Case Study on Duane Edward Buck v. Lorie Davis

Case: Duane Edward Buck, Petitioner v. Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Criminal Procedures in Buck v. Davis

A criminal procedure refers to the adjudication process that generally covers the beginning of the criminal proceeding to the conviction or acquittal of the defendant in a criminal case. In Duane Buck criminal proceeding started at the scene of the crime where he was arrested and tried for capital murder in 1997 and sentenced to death although the defendant managed to overturn the death sentence by raising the question of fair trial due to racially instigated testimony from Walter Quijano a psychologist who argued that Buck could commit more crimes due to his racial background (Buck v. Davis, 2017). The criminal proceeding for Duane Buck was straight forward because he was caught in the act and at the crime scene wielding the weapon used to commit murder while the children of his victim watched. Therefore, due to the availability of sufficient evidence Buck was condemned to death by a Texas court after an expert testified that he was likely to commit violent criminal acts in the future (Buck v. Davis, 2017). Under the Texas law, the death sentence is only permitted when the Jury unanimously finds a criminal a future threat. However, the expert witness use of racially motivated remarks on the Duane Buck case meant that he was guiltier for being black, which made it possible to win his appeal in the US Supreme Court. Duane Buck appealed his sentencing to death by a Texas court to the Supreme Court which ruled in his favor due to racist expert testimony, and his death sentence was reduced to life in prison (Buck v. Davis, 2017).

Elements of Buck's Crime and Evidence

The elements of crime refer to the criminal act, intent, causation, concurrence, harm and circumstances that lead to the crime. In the case of Duane Buck, the criminal act was a double murder for killing his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and her friend Kenneth Butler and wounding his sister who was at Gardner's home (Buck v. Davis, 2017). The primary motivation to commit the crime was jealousy and blind love, which pushed him to kill his ex-girlfriend because he could not handle the separation. There was sufficient evidence to convict Buck for double count murder because he committed the said crimes in the presence of his sister who survived a fatal shot to the test and also in the presence of his victim's daughter who beseeched him not to kill her mother to no avail (Buck v. Davis, 2017). Besides, his intent to kill was written all over the crime scene and events that ensued because he pursued his ex-girlfriend to the streets when she fled and shot her to death without remorse. A police officer argued that Buck was shouting that his victim deserved to die, which further shows his intent and supported his death row conviction.

Legal Defenses

In Buck's defense, his defense surprisingly brought in an expert witness who argued in support of Bucks' death sentence because he was black and more likely to commit further violent crimes if he was to be released. Surprisingly, it was the defendant lawyers who called the psychologist to the stand to make a testimony that sealed his fate as required by the Texas law for all the Jury to unanimously conclude that the defendant was dangerous and likely to commit further criminal activity (Buck v. Davis, 2017). In the Supreme Court appeal of the death sentence, Buck reiterated that his defense was ineffective by failing to provide a vigorous defense for the defendant. Therefore, the defense should fight for the rights of the defendant throughout the case. As such, Buck's defense was irresponsible by calling to stand a psychologist who worked against the rights of their client to get a fair trial. The defendant role in such a case was to ensure that the defendant's constitutional right, such as fair trial free from racial discrimination was observed by the Jury and the prosecutors (Mosteller, 1996). In this case, Buck's defense failed to defend against the unfair judgement, which was irresponsible and made Duane Buck's defense ineffective.

Sanctions in Duane Buck's Case

A sanction refers to a punishment imposed by the law for committing a particular crime. Sanctions play a significant role as deterrence of criminal behavior and seek to extend public protection from victimization and re-offending for those facing less serious function (Buck v. Davis, 2017). In the United States, the primary sanction for first-degree murder, which was the case for Duane Buck is the death penalty or life in prison without possible parole (Gorn, 2018). In Duane Buck's case, the first penalty for murder was the death penalty, which was appealed due to racist expert witness which the Supreme Court overturned to life in prison.

Factors in Sentencing and Goals met in the Sentence

The primary factor considered in the sentencing of Duane Buck was his intention and causation to commit the crime which beyond doubt proved that he had the intention to kill Debra Gardner his ex-girlfriend (Buck v. Davis, 2017). His sentencing to death for the crime of first-degree murder was not effective due to the racially instigated backing to warrant the penalty of a death sentence. The expert defense argued that Buck was more likely to be dangerous because he was black. As a result, the defendant appealed the death sentence citing the inefficiency of the defense. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to life in prison, which was effective because the decision upheld the constitutional rights of the defendant, who had previously been convicted unfairly (Buck v. Davis, 2017).

Effectivity of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is highly effective because it deters capital crimes such as murder or extreme violence. The amount of time that a prisoner in spends on death row is crucial because it allows enough time for investigation and preparation of the defense to ensure that the rights of the defendant are protected (McLeod, 2018). The death penalty should not be abolished as a deterrence for a capital crime. However, from the constitutional viewpoint, the death penalty should be abolished to meet the Eighth Amendment needs that prohibit the federal government from imposing cruel punishments. Laws must meet the constitutional standards, which mean that the death penalty in Texas State is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the constitution (McLeod, 2018).

References

Buck v. Davis, (2017). 137 S. Ct. 759, 580 U.S., 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2017). Retrieved from https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/buck-v-davis/

Gorn, R. R. (2018). Adequate Representation: The Difference between Life and Death. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 55, 463. Retrieved from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/55-2-Adequate-Representation-The-Difference-Between-Life-and-Death.pdf

McLeod, M. S. (2018). The Death Penalty as Incapacitation. Va. L. Rev., 104, 1123. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/valr104&section=34

Mosteller, R. P. (1996). Victims' Rights and the United States Constitution: An Effort to Recast the Battle in Criminal Litigation. Geo. LJ, 85, 1691. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/glj85&section=44