Rethinking Death Row - Variations in the Housing of Individuals, Yale Law School, 2016

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Rethinking Death Row - Variations in the Housing of Individuals, Yale Law School, 2016

• July 12, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Conditions of Confinement, Death Penalty/Death Row, Death Penalty, Death Row

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Rethinking Death Row:

Variations in the Housing of Individuals
Sentenced to Death

The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
Yale Law School

July 2016

Rethinking “Death Row”:

Variations in the Housing of Individuals
Sentenced to Death

The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
Yale Law School

July 2016

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

The Arthur Liman Public Interest
Program, Yale Law School, New Haven,
CT
The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
was endowed to honor one of Yale Law
School’s most accomplished graduates,
Arthur Liman, who graduated in 1957 and
who personified the ideal of commitment to
the public interest. Throughout his
distinguished career, he demonstrated how
dedicated lawyers, in both private practice
and public life, can serve the needs of
people and causes that might otherwise go
unrepresented. The Liman Program was
created in 1997 to forward the commitments
of Arthur Liman as an exemplary lawyer
dedicated to public service in the furtherance
of justice.
Inquiries:
Judith.Resnik@yale.edu
Yale Law School
PO Box 208215,
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
Courier: 127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511

Acknowledgements
The primary authors of this Report are
Celina Aldape, Ryan Cooper, Katie Haas,
April Hu, Jessica Hunter, and Shelle
Shimizu, Yale Law School students
participating in this Liman Project from
2014 to 2016 and working under the
supervision of Johanna Kalb, Visiting
Associate Professor of Law and Director,
Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, and
Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of
Law. This project has been generously
supported by Yale Law School, the Liman
Program, the Vital Projects Fund, and the
Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law
School.
To download copies of this Report, please
visit the website of the Liman Program at
https://www.law.yale.edu/centersworkshops/arthur-liman-public-interestprogram/liman-publications. This Report
may be downloaded and reproduced free of
charge and without the need for additional
permission. All rights reserved, 2016.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Rethinking “Death Row”:

Variations in the Housing of Individuals Sentenced to Death1

In 2015, individuals sentenced to death in the United States were housed in varying
degrees of isolation. Many people were kept apart from others in profoundly isolating conditions,
while others were housed with each other or with the general prison population. Given the
growing awareness of the debilitating effects of long-term isolation, the placement of deathsentenced prisoners on what is colloquially known as “death row” has become the subject of
discussion, controversy, and litigation.

This Report, written under the auspices of the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at
Yale Law School, examines the legal parameters of death row housing to learn whether
correctional administrators have discretion in deciding how to house death-sentenced individuals
and to document the choices made in three jurisdictions where death-sentenced prisoners are not
kept in isolation. Part I details the statutes, regulations, and policies that govern the housing of
those sentenced to death and reviews prior research on the housing conditions of death-sentenced
prisoners. Part II presents an overview of decisions in three states, North Carolina, Missouri, and
Colorado, where correctional administrators enable death-sentenced prisoners to have
meaningful opportunities to interact with others. Given the discretion that correctional officials
have over housing arrangements, these states provide models to house capital-sentenced
prisoners without placing them in solitary confinement.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Table of Contents

A Nationwide Look at Discretion in “Death Row” Housing ......................................... 3

A. Laws Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners ............................................. 4

A Nationwide Look at Discretion in “Death Row” Housing ......................................... 3
A. Laws Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners ............................................. 4

Placement in Isolation or Segregation......................................................................... 4

Visiting and Time Out-of-Cell ..................................................................................... 5

B. Policies Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners ......................................... 6

C. Prior Research Regarding Death-Sentenced Prisoner Housing ................................... 7

II.

Housing Arrangements for Death-Sentenced Prisoners in North Carolina,
Missouri, and Colorado .................................................................................................... 8

II.

Housing Arrangements for Death-Sentenced Prisoners in North Carolina,
Missouri, and Colorado .................................................................................................... 8

A. North Carolina .................................................................................................................. 9

B. Missouri ........................................................................................................................... 11

C. Colorado........................................................................................................................... 14

III.

Looking Forward ............................................................................................................ 17

Appendix A: Table of Statutes, Administrative Regulations and Case Law by Jurisdiction

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

III.

Looking Forward ............................................................................................................ 17

Appendix A: Table of Statutes, Administrative Regulations and Case Law by Jurisdiction

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

In 2015, nearly 3,000 death-sentenced prisoners were incarcerated in state and federal
facilities in the United States.2 Most were housed in some form of isolation. A growing body of
research documents the harms of long-term isolation on prisoners’ mental and physical health,
and correlates isolation with increased violence in prison.3 Further, prison administrators report
the challenges and costs of staffing isolation units.4 Proposals for reducing the use of isolating
conditions in prison have been put forth by the executive branch of the federal government,5 by
state correctional leaders,6 and by the legislative branches of the federal7 and state governments.8
Detention of juveniles in solitary has been a specific source of concern. In 2016, both the
Colorado legislature and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors enacted provisions
banning the use of isolation for juveniles, defined in Colorado as individuals under the age of
21,9 and in Los Angeles as individuals younger than 18.10 Lawsuits have successfully challenged
isolating conditions – resulting in consent decrees to limit the use of isolation either for all
prisoners11 or for subpopulations, such as the seriously mentally ill and juveniles.12 Reports and
articles document the harms of such isolating confinement and analyze its legal parameters.13

These concerns raise questions – in terms of both practices and as a matter of law – about
the use of long-term isolation for a specific set of prisoners, those serving capital sentences and
often housed on what is colloquially known as “death row.” A few prior reports have surveyed
conditions; for example, in 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) detailed the
severity of isolation experienced by death-sentenced prisoners and criticized the practice of
imposing long-term isolation as an automatic consequence of death sentences.14

Lawsuits challenging the practice have also been filed. In 2012, Alfred Prieto, a deathrow prisoner in Virginia, argued that automatic segregation violated his constitutional right to an
individualized decision about the need for placement in isolation. A trial-level judge agreed15 but
on appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held (over a dissent) that because all deathsentenced prisoners in Virginia were subjected to the same treatment, Mr. Prieto’s isolation was
not “atypical” and therefore he had no liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause in
avoiding such confinement.16 Although U.S. Supreme Court review was sought, after Mr. Prieto
was executed17 his petition for certiorari was dismissed as moot.18

More generally, members of the U.S. Supreme Court have questioned the
constitutionality of profound isolation.19 In June 2015, Justice Kennedy raised the issue when
concurring in the reversal of a grant of habeas corpus relief obtained by Hector Ayala, who had
been sentenced to death. Justice Kennedy wrote that in all likelihood, Mr. Ayala would have
spent “the great majority of his more than 25 years in custody in ‘administrative segregation’ or,
as it is better known, solitary confinement.”20 Justice Kennedy explained that, if following “the
usual pattern,” the prisoner had likely been held “in a windowless cell no larger than a typical
parking spot for 23 hours a day; and in the one hour when he leaves it, he likely is allowed little
or no opportunity for conversation or interaction with anyone.”21 Justice Kennedy drew attention
to the “human toll wrought by extended terms of isolation,” and called for change through more
“public inquiry;” through judicial discussion of the harms; and, in an appropriate case, through
decisions by judges about “whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement
exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.”22

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

The isolation of prisoners is also the subject of case law in many jurisdictions and of
international concern. The European Court of Human Rights has concluded that the Convention
on Human Rights imposes limits on isolating conditions,23 and research in Great Britain detailed
the injuries of what it termed “deep custody.”24 International standards also address isolation. In
2015, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice met to revise
its standards for the treatment of prisoners. The result are the Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (known as the “Nelson Mandela Rules”), which were adopted by the
U.N. General Assembly in 2015.25

These rules define “solitary confinement” to be “confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or
more a day without meaningful human contact;” “[p]rolonged solitary confinement” is “solitary
confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.”26 The Mandela Rules state that,
“[i]n no circumstances may restrictions or disciplinary sanctions amount to torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Mandela Rules provide specific
“practices, in particular” that “shall be prohibited;” included are “[i]ndefinite solitary
confinement;” and “[p]rolonged solitary confinement.”27 Moreover, the Rules state that
“[s]olitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time
as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a
competent authority,” and “shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.”28 In
addition, “solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or
physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures” as well as
for “women and children.”29

This Liman Report contributes to this discussion by providing an analysis of the
statutory, administrative, and procedural rules governing the housing of death-sentenced
prisoners in the United States; by summarizing past research on conditions for death-sentenced
prisoners; and by offering a detailed account from correctional administrators in three states who
have chosen to use their discretion not to put individuals sentenced to death in isolation. Part I
provides both an overview of the legal parameters governing the housing of death-sentenced
individuals in the thirty-five jurisdictions that had such prisoners in 2015,30 and a review of prior
research on housing conditions of death-sentenced individuals. After examining statutes,
administrative codes, and available department of correction policies in those jurisdictions, we
learned that correctional officials have substantial discretion to decide how to house deathsentenced prisoners. An appendix provides the legal rules and policies of each jurisdiction.

