Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1688

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 00-CR-0531-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM CONCEPCION SABLAN RUDY CABRERA SABLAN, Defendants. __________________________________________________________________ William Sablan's Motion To Strike The Nonstatutory Aggravating Factor Of Future Dangerousness On The Grounds Congress Did Not Intend It To Be Considered In Aggravation [Wm DP-21] __________________________________________________________________ Defendant William Sablan, through undersigned court-appointed counsel, respectfully requests the Court to strike the government's nonstatutory aggravating factor of future dangerousness. As grounds, counsel state: 1. Many state death-penalty sentencing schemes allow evidence that a defendant might be a danger in the future to be admitted in aggravation. See, e.g., Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 274-76 (1976) (finding Texas' statutory future dangerousness provision constitutional). 2. Congress is presumed to know the state of the law when it enacts new
1

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1688

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

legislation. See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 896 (1988) (there is a "well-settled presumption that Congress understands the state of existing law when it legislates"); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 697-98 (1979) ("[i]t is always appropriate to assume that our elected representatives . . . know the law"). 3. The Federal Death Penalty Act ("FDPA") was enacted in 1994. In it, Congress specified 16 aggravating factors for jury consideration in murder cases. Those factors relate either to the circumstances of the murder or to the defendant's prior convictions for very serious or repetitive federal or state offenses. 4. Because Congress is assumed to know of that other death-penalty schemes specifically provide for consideration of future dangerousness in aggravation and did not include it within the FDPA, it can reasonably be inferred that Congress did not intend its use under the federal statute. WHEREFORE, William Sablan respectfully requests that the Court strike the nonstatutory aggravating factor of future dangerousness on the grounds that Congress did not intend its use. Dated: February 13, 2006

2

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1688

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Burke Dean Neuwirth Burke & Neuwirth P.C. 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-3050 By: s/ Susan L. Foreman Susan L. Foreman 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-3050 Counsel for William Sablan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 13, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion To Strike The Nonstatutory Aggravating Factor Of Future Dangerousness On The Grounds Congress Did Not Intend It To Be Considered In Aggravation [Wm DP-21] with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EFC system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] By: s/ Susan L. Foreman Nathan Chambers Chambers, Dansky & Mulvahill 1601 Blake Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-2222

3