.edu/library/services/sta_leg.shtml.

SecondarySources

64

5.Books

A.Introduction

Asinmostareasoflawandlife,booksserveaveryimportantroleinproviding

usefulinformationandinsightintodeathpenaltylaw.Certainbooks,likeDavidM.

Oshinsky’s“WorseThanSlavery:ParchmanFarmandtheOrdealofJimCrow

Justice,”offercompellinghistoriesonthedevelopmentofdeathpenaltylaw,while

otherbookslikeKatherineNorgard’s“HardtoPlace:ACrimeofAlcohol”offer

accountsonmorenarrowlyfocusedaspectsofthedeathpenalty,inhercasethe

impactacapitalchargehasonadefendant’sfamily.

Thediverseofferingsofbooksondeathpenaltylawareatonceablessinginthat

theyprovidewide‐rangingandfruitfuldiscussionsofmanydifferentareasoflaw,

andalsoaburdeninthattheavailabilityofsomanychoicescanposedifficultiesfor

researcherswadingthroughallthesebooksinsearchofthebestsources.This

sectionisdedicatedtohelpdeathpenaltyresearchersnavigatethewidearrayof

bookofferingsandfindthebestmaterialsrelatedtotheirspecificdeathpenalty

researcharea.

Assuch,thissectionwillnotexplainhowtofindspecificsources(ie:howtoconduct

asearchforaspecifictitle),sincehowtoconductthiskindofsearchisusually

evidentonanylibrarydatabase.Rather,thissectionismoreconcernedwith

searchingforbooksbysubjectmatterandfindingthemostrelevantresults.

Aswithallkeywordandsubjectmattersearching,deathpenaltyresearcherscan

finditparticularlydifficulttofindrelevantresultsgiventheseeminglyendless

numberofsynonymoussearchterms.Thebestwaytoovercomethisdifficultyisto

beaspreciseaspossibleinconstructingsearchterms,andtotakeadvantageof

Booleanconnectorsinordertofocussearches.Booleanfunctionalityisavailableon

Morris,Orbis,andWorldcat,andshouldbeexploitedinordertoimprovethe

accuracyandrelevanceofbooksearches.

SecondarySources

65

Finally,itshouldbenotedthatagreatstartingplaceforfindingexcellentbookson

variousareasofcapitalpunishmentistheDeathPenaltyInformationCenter’sbook

list,availableathttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/under“Resources,”then

“Books.”TheCenter’sbooklistisconvenientlydividedbysub‐topic,including

booksonclemency,costsassociatedwiththedeathpenalty,mentalillnessand

mentalretardation,innocence,moralandreligiousissuesconcerningthedeath

penalty,andtheimpactofthedeathpenaltyondefendantsandtheirfamilies.For

anydeathpenaltyresearcherlookingforrelevantbooks,theCenter’slistmayoffer

somegoodinitialmaterial.

B.Morris

Morris,YaleLawSchool’slibrarydatabase,hasamodestholdingofdeathpenalty‐

relatedbooks.Akeywordsearchfor“deathpenalty”yieldsjustunder140results,

mostlyprintedmaterials.34Akeywordsearchfor“capitalpunishment”yields185

results,withnodoubtsomeoverlapwiththeresultsyieldedinthe“deathpenalty”

search.

Asmentionedintheintroductiontothissection,thebestwaytofindrelevant

resultsistousespecificcontrolledvocabulary.Forexample,searching(“death

penalty”and“habeascorpus”)willyieldbooksthattouchonbothsubjects,andthe

dauntingnumberofresultslistedwhen“deathpenalty”issearchedisreducedtoa

manageableandeasilynavigable13results,eachdealingwiththedeathpenaltyand

habeascorpusintheirownway.