Part II summarizes interviews conducted in the spring of 2015 with correctional
administrators in three jurisdictions – North Carolina, Missouri, and Colorado – that permitted
death-sentenced prisoners some degree of direct contact with each other or the general prison
population. Specifically, as of 2015:

North Carolina housed 156 death-sentenced prisoners, separated them from the general
population, but afforded them similar access to resources and programs as other
prisoners. Death-sentenced prisoners were able to spend sixteen hours each day in a
common room and were permitted to exercise and dine in groups.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Missouri housed 28 death-sentenced prisoners, integrated them into the general
population of a maximum-security prison. Death-sentenced prisoners shared cells with
other prisoners and had all the same privileges and opportunities as those who had not
been sentenced to death.

Colorado, which confined 3 death-sentenced prisoners, placed them in a designated unit
together with other prisoners classified as in need of increased supervision. All prisoners
housed in the unit had access to a common room in small groups for at least four hours
each day; death-sentenced individuals had most of the opportunities available to other
prisoners in the unit.

A central finding of this Report is that prison officials have many options when
determining the housing of individuals sentenced to death. Our hope is that this Report will
provide models for lessening the isolation of death-sentenced individuals and invite innovations
in the housing arrangements for all prisoners.

A Nationwide Look at Discretion in “Death Row” Housing

As of 2015, thirty-five jurisdictions (thirty-four states and the federal government)
housed death-sentenced prisoners. These thirty-five jurisdictions varied widely in the number of
death-sentenced prisoners in custody. As of the fall of 2015, California had the largest number –
745. Both Wyoming and New Hampshire each housed one person sentenced to death.31

We searched the statutes and administrative codes of these jurisdictions to identify
materials governing death-sentenced prisoners.32 Such provisions may be found in a
jurisdiction’s criminal laws, capital sentencing provisions, or rules governing the execution of
death sentences. We also reviewed case law discussing housing for death-sentenced prisoners.

We sought to learn about whether laws addressed single-celling; hours in cell;
participation in groups for meals, recreation, and programming; contact with other deathsentenced prisoners, the general population, visitors, or prison staff; access to books, television,
or other media; and opportunities, if any, for periodic reviews of and changes in housing. As we
detail below, many of these topics were not the subject of statutes, regulations, and
administrative policies. A summary of this research is compiled in Appendix A.

We also researched policies adopted by state and federal corrections departments to
govern the housing of death-sentenced prisoners. We consulted the publicly available policy and
procedure manuals for each jurisdiction’s department of corrections, and supplemented our
findings with secondary sources, such as law review articles and newspaper reports.

Further, we sought to learn about prior resources on the housing of people serving capital
sentences. Below, we summarize four surveys that included information on housing practices for
death-sentenced prisoners: a 2013 survey by the ACLU; a 2014 survey by the Association of
State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Liman Program at Yale Law School; a 2013
survey by ASCA; and a 2008 survey that was prepared by Professor Sandra Babcock for the

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Death Penalty Information Center. The surveys all reported high degrees of isolation for deathsentenced prisoners.

To preview what follows, this review of statutes and regulations documents that most
jurisdictions do not require isolation of death-sentenced prisoners and leave correctional officials
substantial discretion to determine housing conditions. Many correctional departments’ policies
impose isolation; the four surveys further document how profoundly isolating the conditions
have been for many prisoners. In contrast, in a few jurisdictions, correctional officials have
published policies describing the placement of death-sentenced prisoners in less restrictive
housing conditions.

A. Laws Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners
1.

A. Laws Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners

Placement in Isolation or Segregation

In nineteen of the thirty-five jurisdictions with death-sentenced prisoners, statutes and
regulations specifically address death-sentenced prisoner housing. Seventeen states do so by
statute,33 and four of those seventeen also address housing in regulations.34 Two (Florida and
Ohio) do so by regulation.35 A compilation of relevant statutes, regulations and policies is
included in Appendix A.

In three states – Idaho, Pennsylvania and Wyoming – statutes require, but do not define,
“solitary confinement” for death-sentenced prisoners.36 Idaho’s statute states, “Whenever a
person is under death warrant, execution of which has not been stayed, the warden of the prison
in which the person is incarcerated shall keep the condemned person in solitary confinement
until execution.”37 Pennsylvania’s statute provides, “Upon receipt of the warrant, the secretary
shall, until infliction of the death penalty or until lawful discharge from custody, keep the inmate
in solitary confinement.”38 The Wyoming statute states that a death-sentenced prisoner shall be
kept “in solitary confinement until execution of the death penalty . . . .”39

Three state statutes – Washington, Texas and Florida – reference single cells.
Washington’s statute provides that a death-sentenced prisoner “shall be confined in the
segregation unit, where the defendant may be confined with other prisoners not under sentence
of death, but prisoners under sentence of death shall be assigned to single-person cells.”40
Texas’s governing statute calls for prisoners confined in “death row segregation” to be held “in
single occupancy cells.”41 Florida’s administrative regulations require “single-cell special
housing . . . of an inmate who, upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a capital felony, has
been sentenced to death . . . .”42

Florida, South Dakota, and Texas call for death-sentenced prisoners to be segregated
from the general prison population, although not necessarily from each other. The governing
regulation in Florida provides, “Death row housing shall be separate from general population
housing.”43 South Dakota’s statute directs that death-sentenced individuals “shall be segregated
from other inmates at the penitentiary.”44 In a general provision not limited to death-sentenced
prisoners, Texas states that institutions “may not house inmates with different custody
classifications in the same cellblock or dormitory unless the structure of the cellblock or
dormitory allows the physical separation of the different classifications of inmates.”45

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Administrative regulations in Oregon and Ohio reference “death row.” Oregon
regulations state: “It is the policy of the Department of Corrections to assign inmates with a
sentence of death to the Death Row Housing Unit or to a Death Row status cell.”46 Ohio’s
regulations provide both that prisoners sentenced to death “may be assigned to an area of the
institution . . . which area shall be known as ‘death row’” (and that “absent significant
extenuating circumstances, no inmate shall be assigned to or housed in death row unless that
inmate has been sentenced to death . . .”),47 as well as that correctional officials “may assign or
reassign an inmate who has been sentenced to death to a security classification or special
management status other than that which is normally used for such inmates, based on the security
or medical and mental health requirements for the inmate.”48

Connecticut has legislation crafted in 2012 when the state legislature abolished the death
penalty. In lieu of the death penalty, the statute created a new category, “murder with special
circumstances,” and specified certain conditions of confinement for individuals convicted under
the statute.49 The Connecticut statute states that the Commissioner of Correction place “special
circumstances” inmates in administrative segregation until reclassification.50

In Alabama, California, Colorado, and New Hampshire, statutes name specific
institutions at which death-sentenced individuals are to be housed.51 Alabama directs deathsentenced prisoners to the “William C. Holman unit of the prison system at Atmore”;52
California references San Quentin State Prison;53 Colorado directs prisoners to the “correctional
facilities at Canon City” after a death warrant is delivered;54 and New Hampshire names the
“state prison at Concord.”55

In a few jurisdictions, statutes expressly state that corrections officials have discretion
when making decisions on housing death-sentenced prisoners. For example, Louisiana’s statute
directs the Department of Public Safety and Corrections “to incarcerate the offender in a manner
affording maximum protection to the general public, the employees of the department, and the
security of the institution.”56

In sum, most jurisdictions do not have statutes mandating segregation, isolation, or other
particulars related to the housing conditions provided to death-sentenced prisoners.

