Skip to main content
Contribution to Book
Ambiguous Language in the 2009 Law Spawns Confusion
Maryland’s Death Penalty: Still Here, Still Unfair. More Arbitrary and Costly (2012)
  • David Aaronson
Abstract
In 2009, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation that created new requirements for the evidence required to seek the death penalty. Specifically, the law restricts death penalty eligibility to those cases where there is:

1) biological evidence linking the defendant to the murder,
2) a voluntary videotaped interrogation and confession of the defendant to the murder, or
3) video that conclusively links the defendant to the murder.

It was a well-intentioned effort to limit executions to those cases where the evidence was
foolproof. Unfortunately, none of these evidentiary restrictions are, in fact, foolproof. 
Keywords
  • Ambiguous Language in the 2009 Law Spawns Confusion,
  • Maryland’s Death Penalty: Still Here,
  • Still Unfair. More Arbitrary and Costly,
  • David,
  • Aaronson,
  • MD CASE – Maryland Citizens Against State Executions
Disciplines
Publication Date
2012
Citation Information
David Aaronson, Contributing Author, Maryland’s Death Penalty: Still Here, Still Unfair. More Arbitrary and Costly, MD CASE – Maryland Citizens Against State Executions (prepared for members of the Maryland State General Assembly) (2012)