However,comingupwithalistofsearchresultsismerelythefirststeptoa

successfulbooksearch.Researchersmustalsofindthemostrelevantbooksamong

theyieldedsearchresults.Thiscanbeachallengingstep,sincerelevanceisentirely

dependantonhowtheresearcherintendstousebooksinhisorherwork,and

whethertheresearcherislookingforspecificmaterialormerelyanoverviewofa

specificsub‐areaofdeathpenaltylaw.

34AsofApril14,2008.

SecondarySources

66

Eitherway,researchersusingMorrishavetheoptionoflookingattheTableof

ContentsformanyofthetitlescontainedintheMorrisdatabase.Abriefperusalof

thetableofcontentsfortheyieldedsearchresultscanbehelpfulindeterminingthe

worthofaparticularbookfortheresearcher’sspecificpurposes.Inaddition,Morris

allowsuserstopostandviewuser‐submittedreviewsofbookscontainedinthe

database,thoughthisfunctionisoflimitedusesincefewpeopleseemtotake

advantageofthisfeatureandnoneoftheyieldedresultsforanyofthesearchterms

usedabovecontainedanyreviews.Morrisalsoallowsuserstoratebooksonafive‐

starscale,thoughlikethebookreviewfeature,thisratingfeaturedoesnotseemto

bewidelyused.

Morrisalsohasanew,thoughcurrentlyun‐finalizedfeaturecalledEncorethat

allowsresearcherstotakeadvantageofsomeadvancedfeatureslikerelevancy

rankingsofsearchresultsandalistofrecentlyaddedbooksontheresearcher’s

subjectmatter.WhileEncore’sfeaturelistisimpressive,itsadlyfailedtodeliver.

Searchingfor(“deathpenalty”and“mentalillness”)and(“deathpenalty”and

“habeascorpus”)yieldednoresultsinEncore,despitehavingyieldedmanyresults

whenanormalMorrissearchwasconducted.Encoredoesoffersuggestedsearch

termswhenasearchtermyieldsnoresults,thoughsadlythesuggestedsearch

termswerenotimmediatelyrelevanttotheactualsearchterms.Forexample,when

thesearchfor(“deathpenalty”and“habeascorpus”)yieldednoresults,Encore

asked“Didyoumean:thedeathpenaltyandracialbias?”Untilthesequirksare

ironedout,researchersarebetteroffusingthenormalMorrissearchfunction,

whichseemstoworkwell.

C.Orbis

Orbis,YaleUniversity’slibrarydatabase,isaseparatelymanageddatabasethathas

notyetincorporatedYaleLawSchool’sMorrissystem.Assuch,searchesconducted

onOrbiswillnotlistYaleLawSchool’slibraryholdings,andsearchesconductedon

MorriswillnotyieldYaleUniversity’slibraryholdings,thoughMorrisdoesprovide

alinktotheOrbisdatabaseonitssearchpages.

SecondarySources

67

Orbis’sholdingsondeathpenaltyrelatedmaterialsseemtobenotmuchmore

extensivethanthelawschool’sholdings.Nevertheless,Orbisisworthsearching

becauseofthefactthatYaleUniversitymaintainsseparateholdingsfromthelaw

school,and,aspreviousstated,thetwolibrarydatabasesdonotreferenceeach

other’sholdings.

Orbishasanadvancedsearchfunctionthatcanbehelpfulinformulatingprecise

searches,thoughthisfunctiondoesnotdomuchmorethanaBoolean‐constructed

searchonthe“simplesearch”page.However,forresearcherswhohavedifficulty

withBooleansearches,theadvancedsearchfunctioncanbehelpful.Also,the

advancedsearchfunctiondoesallowforasimultaneoussearchingofkeywords,

subjects,titles,notes,authors,andanumberofothertermtypes.Thiscanbe

helpfulforpersonssearchingforaspecifictitle,thoughitprovidesfewpractical

advantagesforresearchersconductingsubjectmattersearches,sincetheywillbe

searchingkeywordtermsprimarilyanyway.