Visiting and Time Out-of-Cell

Some jurisdictions discuss visiting and out-of-cell time for death-sentenced prisoners.
Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota, and Wyoming all state that a death-sentenced prisoner should be
permitted visits with his lawyer, spiritual adviser, and family.57 Under Colorado’s statute, prison
“rules shall provide, at a minimum, for the inmate’s attendants, counsel, and physician, a
spiritual adviser selected by the inmate, and members of the inmate’s family” to have “access” to
the inmate.58 Idaho permits “access” to “the attorney of record, attending physicians, a spiritual
adviser of the condemned’s choosing, and members of the immediate family of the
condemned.”59 South Dakota, which requires segregation of death-sentenced prisoners, mandates
that “[n]o other person may be allowed access to the defendant without an order of the trial court
except penitentiary staff, Department of Corrections staff, the defendant’s counsel, members of
the clergy if requested by the defendant, and members of the defendant’s family.”60 Wyoming

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

authorizes access by “physician and lawyers [and] . . . [r]elatives and spiritual advisers of the
prisoner.”61

The laws of Alabama, Indiana, and Pennsylvania address visiting and describe categories
of individuals who may do so.62 Under Alabama’s statute, “while so confined, all persons outside
the said prison shall be denied access to [a death-sentenced prisoner], except his physician and
lawyer . . . , and the relatives, friends and spiritual advisors of the condemned person, who shall
be admitted to see and converse with him at all proper times, under such reasonable rules and
regulations as may be made by the Board of Corrections.”63 In Indiana, the death-sentenced
prisoner’s “(1) attorney; (2) physician; (3) relatives; (4) friends; and (5) spiritual advisor may
visit the convicted person while the convicted person is confined.”64 If a death warrant has been
issued, Pennsylvania requires that death-sentenced prisoners be housed in solitary confinement
and that, other than correctional staff, “no person shall be allowed to have access to the inmate
without an order of the sentencing court,” other than “counsel of record or other attorney
requested by the inmate” and “a spiritual adviser selected by the inmate or the members of the
immediate family of the inmate.”65

Most jurisdictions’ laws do not address in-cell conditions or the number of hours that
death-sentenced prisoners must spend in cell each day. A few – including Florida, Ohio and
Oregon – discuss out-of-cell time and certain other conditions.66 For example, Florida’s
regulations provide for a minimum of six hours per week of outdoor exercise.67 Ohio’s
regulations specify “[f]ive hours of recreation per week.”68

B. Policies Governing Isolation of Death-Sentenced Prisoners

Eighteen states had published policies addressing death-sentenced prisoners.69 Further, in
jurisdictions where we could locate no official policy, we supplemented our knowledge by
reviewing the Department of Corrections’ websites or handbooks, as well as secondary sources
such as reports in periodicals and law review articles.

Policies varied widely in terms of specificity and topics. For example, Ohio’s policies do
not require automatic assignment of death-sentenced prisoners to the highest security
classification, which carries the most restrictive housing conditions.70 In Idaho, death-sentenced
prisoners are initially placed in restrictive housing (also known as administrative segregation),
and corrections officials must then conduct a hearing to determine if the prisoner can be moved
to the less restrictive “close-restrictive custody.”71 If remaining in segregation, the deathsentenced prisoner’s placement must be reviewed “at least once a year” to decide if a shift to
close-restrictive custody is appropriate.72 In contrast, as of the fall of 2015, in Virginia, deathsentenced prisoners were required under Department of Corrections’ policy to be held in singleperson cells and confined for 23 hours per day. According to news reports, when the Prieto
litigation was pending, policy shifts occurred to allow death-sentenced prisoners some access to
each other and to visitors.73 Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction policies are included in Appendix A.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

7
C. Prior Research Regarding Death-Sentenced Prisoner Housing

This Report is not the first to consider death-sentenced prisoner housing, which has been
the subject of research focused specifically on the topic, as well as on solitary confinement more
generally. Four such surveys, based on different information sources, are detailed below. The
reports consistently portray corrections officials as housing death-sentenced prisoners in very
restrictive and isolating conditions. In addition, some commentators have also raised questions
about the necessity and the legality of isolation on death row.

In 2013, the ACLU published a report, A Death Before Dying: Solitary Confinement on
Death Row, which was drawn from a survey of “advocates for death row prisoners and others
knowledgeable about death row conditions.”74 Based on responses about housing conditions in
twenty-six states,75 the Report concluded that ninety-three percent of those states held deathsentenced prisoners in their cells for twenty-two hours or more per day.76 The cells ranged in size
from thirty-six to one hundred square feet; most were “the size of an average bathroom.”77 Meals
and medication often came through slots in the cell door,78 and death-sentenced prisoners were
allotted an hour or less of exercise a day, alone in a small pen.79

As the ACLU survey put it: “Many prisoners will go years without access to fresh air or
sunshine.”80 Policies on visits were highly restrictive.81 In most of these states, death-sentenced
prisoners were not permitted to have physical contact with their visitors82 and, in some, prisoners
were required to remain in arm and leg restraints during visits.83 In general, the ACLU found that
prisoners were forced to live in a state of “extreme social isolation” and “enforced idleness,” as
the “overwhelming majority of states” did not provide access to work opportunities, educational
programming or vocational training.84

In 2014, ASCA joined with the Liman Program to gather information on the numbers of
people in isolation and the conditions in “administrative segregation,” one form of restrictive
housing. The resulting Report, Time-in-Cell, was based on survey responses from forty-six
jurisdictions. Thirty-four of those jurisdictions – housing about 73% of the more than 1.5 million
people incarcerated in U.S. prisons – provided data on all the people in restricted housing,
whether termed “administrative segregation,” “disciplinary segregation,” or “protective
custody.” In that subset, more than 66,000 prisoners were in restricted housing. Given that
number, ASCA and Liman estimated that some 80,000 to 100,000 people were, in 2014, in
restrictive housing settings in prisons. Time-in-Cell focused on conditions in administrative
segregation across the country; demographic information regarding these prisoners; the length of
prisoners’ stay in administrative segregation; their weekly time in-cell; conditions within these
cells; and segregated prisoners’ access to recreation, programming, visits, and social contact.85
One subset of the survey’s questions, answered by some of the responding jurisdictions,
addressed the housing conditions of death-sentenced prisoners. Twenty-eight jurisdictions
reported that death-sentenced prisoners were housed in administrative segregation or some other
form of separation from the general population.86

A third source of information comes from a 2013 ASCA survey, asking correctional
directors about housing policies; officials in twenty-nine states responded, providing jurisdictionspecific information.87 Two states, Maryland (which has since abolished the death penalty) and
Missouri, reported holding death-sentenced individuals in the general population.88 Correctional

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

departments in the other twenty-seven jurisdictions all indicated that death-sentenced prisoners
were held in some form of “segregated” or “other” housing.89 Of these twenty-seven
jurisdictions, fourteen reported that segregated death-sentenced prisoners could engage in some
form of congregate activity.90 In addition, eleven states indicated that death-sentenced
individuals were permitted some movement without restraints.91 Twenty-five jurisdictions
reportedly provided programming for death-sentenced prisoners.92

Another survey, for the Death Penalty Information Center, conducted in 2008 by
Professor Sandra Babcock working with a group of her students, compiled a state-by-state
comparison of thirty-one jurisdictions based on interviews with capital defense attorneys and
through materials published by various departments of corrections.93 This research identified
twenty jurisdictions that held death-sentenced prisoners in cells for twenty-two hours or more per
day.94 Eleven permitted death-sentenced prisoners to participate in group recreation,95 and nine
provided some educational opportunities, occupational training, or work opportunities.96 Ten
jurisdictions allowed contact visits with the prisoner’s family,97 and seventeen permitted contact
visits with the prisoner’s lawyer.98

