The Centre for American Legal Studies (CALS) influences legal practice and reform in the United States (US).
Research Summary
Research produced in the Centre for American Legal Studies has:
- Enhanced legal representation in US capital cases through underpinning both our contributions to amicus curiae briefs submitted to US courts, and teaching for Amicus’ US Death Penalty Training Programme;
- Informed the resolution of state and federal litigation through being independently referenced as authority by US judges, lawyers, and civil society; and
- Increased the awareness of stakeholders in domestic (Arizona) and international (United Nations) settings about necessary law reform regarding capital punishment, climate change, and compassionate release.
Research Background
Yorke’s research argues capital punishment is not a legitimate function of US sovereignty. His account of the interplays between the “science” and the constitutional law of lethal injection, unveils that adjudicative processes fail to properly assess lethal injection protocols, and maintain tortuous executions by improperly rejecting sound pharmacology that execution drugs do not minimise pain. Through applying “time study”, Yorke coins “capital judicial time” wherein the state and prisoner compete to control linearity to respective destinations: execution and natural death. Yorke argues the state likely has a “unfair time use advantage”, using the case of Linda Carty, a dual citizen of the UK and Federation of St Kitts and Nevis on Texas’ death row, as an example.
Cooper’s researchfocuses on wrongful conviction and early release. Cooper identified that US courts generally reject challenges to the reliability of forensic science evidence, despite the association between such evidence and wrongful conviction. Instead, courts defer to precedents and rational decision-making by competent authorities, overlooking limitations in both legal agents’ scientific expertise and legal processes for excluding unreliable science. Her expertise in evaluating US clemency procedures led to a Leverhulme Trust and British Academy Grant Award to analyse US state compassionate release procedures, which typically facilitate early release on ill-health grounds. Her study produced a national account of compassionate release and a blueprint for reform.
Richardson Oakes and Di Gioia have developed models for understanding US state resistance to federal policies, explaining partisan litigation tactics as new manifestations of an un-co-operative federalism. Richardson Oakes and Dotto (a PhD Candidate in CALS) identified that Democratic-state governors, concerned about global climate change, had initiated similar tactics to oppose the Trump Administration’s rollback of domestic environmental regulation and its notice to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. As part of this, Richardson Oakes and Dotto produced a detailed account of US international climate change obligations and the implications of federal rollbacks.
Led by Storey, the BCU team’s Stakeholder Report to the US 2020 United Nations Universal Periodic Review focused on capital punishment, climate change, and compassionate release. Drawing on the team’s collective expertise, the report’s recommendations included that foreign nationals charged with capital offences be promptly informed of their consular assistance rights; the US Food and Drug Administration regulate lethal injection drugs; the federal government not rollback its domestic and international climate change commitments; and compassionate release best practices be implemented.
Impact and Outcomes
Members of CALS have used their expertise to inform amicus curiae briefs filed in US capital cases, four post-2014. These briefs have addressed justice system recognition of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the constitutionality of capital punishment, and procedural fairness. Yorke’s work on Linda Carty’s case, as a member of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) Expert Group on the Death Penalty and Pro Bono Lawyer’s Panel, was described as “instrumental in the UK government’s efforts” to highlight important human rights issues in the case to the US Supreme Court.
The BCU team also support Amicus, a charity that helps provide legal representation in US capital cases. The BCU team has supported Amicus to deliver its Death Penalty Training Programme “for over a decade… utilizing their research expertise to deliver innovative sessions” on capital punishment and international law, the infrastructure of the American legal system, and forensic science and wrongful conviction. Between 2014 and July 2020, “The BCU team … reached over 2000 participants”, with Amicus’ Director describing them as “key contributors” to Amicus’ mission, undertaking work that “makes a difference…”.
US judges, lawyers and civil society have cited Cooper’s research as authority to inform litigation. Lawyers have repeatedly referenced her explanation of firearms evidence limitations when making firearms evidence-related challenges in state and federal courts, and, in considering if defence counsel was ineffective for failing to find and present a firearms expert, the Tennessee Supreme Court referenced Cooper’s research when discussing that forensic science had “faced criticism” and was associated with wrongful conviction. Cooper’sfinding that courts commonly rely on precedent to admit criticised forensic evidence has also been referenced by amici non-profit organisations. Her work on US clemency procedures has also been refereed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Cooper’s study of US compassionate release procedures, funded by the Leverhulme Trust and British Academy, led to the Co-Chair of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice’s Legislative and Policy Committee, asking Cooper to propose model legislation for Arizona. Cooper’s model proposes a broader medical parole procedure that takes account of serious medical problems, public safety, medical appropriateness, cost, and human dignity, and has been described as a “way forward” at a time when Arizona is “looking for ways” to de-carcerate and “show mercy for those most deserving…”. The model became a Medical Parole Bill sponsored by Arizona Democratic and Republican law-makers in the Arizona legislature.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) repeatedly cited the BCU team’s Stakeholder Report to the US 2020 UN UPRin its Summary of Stakeholders’ Submissionson the United States of America in relation to the US 2020 Universal Periodic Review. This included to (1) support Women's International League for Peace and Freedom et al statements that US energy policy mostly focuses on fossil fuels, that oil and gas industries benefited from favourable taxation, and that the US should reinstate the Paris Agreement; (2) the American Civil Liberties Union’s submission that capital punishment is declining in the US; and (3) Amnesty International’s concern that executions have taken place in cases involving “serious doubts about the proceedings…”
