Alexandra de Anda: Supreme Court Reflection 2012

The Idaho Supreme Court held a hearing regarding the death sentence on November 2
nd
, 2012.
This ruling could affect the states capital punishment laws in a very dramatic way. The state must
determine how much of any death penalty case should be used for consideration under Idahos
mandatory review law. This mandatory review law was created by the Idaho Legislature in 1977. This
law requires the Idaho Supreme Court to review every death penalty sentence, regardless if the
defendant does not want the courts to review the case. This law was designed to keep the state
requirements up to par with the federal requirements; meaning, the death penalty may only be imposed
on a small group of criminals whose crimes are severe enough. Secondly, it is supposed to speed up the
process of appeals, ensuring that there are no issues with how the death penalty was imposed. This
case, regarding Timothy Dunlap, has the ability to dramatically limit the types of appeals a prisoner can
make against death penalty charges.
Idaho Deputy Attorney General, LaMont Anderson, explained in court that this mandatory
review law does not speed up the process, but in fact, slows the death row cases due to the fact that the
federal appeals court assumes the Idaho Supreme Court justices considered everything regarding the
case and the sentencing. Federal courts interpret the states mandatory review law to be all-
encompassing. This means that there is not a sentencing appeal that is off limits. Mr. Dunlaps defense
attorney, Shannon Romero, stated that the Court has an obligation to make sure that the death penalty
is being carried out in a way that is considered constitutional. She informed the justices that it is not
constitutional to treat death penalty cases like a regular criminal case. Because Dunlap felt that there
were errors in the process of his jury sentencing, he is asking the court to dismiss his initial post-
conviction petition and asks for a new judge and jury.
Im not sure how I feel about this hearing. I understand the implications of the hearing,
however, do I feel that the points that were being brought up in Court are completely valid? There is
Alexandra de Anda: Supreme Court Reflection 2012

always a way of twisting scenarios, specifically in a case such as this. Timothy Dunlap confessed to killing
two women in a matter of ten days; he plead guilty in 1991. He is now at the age of 44 and has over 50
issues presented to the courts. His defense attorney, Shannon Romero, seemed a bit rushed and uneasy
presenting specific claims to the justices. In my review and opinion, I feel that she knows that those
claims are just to keep this hearing going. I did not hear any indication of when the sentencing will take
place, nor did I hear how it was going to be carried out.
If an attorney is confident in the issues and information behind the issues, it shows a dramatic
difference during the presentation, compared to an attorney who is not as confident in their material.
LaMont Anderson clearly showed much more confidence in his material. It could be because he could
have more experience in presentation, however, in the case of a death penalty, I would assume both to
be highly confident. Studies show that body language influences the audience 30% more than verbal
communication. Typically in political speech, the most important aspect is the syntax the individuals
choose to use. I am not sure if Shannon Romero intended to show signs asking for help, assuming
empathy from the justices, but I felt that her performance was much weaker than that of LaMont
Anderson.
All-in-all, I thought the experience was very intriguing, even though some of the material and
subject matter was hard to understand. However, I was not falling asleep like one of the justices on the
podium. I would like to attend another hearing regarding a different case. Initially, I thought it was going
to be a more in-depth hearing regarding Timothy Dunlaps charges. Alas, it was mostly about the Idaho
states laws and regulations revolving its mandatory review law. At least I was intrigued with how the
two attorneys communicated and how much they differed from each other, unlike Sir Justice.