As noted, other commentators have also raised concerns about death-row housing. For
example, in 2005, Andrea Lyon and Mark Cunningham reviewed analysis of the
“mainstreaming” of death-sentenced prisoners in Missouri and argued that evidence of the
success of that practice raised questions about the constitutionality of imposing profound
isolation.99 More recently, Marah Stith McLeod also relied on the Missouri data as well as on
other literature to argue that prison administrators ought not have the discretion to impose the
isolation of death row; given the severity of conditions on most death-rows, she argued that the
democratic processes of legislatures ought to decide whether that form of punishment is
necessary and just.100

II. Housing Arrangements for Death-Sentenced Prisoners in North Carolina,
Missouri, and Colorado

We identified at least six states – California, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, North
Carolina, and Ohio – that did not impose confinement of 20 hours or more in cells each day for
death-sentenced prisoners. To learn more about the policies and their implementation, we chose
North Carolina, Missouri and Colorado, three states that varied in the size of their deathsentenced prisoner populations and in the degree of these prisoners’ integration with the general
prison population. We then reviewed their statutes, administrative regulations, and prison
policies, as well as scholarly research, surveys, and media reports, and we interviewed
administrators from each state’s corrections department. Like many states, neither North
Carolina nor Missouri have a specific statute or regulation governing the housing of deathsentenced prisoners. As noted, Colorado’s statute leaves correctional administrators significant
discretion by providing for incarceration at the correctional facilities at Canon City and for
visiting by the prisoner’s “attendants, counsel, . . . physician, a spiritual adviser . . . and members
of the inmate’s family.”101

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Below, we begin with North Carolina, the state with the largest death-sentenced prisoner
population – 156 people – of the three. We interviewed Kenneth Lassiter, Deputy Director of
Operations for the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS); he served as the
warden at Central Prison, the facility holding male prisoners sentenced to death. In April of
2015, at the time of the interview, North Carolina’s death-sentenced housing arrangement had
been in place for over a decade.

We then turn to Missouri, and the materials provided by George Lombardi, Director of
the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC), who was the Director of Adult Institutions in
1989, when MDOC changed its policies on death-sentenced prisoners; Director Lombardi also
co-authored a report on the transition. As noted, others have also done research on the Missouri
“mainstreaming” practices; we had the benefit of a study by Mark D. Cunningham, Thomas J.
Reidy, and Jonathan R. Sorensen, who compared the rate between 1991 to 2002 of violent
misconduct by integrated death-sentenced prisoners to that of non-death sentenced prisoners,102
as well as a follow-up study published in 2016 and reviewing twenty-five years of data.103

To learn about Colorado, we interviewed Rick Raemisch, Executive Director, and Kellie
Wasko, Deputy Executive Director, of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC).104
Director Raemisch, who was appointed in 2013, instituted a series of changes in the housing of
death-sentenced prisoners and for the general prisoner population.

As is detailed below, in each state, correctional officials praised their own systems, each
of which enabled death-sentenced individuals to live with other prisoners. In each interview, the
Directors explained the reasons for and the process of transition, and why they understood the
reforms to be a success in terms of improving the lives of those in prison, lowering rates of
violence, and reducing the challenges faced by staff.

A. North Carolina

North Carolina has one of the largest death-sentenced populations in the country, with
156 death-sentenced prisoners as of 2015.105 Since 1984, the state has executed forty-three
people.106 As of the spring of 2016, the last execution was in 2006.107

According to Deputy Director Lassiter, North Carolina’s death row policies have been in
place for more than a decade.108 Deputy Director Lassiter recalled having looked into the history
of death row during his time as warden of Central Prison; he reported finding no information
suggesting that the prisoners had previously been held in a greater degree of isolation.109

Deputy Director Lassiter explained that, as of 2015, the NCDPS housed 153 male and
three female death-sentenced prisoners.110 The men were incarcerated in Central Prison,111 and
the women at the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, both in Raleigh.112 Men
sentenced to death were placed in what was known as Unit III of Central Prison.113 Though they
were housed separately from the general population, they were afforded roughly the same
privileges as other serious offenders held in Central Prison.114

Deputy Director Lassiter described Unit III as including eight cell pods.115 In each pod,
twenty-four single cells opened onto a central dayroom.116 Each cell measured approximately

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

eleven-by-seven feet and was equipped with a bed, a sink, a toilet, a small writing table, a narrow
window, and a radio.117 The dayrooms were outfitted with a television, several stainless steel
tables, and showers.118 Death row prisoners could spend time and watch television in the
dayroom together from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m.119

Death-sentenced prisoners ate their meals as a group in a common dining hall, at a
different time than other prisoners.120 Individuals sentenced to death were permitted at least one
hour per day to exercise in groups and to shower.121 Deputy Director Lassiter estimated that,
depending on which unit activities were scheduled, the prisoners typically spent more than one
hour a day in their recreation yard.122 Death-sentenced prisoners were also permitted to work
jobs within Unit III, including as a barber, janitor, recreation clerk, and in the library, canteen, or
clothes house.123

North Carolina permitted two noncontact visitors each week.124 Access to religious
services was within the unit.125 The religious services consisted of a one-hour Christian worship
service every Sunday; a one-hour Islamic worship service every Friday, and a ninety-minute
Bible study class every Tuesday morning.126 Programming, such as working towards a GED, was
not regularly available to death-sentenced prisoners, but Director Lassiter indicated that case
managers would try to find volunteers to fulfill individual requests.127 In the case of a
disciplinary infraction, a death-sentenced prisoner would be sent to what was called Unit I, the
restricted housing unit, where he would eat meals, exercise, and shower apart from other
prisoners.128

Deputy Director Lassiter also explained that, if an execution date were set, both male and
female death-sentenced prisoners would be moved three to seven days prior to the scheduled
execution to the “death watch” area of Central Prison.129 The single cells in the death watch area
each had a bed, lavatory, commode, and writing table. The prisoner, who spent the entire day in
the cell except fifteen minutes for a shower, had no contact with other prisoners.130 Visits from
attorneys, religious advisers, psychologists, and family were permitted; contact visits were at the
warden’s discretion.131

Housing policies for death-sentenced prisoners had not been a subject of significant
political debate.132 One brief flurry took place after a death-sentenced prisoner wrote a letter in
2012 to a newspaper and claimed that he enjoyed a luxurious life on death row.133 In response,
legislators introduced a bill that would have banned television on death row.134 Deputy Director
Lassiter, then the warden of Central Prison, testified that television served the Department as a
management tool.135 Although the bill came out of committee, it was not enacted.

Deputy Director Lassiter expressed unequivocal support for NCDPS’s death row
policies.136 He explained that prisoner-on-officer violence was nearly non-existent on death row,
and prisoner-on-prisoner violence was extremely rare.137 Death row had fewer disciplinary
infractions, fewer fights, and fewer assaults than any of the other units at Central Prison.138
According to Lassiter, death row prisoners who subsequently had their death sentences
commuted had better behavioral records in the general population than other prisoners.139

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Deputy Director Lassiter explained that “giving inmates an opportunity to create social
connections with other inmates and providing some sense of normalcy is an important part of
why our policies are successful.”140 He acknowledged that some corrections officials believed
that death-sentenced prisoners were inherently more dangerous, but said that North Carolina had
a “totally opposite mentality.”141 “Our inmates police themselves within their own community,”
he continued, “Part of the reason that works is that they are not isolated twenty-three hours each
day.” The mental health consequences of isolating death row prisoners were, from his point of
view, likely to lead to more problems with violence and discipline than isolation solved.142

Deputy Director Lassiter also believed that the relatively safe conditions on North
Carolina’s death row were in part because most of the prisoners no longer viewed death row as
the place where they were going to die. “The majority of inmates sentenced to death ultimately
don’t end up being executed. The list of people removed from death row is a lot longer than the
list of executions,” he explained.143 Accordingly, death row prisoners had a strong incentive to
behave well. Moreover, he noted that many death row prisoners were of a different profile than
other prisoners at Central Prison.144 They were generally not habitual offenders, but tended to
have been convicted of a single, serious crime. Deputy Director Lassiter speculated that this
difference in background helped explain the success of North Carolina’s policies.145

Deputy Director Lassiter noted that when he was the warden of Central Prison, he dined
on a regular basis with the death row prisoners on Unit III, in part because they were his
“favorite prisoners to interact with.” He added that death row prisoners tended to be “extremely
remorseful and take responsibility for what they have done and wish they could go back and
change it. Generally, prisoners with a death sentence have a totally different view of life than
another inmate.”146 When asked whether he had ever considered changing North Carolina’s
approach to housing death-sentenced prisoners, Deputy Director Lassiter responded
emphatically: “Our system is proven to work and we have no desire to tweak it.”147

B. Missouri

As of January 2016, Missouri had 28 death-sentenced prisoners, all of whom were
housed at the Potosi Correctional Center (PCC) in Mineral Point. Since 1989 and as of the spring
of 2016, the state had executed 86 people.148 The state’s last execution occurred in May 2016.

