It doesn't particularly bother me when death penalty opinions recite the facts of the underlying crimes in death penalty cases even though those facts are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Particularly when (as here) the federal panel elects to affirm the death sentence, I understand the persuasive effect of including those facts. Plus, as a general matter, it keeps the victims in mind. Opinions that reverse death sentences typically do the same thing with respect to the childhood traumas often endured by the defendant, so there's also a rough equality there. To a degree, everyone's playing in part on everyone's heartstrings.
But, for me, intellectual honesty requires that one at least recognize the other side of the equation. Unless the opinion only talks about the relevant facts, once you've decided to add technically irrelevant pro-prosecution (or pro-defendant) facts, one should at least fairly present some details about the other side.
I mention that in connection with today's Idaho death penalty opinion by Judge Bennett. Gerald Pizzuto claims that the Governor of Idaho violated his constitutional rights by not accepting the recommendation of the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole to commute his death sentence to life in prison. The Ninth Circuit's opinion affirms the decision of the district court to dismiss Mr. Pizzuto's habeas petition in that regard.
As is usual in these types of cases, Judge Bennett's opinion recounts the underlying (heinous) facts of the cold-blooded murders at issue even though they're technically irrelevant to the constitutional claims raised in the petition. The opinion also highlights how consistently Mr. Pizzuto has (understandably) fought to overturn his death sentence, and how long he's been on death row at this point: 40 years.
Again, I have no objection to that.
But the opinion is simultaneously bereft of any of the facts on the other side. One searches the opinion in vain, for example, to understand why the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole -- not exactly a hotbed of liberalism -- would even possibly recommend that Mr. Pizzuto's sentenced be commuted to life without the possibility of parole. One is left to entirely speculate on that point; there must be at least some facts on that score, but they're deliberately omitted. And given that at issue in the opinion is at least tangentially related to whether it was rational for the Governor to discard the Commission's recommendation, leaving those facts out is particularly noticeable.
Some of those facts are that Mr. Pizzuto (1) is now 70 years old, (2) has severe Type 2 diabetes, with damage to his arms and legs that has confined him to a wheelchair for years, and (3) is in hospice with advanced, terminal bladder cancer (alongside heart disease and COPD).
Which helps at least little to understand why the Commission recommended that the state leave this suffering old man to his fate in prison rather than continue to push forward with his execution.
One need not come to a conclusion regarding whether the Commission was right or wrong in this recommendation. But a fair presentation of the facts might elect to contain at least contain a sentence or two describing why the underlying facts at issue are what they are.