AswithMorris,Orbisisbestsearchedusingacontrolledvocabularythatnarrowly

focusesthesearchtermstospecificsubjectmatter.Whensearchresultsareyielded,

thechallenge,aswhenusingMorris,istofindthemostrelevantsourcesamongthe

yieldedresults.OrbisoffersTableofContentssummariesforsomeofitsholdings,

anddoesofferasomewhatconvolutedContentssummaryofsomeholdings.These

arethebestwaystoseeiftheyieldedsearchresultisrelevanttotheresearcher’s

specificquery.Orbisalsoallowssearchresultstobeorderedbypublishingdate,

meaningthatthemostrecentlypublishedmaterialscanbelistedfirst.Totheextent

thatrelevanceisrelatedtohowrecentasourceis,thiscanbeausefulfunction.

Orbisalsoallowsuserstorestricttheirsearchresultstoprintedmaterials,online

materials,journals,onlinejournals,andEnglish‐languagematerials.Again,tothe

extentthattheserestrictionshelpnarrowsearchessothattheyyieldmorerelevant

results,thesefunctionscanbehelpful.

ResearcherscanalsouseOrbistosearchotheruniversitylibrarydatabases,

includingthelibrarydatabasesatColumbiaandPrincetonUniversities,whichare

SecondarySources

68

accessedunderthe“LibraryCatalogues”tab.YaleUniversityalsoparticipatesinthe

InterlibraryLoanprogram,allowingresearcherstoaccessbooksfromaneven

widerarrayofcollegeanduniversityholdings.Whensearchingthesedatabases,the

basicsofdeathpenaltydatabasesearchingremainsthesame,andsearchqueries

shouldbeasnarrowlyfocusedaspossible.

D.WorldCat

Availableathttp://www.worldcat.org,Worldcatisanonlinelibrarynetworkthat

allowsuserstosearchtheholdingsoflibrariesfromallaroundtheworld,manyof

whichcontainbooksthatareexclusivetothatlibrary.WhileWorldcatdoesnotlend

outbooksitself,userscanchecktoseeiftheirlocallibrarieshavethebooksyielded

duringasearch.WhilethislimitstheusefulnessofWorldcatasadatabase,it

remainsaveryusefulresourceforfindingbooksrelatedtoatopic.Worldcatdoes

includelinksforpurchasingbooksaswell,whichcanbehelpfulforobtainingabook

whenitisunavailableatalocallibrary.Asimplesearchfor“deathpenalty”yielded

over2,000results,indicatingthatitishasbyfarthemostextensivecataloguefor

deathpenalty‐relatedbooksoutofthethreedatabasesdiscussedinthissection,

whichisunsurprisinggiventhescopeoftheentireWorldcatproject.

SearchingforbooksusingWorldcatissimilartosearchingforbooksusingMorrisor

Orbis,thoughtheWorldcatinterfaceispreferableinmanywaystoeitherMorrisor

Orbis.Forexample,thesearchresultspageautomaticallylistsresultsinorderof

relevancebasedonhowcloselytheyieldedresultsmatchthesearchterms,and

thereareoptionsonthesidetofurthernarrowtheresultsbasedonsourcetype(ie:

books,onlinematerials,etc),author,yearofpublication,andgeneraltopic(ie:law,

sociology,philosophy,etc).ThiskindoffunctionalitymakesWorldcatavery

powerfultoolforbooksearches,anduseofthesecategoryoptionscanhelp

researchersmorequicklyfindbooksdirectlyrelatedtotheirsearchquery.