The housing system for death-sentenced prisoners in Missouri was designed in response
to protest and litigation challenging the use of isolation and poor conditions. Before 1989, deathsentenced prisoners in Missouri were housed in a separate, below-ground unit at the now-closed
Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP).149 Death-sentenced prisoners did not leave the housing unit
for services, programming, or recreation; the limited program opportunities available were
brought to the unit.150 Prisoners were allowed to exercise an hour each day in a separate area,151
and were kept in six-by-ten foot cells for the other twenty-three hours of the day.152 Director
George Lombardi characterized conditions on death row in MSP as “marginal.”153

In August 1985, a class of death-sentenced prisoners at the Missouri State Penitentiary
filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.154 The prisoners alleged that defendants,
administrators in the MDOC, had violated their First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.155 According to Director Lombardi, opposing this lawsuit seemed “futile.”156

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

On May 22, 1986, the parties initially entered into a consent decree intended to eliminate
conditions that “may” have denied death-sentenced prisoners their constitutional rights.157 The
consent decree included provisions to protect prisoners’ access to legal mail, religious services,
telephones, medical and mental health services, visitation, and recreation.158 The decree provided
for specialized training for corrections staff, including administrative segregation training for
custody staff and mental health care training for caseworkers.159 The consent decree also
described a multi-tiered classification system for death-sentenced prisoners, with different
custody or security levels, in which death-sentenced prisoners with good behavior could receive
greater privileges.160 MDOC was also permitted, with court approval, to transfer death-sentenced
prisoners to a new location.161 In 1989, with court approval, the MDOC moved all deathsentenced prisoners to PCC, a recently opened maximum security prison.162

When death-sentenced prisoners were first moved to PCC, they were housed in a separate
unit, with death-sentenced prisoners classified as minimum custody in one wing, and all other
death-sentenced prisoners in another wing.163 Director Lombardi described PCC as better and
cleaner than MSP, but noted that staff still had to arrange for services to be brought separately to
death-sentenced prisoners.164 Following the transfer, death-sentenced prisoners filed a motion for
contempt to challenge conditions at PCC and their segregation from other prisoners.165

While the renewed challenge was pending, administrators and staff in the MDOC began
to consider better ways to manage death-sentenced prisoners and to provide them with a similar
level of services as provided to the general population.166 The process of bringing meals and
medical services to death-sentenced prisoners, as well as locking down the prison whenever
these prisoners left their cells, was cumbersome.167 Director Lombardi stated that the idea that
capital offenders were inherently more dangerous than other long-term prisoners did not make
sense to corrections staff.168 The conversation developed into a discussion of the feasibility of
integrating death-sentenced prisoners into the general population at PCC.169

The full integration of PCC took place incrementally.170 Prison officials started calling
death-sentenced prisoners “capital punishment inmates,” and began to escort minimum custody
death-sentenced prisoners to the dining room to eat with the general population.171 Deathsentenced prisoners were then given permission to visit the law library and to work in the
laundry. For the first time, these individuals were classified using the Adult Internal
Management System (AIMS).172 Prisoners were able to play softball together, and did so without
incident.173 By January of 1991, all individuals with capital sentences were mainstreamed into
the general population.174 At the time, corrections staff “expressed surprise at the ease with
which the transition occurred.”175

The transition was completed before the district court ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for
contempt, and the defendants moved thereafter to vacate the consent decree.176 The District
Court of the Eastern District of Missouri (to which jurisdiction had been transferred following
the transfer of the prisoners to PCC) found that the defendants had complied with the
requirements of the consent decree and that no unconstitutional conditions existed. The court
vacated the decree and terminated its continuing jurisdiction over the matter.177 The prisoners
appealed, but the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision.178

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

As of the winter of 2015, all of Missouri’s death-sentenced prisoners were housed at
PCC.179 PCC houses death-sentenced prisoners, life-sentenced prisoners, and parole-eligible
prisoners.180 As of 2015, the procedure for receiving and housing prisoners was that deathsentenced prisoners were transferred directly from courts and jails to PCC, a maximum security
facility (Custody Level 5);181 non-death sentenced prisoners were first sent to one of three
diagnostic centers in the state to determine their custody level before being assigned to a
facility.182 Once death-sentenced prisoners arrived at PCC, they were treated no differently than
other prisoners in the institution.183

Upon arrival at PCC, all prisoners were initially assigned to one of the administrative
segregation units during their reception and orientation,184 and could then be moved to a double
cell in the transitional administrative segregation unit.185 PCC then used its AIMS classification
system to categorize all prisoners into one of thirteen housing units.186

Prisoners could be promoted from the transitional unit to one of two “baseline” general
population units, where they ate meals with the rest of the prisoners and could attend religious
and educational services.187 If approved, prisoners could advance to one of the two general
population units, where they had access to recreation and programming in large groups and could
purchase a television and radio.188 Prisoners who were conduct-violation free for a certain period
of time could be moved to the “honor dorm,”189 where they were “out of their cells most of the
day.”190 Death-sentenced individuals could be double-celled with other general population
prisoners, regardless of sentence.191

Like the rest of the prison population, death-sentenced prisoners could be assigned to the
protective custody unit, where they ate and participated in recreation as a group.192 Prisoners
could be placed in the special needs unit, where they exercised and attended mental health
programming separately but took meals with the general population.193 Correctional
administrators assigned some death-sentenced prisoners who were not special needs to this unit
for the purpose of ensuring a permanent single cell.194 Prisoners who had “difficulty in adjusting
to institutional life” were placed in the partial treatment unit.195

Death-sentenced prisoners had the same privileges and could access the same services
afforded to all prisoners in their housing unit. For example, death-sentenced prisoners in general
population were allowed eight hours of recreation each day and permitted to do crafts for six of
those hours.196 PCC offered Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous programs and
vocational education programs.197 Prisoners at PCC could also participate in a dog adoption
program that enabled prisoners to train dogs that had been held in shelters and could be adopted
by people in the community.198 Death-sentenced prisoners could apply for jobs, access the
commissary, enjoy equal access to visitation and phones, and visit the law library.199 Visitation
hours were three days a week for eight hours each day.200

Unique to death-sentenced prisoners was their housing prior to execution: after an
execution date was set, a death-sentenced prisoner was moved into protective custody. The
prisoner was subsequently taken to a segregated holding cell two to three days prior to the
scheduled execution.201

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Director Lombardi stated that mainstreaming death-sentenced prisoners eliminated the
burdensome costs of maintaining separate death row facilities.202 PCC no longer had to assign
staff to escort death-sentenced prisoners around the facility.203 There was no longer a need to
arrange for death-sentenced prisoners to have access to health care and medications,
psychological counseling, and the law library.204 Commissary hours, visitation days, and medical
services access were expanded after the transition because separate time windows for deathsentenced prisoners were no longer required.205 Jobs in the laundry also became available for
administrative segregation prisoners when death-sentenced prisoners gained access to all
employment.206 Director Lombardi thought that the MDOC would incur less in legal expenses
arising from prisoners’ litigation about death row conditions.207

Director Lombardi noted that in the prison as a whole, disciplinary infractions and
violence had decreased after the integration of death-sentenced prisoners.208 He stated that while
there was some initial skepticism, staff encountered no problems with the gradual process of
integration, and that he had generally found no difference between death-sentenced prisoners and
other long-term prisoners.209 Additionally, Director Lombardi believed that because deathsentenced prisoners were no longer subject to automatic long-term administrative segregation,
there were fewer mental health problems following integration.210

