U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 228— DEATH SENTENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3596

Implementation of a sentence of death

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—A person who has been sentenced to death pursuant to this chapter shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General until exhaustion of the procedures for appeal of the judgment of conviction and for review of the sentence. When the sentence is to be implemented, the Attorney General shall release the person sentenced to death to the custody of a United States marshal, who shall supervise implementation of the sentence in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed. If the law of the State does not provide for implementation of a sentence of death, the court shall designate another State, the law of which does provide for the implementation of a sentence of death, and the sentence shall be implemented in the latter State in the manner prescribed by such law.(b)Pregnant Woman.—A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant.(c)Mental Capacity.—A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a person who is mentally retarded. A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a person who, as a result of mental disability, lacks the mental capacity to understand the death penalty and why it was imposed on that person.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60002(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1967.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: In re: FBOP Execution Protocol Cases
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re: FBOP Execution Protocol Cases (2020) cadc · cites it 20× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (a). It is common ground that this provision requires the federal government to adhere at least to a State’s choice among execution methods such as hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection.”
Bruce Carneil Webster v. Charles A. Daniels (2015) ca7 · cites it 8× “As a result, the defend- ant Webster is not exempt under 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c) from implementation of the death penalty.”
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) scotus · cites it 2× “Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U. S. C. § 3596 (c). [11] Md. Ann. Code, Art.”
People v. Smithey (1999) cal · cites it 4× “( 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c).) Defendant claims that these legislative developments indicate a growing national opposition to the execution of mentally retarded persons, undermining Penry 's holding.”
Van Tran v. State (2001) tenn · cites it 4× “030; see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 3596 . [7] See 1990 Tenn. Pub.”
Alfred Bourgeois v. T.J. Watson (2020) ca7 · cites it 4× “Both the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c), and the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v.”
Higgs v. United States (2010) mdd · cites it 6× “He reasons thus: Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (a), a death sentence should be implemented “in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed.”
United States v. Lezmond Mitchell (2020) ca9 · cites it 7× “Watson, the warden of the Federal Correctional Complex at Terre Haute, Indiana, served Mitchell with a letter indicating that the Bureau of Prisons had set an execution date of December 11, 2019.4 On October 4, 2019, however, we stayed Mitchell’s execution pending resolution of…”
In re: FBOP Execution Protocol Cases (2020) cadc · cites it 3× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (a). The FDPA and the Attorney General’s regulations remain the federal law governing executions by the United States.”
Hall v. Florida (2014) scotus “See 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c). And no State that previously allowed defendants with an IQ score over 70 to present additional evidence of intellectual disability has modified its law to create a strict cutoff at 70.”
United States v. Nelson (2006) laed · cites it 4× “2d 335 (2002), and thus ineligible for the death penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c). As set forth more fully below, the Court finds that Bryan Nelson is men *892 tally retarded, and therefore not subject to the death penalty.”
United States v. Wilson (2013) nyed · cites it 5× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (c); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.”
Show all 92 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.