Worldcatalsooffersadvancedsearchcapabilitesthatallowforspecifyingthe

contenttypeofsearchresults,theformatofsearchresults,andlanguage,among

SecondarySources

69

otheroptions.Whiletheseoptionscanbehelpful,theyprobablywillnotresult

resultsthataresubstantiallybetterthantheresultsyieldedbyabasicsearch.At

best,theadvancedsearchmayhelpsavesomeclicksofthemousesinceitallows

searchestobepre‐narrowedalongsomeofthesamecategoriespreviously

discussed(ie:language,sourcetype,andgeneralsubjectmatter).Theadvanced

searchfunctiondoesseemtoyieldslightlydifferentresultsthanthebasicsearch,

however.Forexample,usingtheadvancedsearchfunctiontosearchforKeyword:

habeascorpus,Subject:deathpenalty,yieldedresultsinadifferentorderthanwhen

(“deathpenalty”and“habeascorpus”)wassearchedusingthebasicsearchfunction.

Forthisreason,itmightbehelpfultoconductasearchtwice,onceusingeachsearch

function.AswithOrbis,resultscanbearrangedaccordingtopublishingdate,which

helpfulforwhentherelevanceofsearchresultsisbasedonhowrecentitis.

SecondarySources

70

6.BNACriminalLawReporter

TheBureauofNationalAffairs(BNA)CriminalLawReporterisapublication

availablebothinprintfromtheBureauoronlinefromtheBureauandLexis‐Nexis,

whichprovidesinformationondevelopmentsandcommentaryoncriminallaw.It

isupdatedautomaticallyontheLexis‐Nexisdatabase,anditiscompiledandprinted

onaquarterlybasis.TheBNAoffersnotificationservicesgearedtowardproviding

automatedupdatesonspecifictopicsofinterest,thoughthisserviceisnotavailable

onLexis‐Nexis(thoughLexis‐Nexis’sownnotificationsystemmaybeableto

provideessentiallythesamefunctionality).

Foradeathpenaltyresearcher,theBNACriminalLawReportermayserveasa

usefultoolforremainingcurrentandup‐to‐dateoncapitalpunishmentmatters.

TheReporterprovidessummariesonrecentcapitalcasesandrelevantchangesin

deathpenaltylawthatmaybeofconcerntopractitionersandlegalobservers.The

Reporteralsoprovidescommentaryoncourtdecisionsincapitalcasesandtopics

includingtheconstitutionalityoftheAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct.

TheeasiestandmosteffectivewaytoaccesstheCriminalLawReporteristouse

Lexis‐NexistosearchtheBNAarchive(locatedinthe“SecondaryLegal”sectionof

the“Legal”tabofthe“SearchbySource”maintab).OnceontheBNApageinLexis‐

Nexis,theCriminalLawReportercanbeaccessedbyclickingonthe“CriminalLaw”

linkandthe“BNACriminalLawReporter”linkonthenextpage.Clickingonthe

“BNACriminalLawReporter”linkopensupapagewhereyouviewthemostrecent

CriminalLawReporterarticles,conductafull‐textsearchofarchivedCriminalLaw

Reporterarticles,orconductafull‐textsearchofallCriminalLawReporterarticles

(bothcurrentandarchived).

Generally,themostrelevantresultswillbeyieldedwithafull‐textsearchofall

CriminalLawReporterarticles.Forthecost‐conscious,asearchofallCriminalLaw

Reporterarticlesmaybeaconcernsincesearchingthatdatabaseismoreexpensive

thansearchingthenarrower,archiveddatabase,andismoreexpensivethan

SecondarySources

71

browsingthroughcurrentCriminalLawReporterarticles.However,bychoosingto

eitherbrowserecentarticles,orbysearchingthearchive,youmayinadvertently

excluderelevantarticlesdealingwiththesubjectmatterofyoursearch.Forthis

reason,itisprudenttosearchthecompleteCriminalLawReporterdatabase,unless

youaresurethatthearticleyouarelookingforislocatedeitheramongtherecent

articles,orwithinthearchivedarticles.

SearchesoftheCriminalLawReporterdatabase(eitherarchivedorfull)functions

inthesamewayasanyLexis‐Nexissearch,withtheabilitytoconducteithernatural

languagesearchesortermsandconnectorssearches.Aswithmostonline

searching,itisbesttouseatermsandconnectorssearchinordertoyieldthemost

relevantresults.Forexample,asearchof(“capitalpunishment”/5“Georgia”)yields

morerelevantresultsoncapitalpunishmentinGeorgiathanwouldanatural

languagesearchof“capitalpunishmentinGeorgia.”