Director Lombardi stated that it seemed that death-sentenced prisoners at PCC have
slightly lower rates of assaultive behavior than other prisoners.211 Director Lombardi credited the
incentive structure: just like any other prisoner, a death-sentenced prisoner could be sent to
administrative segregation for harming someone but could earn the highest level of privileges
available with a good disciplinary record.212 Furthermore, most prisoners facing execution were
still engaged in appeals or collateral attacks on their convictions, motivating them to avoid
sanctions.213 Lombardi believed that such a system, in conjunction with services such as
counseling and the dog adoption program, motivated death-sentenced prisoners to behave
well.214

Lombardi considered the integration of death-sentenced prisoners into the general
population a success. He stated that integration is “so ingrained in the system now that it’s no big
deal. We don’t even think about it.”215 According to him, “We did the right thing, and it’s proven
time and again that it is the right thing.”216

C. Colorado

As of 2015, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) had a total of three deathsentenced prisoners, all male, who were housed at Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling,
Colorado, which was overseen by Warden James Falk. As of 2016, the last execution in
Colorado was in 1997.217

The question of solitary confinement has been an issue for the Colorado prison system for
several years. Relatively few individuals were sentenced to death, but a significant number of
other prisoners were held in isolation until 2011, when Tom Clements became the Director of
Corrections. Under his leadership, Colorado reduced that population from more than 1,400 to
about 700.218 After Director Clements was murdered by a former prisoner in 2013, Rick

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Raemisch, who had been the head of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, was
appointed;219 he continued Director Clements’s efforts to lower the number of individuals in
isolation.

Until 2014, Colorado housed death-sentenced prisoners in administrative segregation at
Sterling Correctional Facility;220 no separate facility was provided for those with death
sentences.221 At the time, administrative segregation was the most secure custody level in the
CDOC.222 Prisoners were locked in their cells twenty-three hours a day, with one hour out for
exercise and showering. Prisoners could not leave their cells unless they were in full restraints
and escorted by at least two correctional officers. Meals, pharmaceutical, educational, and library
services were delivered to the cells. Prisoners were permitted to have a television and two and a
half hours of non-contact visitation time per week.223

Colorado reformed its housing policies for death-sentenced prisoners in 2014 as part of
its more general effort to reduce reliance on administrative segregation.224 According to Director
Raemisch, a long period of isolation is psychologically damaging and has the effect of “taking
someone who has committed a very violent act and possibly making them more violent.”225
Director Raemisch noted during our interview that, prior to reform:

Colorado had failed in its mission . . . . Its mission is not to run a more efficient
institution, which is what segregation is for. Running an efficient institution is a
noble goal, but the mission really is to protect the community. You don’t do that
by sending someone out worse than they came in.226

By March 2014, CDOC had decreased the population held in solitary confinement to 577227 and,
as of the spring of 2016, to some 160 prisoners.228

CDOC extended its reform efforts to death-sentenced prisoners. On March 4, 2014,
Deputy Executive Director Kellie Wasko sent an email to all CDOC employees announcing the
planned introduction of a policy eliminating administrative segregation for death-sentenced
prisoners.229 Director Raemisch noted that part of the impetus for this change was the long period
that death-sentenced prisoners would likely spend living in Colorado prisons.230 While deathsentenced prisoners might never re-enter the larger community, Director Raemisch viewed
reform of those prisoners’ conditions as an issue for the well-being of the prison community and
its safety.231

As a first reform, CDOC permitted the three male death-sentenced prisoners232 to be with
each other; this change evolved into the current policy under which death-sentenced prisoners
are housed with non-death-sentenced prisoners in a “close custody management control unit”
(MCU), first housed at Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling, Colorado233 and, by 2016, at the
Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP).234

The discussion about reforming housing for death-sentenced prisoners originated in the
upper level of CDOC, and administrators then sought feedback on the reforms from corrections
officers. Director Raemisch called his staff’s handling of segregation reform “amazing.” He
noted that they had achieved “a complete change in culture” in a short amount of time. Deputy
Executive Director Wasko said that the biggest part of training staff on these reforms was to

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

point out that death-sentenced prisoners were functionally the same as many others in the prison;
staff were “already walking around with that type of offender [convicted of serious crimes of
violence]. The only difference is the sentence. Several hundred inmates have life without
possibility of parole.”235

As of the spring of 2015, death-sentenced prisoners were classified as “close custody”
prisoners.236 Within the “close custody” classification, prisoners were placed into various status
designations based on their management needs.237 Death-sentenced prisoners were designated to
and housed in a close custody MCU.238 Prisoners in the MCU each had their own cell, measuring
about seven-by-thirteen feet. Each MCU had about sixteen prisoners, and both death-sentenced
and non-death-sentenced prisoners could be housed together within the same MCU. Deathsentenced prisoners generally had the same living conditions and privileges as other close
custody prisoners in the MCU. According to Wasko, “they are not identified as death-sentenced
offenders. You couldn’t pick them out. They are treated like all other prisoners in the
management control unit.”239

As of 2015, MCU prisoners were permitted to leave their cells for a minimum of four
hours a day, seven days a week; prisoners spent two hours in the morning and two hours in the
afternoon in groups of about eight prisoners, some of which was spent together in a dayroom.
During such times, corrections officers, who were not physically in the dayroom, maintained
visual contact at all times.240 Prisoners were permitted four hours of indoor or outdoor recreation
per week.241

In terms of the backdrop before the reforms under Director Raemisch, the Colorado
prison system had also faced litigation (as had Missouri) about conditions for death-sentenced
prisoners. In 2009, three individuals claimed that they had been subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment because they were denied the opportunity for outdoor exercise for an extended
period of time.242 The case was settled by the joint request of the parties under an agreement in
which Colorado moved death-sentenced prisoners to Sterling so they could have access to
outdoor recreation.243 At the time, Sterling Correctional Facility did not have outdoor areas for
groups; recreation was available on an individual basis.244 As noted above, death-sentenced
individuals were part of the MCU, and those prisoners were later moved to another facility, the
Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP). That prison was the subject of another case, brought by a
non-death sentenced prisoner about its lack of outdoor recreational space.245 As of the spring of
2016, Colorado was building an outdoor recreation area for CSP; the expected completion date is
in December 2016.246

Returning to the rules for the MCU prisoners in general, Colorado permits six noncontact visits a month, each lasting two hours. After thirty days, MCU prisoners become eligible
for no more than two contact visits (of no more than ninety minutes) per month.247 In addition to
legal telephone calls, death-sentenced and other MCU prisoners could make eight twenty-minute
telephone calls per month.248

MCU prisoners received meals in their cells. They were eligible for in-unit work
opportunities.249 They were also eligible for in-cell programming through a television or selfservice kiosk.250 While MCU prisoners were given access to religious guidance and publications

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

from the prison Chaplain’s Office, they were not authorized to attend group religious services or
group programming.251 Director Raemisch expected that CDOC MCUs will continue to evolve
and that more programming, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and anger management, will
be added.252

These reforms have encountered some political resistance. In 2014, in The Complete
Colorado, an online political blog, a CDOC employee, a district attorney, and a relative of a
victim of a Colorado death row prisoner all expressed opposition to the proposed reforms.253 Bob
Beauprez, the 2014 Republican candidate for governor, also opposed the change and referenced
it in advertisements criticizing the incumbent, John Hickenlooper,254 who was thereafter
reelected, and the reforms continued.

Director Raemisch views the revised policies on housing of death-sentenced prisoners
and the larger project of reforming segregation in Colorado as a success. In his view, the changes
have had a positive effect on the demeanor and personalities of prisoners. Director Raemisch and
his top administrative staff “believe that in the long run this policy will lead to a safer
facility . . . . [A]ll the evidence is pointing in that direction.” Director Raemisch reported that
prisoner-on-prisoner violence had stayed the same since the segregation reforms began and that
prisoner-on-staff assaults were at their lowest since 2006.255

When asked about the popular perception of death-sentenced prisoners as more
dangerous because they have nothing left to lose, Director Raemisch explained that the CDOC
“believes just the opposite.” They “have no evidence to show that [death-sentenced prisoners]
are more violent in the facility.” Director Raemisch’s sense was that, while “there may be a few
inmates who are very dangerous,” those inmates can be managed accordingly; their presence
does not mean that isolation reform cannot be done safely. He and his administrative staff “all
believe that people can change.”256

III. Looking Forward

This review of the laws and policies governing death-sentenced individuals makes plain
that many correctional systems have a range of options when deciding on the conditions of
confinement for death-sentenced prisoners. The correctional leaders in North Carolina, Missouri,
and Colorado report the success of their systems. In addition, as discussed below, empirical work
has been done on the Missouri system and, in Colorado, studies of the impact of reforms of
solitary confinement are underway.

Specifically, the assessment by Director Lombardi that death-sentenced prisoners in
Missouri were not more likely to commit disciplinary infractions than their fellow prisoners was
confirmed in an analysis by Mark Cunningham, Thomas Reidy, and Jon Sorenson. The
researchers reviewed incidents of violent misconduct by prisoners at PCC between 1991 and
2002, a period after the integration of death-sentenced prisoners.

That study compared the rate of misconduct by prisoners sentenced to death to that of
prisoners sentenced to life without parole or to shorter prison terms.257 The researchers found

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

that death-sentenced prisoners committed violent misconduct at roughly the same low rate as
prisoners sentenced to life without parole.258 Both groups were also significantly less likely than
parole-eligible prisoners to commit violent misconduct: their rate was “about one-fifth of the rate
of violent misconduct among parole eligible inmates.”259 In addition, from 1991 to 2002, there
were no homicides or attempted homicides committed by the death-sentenced prisoners.260 The
authors concluded that the “practice of integrating death-sentenced inmates in the general
population of a maximum-security prison is strongly supported by these findings” and that the
findings undermined “[c]onventional assumptions that death-sentenced inmates require supermaximum security protocols.”261 The authors concluded that this demonstrated death-sentenced
prisoners could be integrated safely into the general prison population.262

In 2016, the authors published a follow up report that relied on twenty-five years of data
on the Missouri “mainstreaming” policy.263 The researchers evaluated eighty-five prisoners with
capital sentences who were housed in the general population, and 702 prisoners serving lifewithout-parole sentences, as well as 3,000 prisoners serving term sentences.264 The study
concluded that those prisoners with capital sentences had “equivalent or lower rates of violent
misconduct” than did either of the other sets of prisoners. In addition, the study found that “rates
of violence among Missouri [death-sentenced] inmates were markedly lower after being
mainstreamed than they had been under the prior era of heightened security conditions on ‘death
row.’”265 The researchers argued that the “failure of assumptions of high violence risk
undergirding death row has important public policy and correctional implications.”266 As the
title, Wasted Resources and Gratuitous Suffering: The Failure of a Security Rationale for Death
Row reflected, the authors viewed their data as supporting a national change in policies to reduce
the isolation of individuals serving capital sentences.267

In sum, the mix of empirical work and reports of experiences of North Carolina,
Missouri, and Colorado demonstrates that less restrictive, less isolating housing policies on death
row have, in the judgment of correctional officials, contributed to the safety and security of
prisoners and correctional staff alike.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

All rights reserved; Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, 2016. For additional information, contact
Judith.Resnik@yale.edu. The primary authors of this Report are Celina Aldape, Ryan Cooper, Katie Haas, April Hu,
Jessica Hunter, and Shelle Shimizu, Yale Law School students participating in this Liman Project from 2014 to
2016, and working under the supervision of Johanna Kalb, Visiting Associate Professor of Law and Director, Arthur
Liman Public Interest Program, and Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law.

We thank Kenneth Lassiter, Deputy Director for Operations, North Carolina Department of Public Safety;
George Lombardi, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Rick Raemisch, Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Corrections; and Kellie Wasko, Deputy Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, all
of whom shared their experiences and then reviewed the descriptions of their work prior to this Report’s publication.
Thanks are also due to the many colleagues who helped us shape the Report and who provided advice on research:
Burke Butler, Staff Attorney, Texas Defender Service; George Camp, Co-Executive Director, Association of State
Correctional Administrators; Mark D. Cunningham, Ph.D., ABPP; David Fathi, Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union’s National Prison Project; Amy Fettig, Senior Staff Counsel for the American Civil Liberties
Union’s National Prison Project; Meredith Martin Rountree, Visiting Assistant Professor, Northwestern School of
Law; Brian W. Stull, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union, Capital Defense Project; and Sandra
Babcock, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School. Yet more thanks are due to Sarah Baumgartel, Senior
Liman Fellow in Residence, and Yale Law School staff, Bonnie Posick and Christine Donahue Mullen, who have
thoughtfully helped in bringing this project to fruition.

See, e.g., Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 325 (2006)
(describing evidence of severe psychiatric harm resulting from solitary confinement); Craig Haney, Mental Health
Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQ. 124 (2003) (reviewing literature
on negative psychological effects caused by isolation and the high percentage of mentally ill prisoners confined in
isolation); Fatos Kaba, Andrea Lewis, Sarah Glowa-Kollisch, James Hadler, David Lee, Howard Alper, Daniel
Selling, Ross MacDonald, Angela Solimo, Amanda Parsons & Homer Venters, Solitary Confinement and Risk of
Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates, 104 AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 442 (2014) (concluding acts of self-harm are
significantly associated with having been in solitary confinement); Jeffrey L. Metzner & Jamie Fellner, Solitary
Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics, 38 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY &
L. 104 (2010) (describing effects of solitary confinement on prisoners with preexisting serious mental illness); John
J. Gibbons & Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and
Abuse
in
America’s
Prisons,
VERA
INST.
OF
JUSTICE
54-55
(2006),
available
at
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Confronting_Confinement.pdf (noting research efforts
suggesting that the increasing use of expensive segregated housing units can cause violence inside facilities and
increase recidivism); A Solitary Failure: The Waste, Cost and Harm of Solitary Confinement in Texas, AM. CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF TEX. (Feb. 2015) [hereinafter A Solitary Failure], available at
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/SolitaryReport_2015.pdf; see also Cyrus Ahalt and Brie
Williams, Reforming Solitary-Confinement Policy – Heeding a Presidential Call to Action, 374 N. ENG. J. MED.
1704 (2016) (calling for new research on the health consequences of solitary confinement).

Sarah Baumgartel, Corey Guilmette, Johanna Kalb, Diana Li, Josh Nuni, Devon Porter & Judith Resnik, Time-InCell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison, THE LIMAN PROGRAM, YALE
LAW SCHOOL 58 (2015) [hereinafter ASCA-Liman, Time-in-Cell] (reporting that incentives for making changes to
administrative segregation policies according to members of the Association of State Correctional Administrators
included, inter alia: concerns about prisoner and staff well-being, concerns about prisoner and staff safety,
space/facility constraints, and possible cost savings), available at
https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files /documents/asca-liman_administrativesegregationreport.pdf; see also A
Solitary Failure, supra note 3, at 9 (estimating that Texas taxpayers spend $46 million or more per year to house
prisoners in solitary confinement rather than in the general population).

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Deborah Fins, Death Row U.S.A., NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1 (Fall 2015), available at
http://www.naacpldf.org/files/our-work/DRUSA_Fall_2015.pdf (identifying total number of death-sentenced
prisoners as 2,959 as of October 1, 2015).
See, e.g., Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 325 (2006)
(describing evidence of severe psychiatric harm resulting from solitary confinement); Craig Haney, Mental Health
Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQ. 124 (2003) (reviewing literature
on negative psychological effects caused by isolation and the high percentage of mentally ill prisoners confined in
isolation); Fatos Kaba, Andrea Lewis, Sarah Glowa-Kollisch, James Hadler, David Lee, Howard Alper, Daniel
Selling, Ross MacDonald, Angela Solimo, Amanda Parsons & Homer Venters, Solitary Confinement and Risk of
Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates, 104 AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 442 (2014) (concluding acts of self-harm are
significantly associated with having been in solitary confinement); Jeffrey L. Metzner & Jamie Fellner, Solitary
Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics, 38 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY &
L. 104 (2010) (describing effects of solitary confinement on prisoners with preexisting serious mental illness); John
J. Gibbons & Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and
Abuse
in
America’s
Prisons,
VERA
INST.
OF
JUSTICE
54-55
(2006),
available
at
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Confronting_Confinement.pdf (noting research efforts
suggesting that the increasing use of expensive segregated housing units can cause violence inside facilities and
increase recidivism); A Solitary Failure: The Waste, Cost and Harm of Solitary Confinement in Texas, AM. CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF TEX. (Feb. 2015) [hereinafter A Solitary Failure], available at
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/SolitaryReport_2015.pdf; see also Cyrus Ahalt and Brie
Williams, Reforming Solitary-Confinement Policy – Heeding a Presidential Call to Action, 374 N. ENG. J. MED.
1704 (2016) (calling for new research on the health consequences of solitary confinement).
Sarah Baumgartel, Corey Guilmette, Johanna Kalb, Diana Li, Josh Nuni, Devon Porter & Judith Resnik, Time-InCell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison, THE LIMAN PROGRAM, YALE
LAW SCHOOL 58 (2015) [hereinafter ASCA-Liman, Time-in-Cell] (reporting that incentives for making changes to
administrative segregation policies according to members of the Association of State Correctional Administrators
included, inter alia: concerns about prisoner and staff well-being, concerns about prisoner and staff safety,
space/facility constraints, and possible cost savings), available at
https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files /documents/asca-liman_administrativesegregationreport.pdf; see also A
Solitary Failure, supra note 3, at 9 (estimating that Texas taxpayers spend $46 million or more per year to house
prisoners in solitary confinement rather than in the general population).