WhiletheCriminalLawReporterdatabaseisnotfullycomprehensive,inthatitdoes

notnecessarilycovereverycaseoreveryissueconcerningcapitalpunishment,it

doesprovideagreattoolforcapitalpunishmentresearcherslookingfortopicaland

relevantinformationandcommentary.

Conclusion

72

IV.Conclusion

Thisguidehasbeendesignedwiththegoalofprovidinguseful,basicinformationon

howtoconductdeathpenaltyresearch.Becauseofthewide‐rangingnatureof

deathpenaltylaw,thisguideisnotmeanttobefullycomprehensive.Infact,itis

doubtfulthatanysingleguidecancomprehensivelyaccountforallthepossible

sourcesandallthepossibleresearchmethodologiesthatarerelevanttodeath

penaltylaw.However,researcherscanbegivenanideaofwheretostart,andthis

guidehopestodojustthat.

Researchersshouldbeawarethatdeathpenaltylawisnotitsownareaofthelaw.

Inreality,itisanamalgamationofmanydistinctareasoflaw,eachoperatinginter‐

relatedlywithinoursystemofcapitalpunishment.Federalandstateconstitutional

law,criminallaw,civilrightslaw,andprocedure,amongcountlessotherareasof

law,combineandinteracttoformwhatissomewhatdeceptivelycalleddeath

penaltylawinthisguide.Deathpenaltylawisnotauniformsetoflaw.Rather,itis

acomplexweboflawthatthisguidetriestomakenavigable.

Afewthingstokeepinmindwillhelpdeathpenaltylawresearchersfigureouthow

tomaneuverthroughthiswebwithoutgettingtangled.

First,dobelimitedtosearchingfor“DeathPenalty”sectionsofdigests,

encyclopedias,andindexes.Whilethesesectionsaregoodplacestostartout,they

arenottheend‐gameofdeathpenaltyresearch.Theyaremerelygreatplacesto

startresearch,notendit.Researchersshouldbekeentolookatrelatedareasof

law,whereanswersnototherwisecontainedwithintheneatlyorganized“death

penalty”sectionmaylay.Theseareasmayincludecriminallawandprocedure,

constitutionallaw,habeascorpuslaw,etc.

Second,researchersshouldalways,ALWAYS,checkforpocketpartsandupdated

supplementstoresearchmaterials,particularlywhenconductingprint‐based

research,sinceonlinesourcestendtobeupdatedautomatically.Nothingisworse

Conclusion

73

foraresearcherthantomistakenlybelievethatanoldcaseorstatuteiscontrolling

wheninfactithasbeensuperseded,overruled,struckdown,orreplaced.

Finally,researchersshouldrelyontheirowningenuityandcreativity.Thisguideis

notmeanttobeanauthoritativesourceonconductingdeathpenaltyresearch.Itis,

afterall,aguide,notanauthority.Researcherswillbeinthebestpositionto

understandwhatworkswellandwhatdoesnot.Mixingandmatchingsources,and

relyingoncertainsourcesandnotothersforcertainkindsofresearchtasks,will

almostcertainlyyieldbetterresults.Donottrytofitasquarepegintoaroundhole.

Ifasourceisnotworkingwell,thentryanothersource.Eventually,researchinto

thisareaoflawwillbecomesecondnature,asresearchersfamiliarizethemselves

withwhichsourcesandmethodologiesworkbestforcertainresearchtasks.Tothe

extentthatthisguidehelpsmakedeathpenaltyresearchsecondnature,ithasdone

itsjob.

Documents

Death Penalty Law Research Guide - Yale Law School Library · Death Penalty Law Research Guide ... and jury instructions, aggravating ... Statutes at Large does not have an index