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

In 2013, the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) adopted new restrictive housing guidelines,
calling for individual jurisdictions to develop policies to “manag[e] inmates in the least restrictive way necessary.”
Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines, ASS’N OF STATE CORR. ADMINS. (Aug. 9, 2013), available at
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/6145/B.%20ASCA%20Restrictive%20Status%20Housing%20Policy
%20Guidelines-Final%2008092013.pdf?1375723019. ASCA uses the term “restrictive status housing” to
encompass restrictive forms of housing for prisoners who “would pose a serious threat” in the general prison
population. Id. at 1.

When the ASCA-Liman Time-in-Cell Report was released in the fall of 2015, ASCA’s press release
introducing the Report explained that it provided “one way to measure and to learn whether the hoped-for changes
are taking place, to reduce and eliminate the isolation of prisoners, so as to enable prisoners and staff to live and
work in safe environments, respectful of human dignity.” New Report on Prisoners in Administrative Segregation
Prepared by the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at
Yale Law School, ASS’N OF STATE CORR. ADMINS. 1 (Sept. 2, 2015), http://www.asca.net/system/
assets/attachments/8895/ASCA%20LIMAN%20Press%20Release%208-28-15.pdf?1441222595.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights held
hearings in 2012 and 2014 on the topic of isolation in prisons. Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human
Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety Consequences, U.S. SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY (June 19, 2012), available
at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/reassessing-solitary-confinement-the-human-rights-fiscal-and-publicsafety-consequences; Reassessing Solitary Confinement II: The Human Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety
Consequences, U.S. SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY (Feb. 25, 2014), available at
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/reassessing-solitary-confinement-ii-the-human-rights-fiscal-and-publicsafety-consequences.

Senator Richard Durbin, who presided over the hearings, expressed serious concerns about the
psychological impact of solitary confinement, noting that half of prison suicides occur among isolated prisoners.
Erica Goode, Senators Start a Review of Solitary Confinement, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2012), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/senators-start-a-review-of-solitary-confinement.html.
Senator
Durbin
requested an independent review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ use of restrictive housing, which was completed
in 2014. Kenneth McGinnis, James Austin, Karl Becker, Larry Fields, Michael Lane, Mike Maloney, Mary Marcial,
Robert May, Jon Ozmint, Tom Roth, Emmitt Sparkman, Roberta Stellman, Pablo Stewart, George Vose & Tammy
Felix, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment, CNA ANALYSIS & SOLUTIONS
(Dec. 2014), available at https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf. Senator
Durbin noted that, while the BOP had successfully reduced the number of prisoners in solitary confinement, further
work remained to be done to reform its segregation policies. Durbin: First-Of-Its-Kind Report on Solitary
Confinement Shows Need for More Improvement, DICK DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR, ILL. (Feb. 27, 2015), available at
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-first-of-its-kind-report-on-solitary-confinementshows-need-for-more-improvement.

Several state legislatures have introduced bills that would place limits on the extent and duration of solitary
confinement. For example, in Illinois, a pending bill would limit the permissible uses of solitary confinement,
prohibit the use of solitary confinement for members of vulnerable populations in most circumstances, and prohibit

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

President Barack Obama ordered a Justice Department review of solitary confinement in 2015, and expressed
concerns about the effects of long-term solitary confinement on safety and prisoner reentry. Peter Baker & Erica
Goode, Critics of Solitary Confinement Are Buoyed as Obama Embraces Their Cause, N.Y. TIMES (July 21, 2015),
available at http://www.nytimes.com/ 2015/07/22/us/politics/critics-of-solitary-confinement-buoyed-as-obamaembraces-cause.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSolitary%20Confinement. The Department of Justice
released a final Report in January 2016, setting out best practices for correctional facilities and policy
recommendations for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and related agencies. Report and Recommendations Concerning
the
Use
of
Restrictive
Housing,
U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE
(Jan.
2016),
available
at
https://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download. President Obama published a presidential memorandum
ordering implementation of the DOJ Report in March. Presidential Memorandum – Limiting the Use of Restrictive
Housing by the Federal Government, THE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE PRESS SEC’Y (Mar. 1, 2016), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/01/presidential-memorandum-limiting-use-restrictivehousing-federal.
In 2013, the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) adopted new restrictive housing guidelines,
calling for individual jurisdictions to develop policies to “manag[e] inmates in the least restrictive way necessary.”
Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines, ASS’N OF STATE CORR. ADMINS. (Aug. 9, 2013), available at
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/6145/B.%20ASCA%20Restrictive%20Status%20Housing%20Policy
%20Guidelines-Final%2008092013.pdf?1375723019. ASCA uses the term “restrictive status housing” to
encompass restrictive forms of housing for prisoners who “would pose a serious threat” in the general prison
population. Id. at 1.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

holding anyone in solitary confinement for more than five consecutive days in most situations. H.B. 5417, 99th Gen.
Assemb. (Ill. 2016). In Massachusetts, several pending bills would limit the use of segregation. HB 3451 would
limit the use and extent of segregation for prisoners under 21, and limit isolation for any prisoner over 21 to fifteen
days for one offense. H.B. 3451, 189th Gen. Court (Mass. 2015). HB 1475 would limit disciplinary segregation to
fifteen days, and prohibit segregation for certain classes of prisoners. H.B. 1475, 189th Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2015). In
New Jersey, a pending bill would limit the purposes for which solitary confinement may be used, prohibit its use for
more than fifteen consecutive days under most circumstances, and limit the use of solitary confinement for members
of vulnerable populations. S51, 217th Leg. (N.J. 2016). In New York, a bill in committee would limit the use and
length of time of segregated confinement, prohibit segregation for certain classes of prisoners, and create alternative
therapeutic and rehabilitative confinement options. A8588A, 2013-2014 Legis. Sess. (N.Y. 2014).

Motion by Chair Hilda L. Solis and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Ending Juvenile Solitary Confinement in Los
Angeles County, BD. OF SUPERVISORS, CNTY. OF LOS ANGELES (May 3, 2016), available at
http://supervisorkuehl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/5.3.16-Solitary-Confinement-Motion-REVISED.pdf
(providing that “[i]n very rare situations, after all other interventions have been exhausted, a juvenile may be
separated from others as a temporary response” and that “[e]ven in such cases, the placement should be brief,
designed as a ‘cool down’ period, and done only in consultation with a mental health professional”); see also Adam
Nagourney & Timothy Williams, Los Angeles County Restricts Solitary for Juveniles, N.Y. TIMES (May 3, 2016),
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/los-angeles-county-restricts-solitary-for-juveniles.html?_r=0.

In 2015, a class of California prisoners reached a settlement agreement with the state of California, in which the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation agreed to limit the amount of time a prisoner could be held
in a segregated housing unit, to cease placing prisoners in segregation solely on the basis of gang affiliation, and to
speed up the rate at which segregated prisoners are reintegrated to the general population. See Ashker v. Governor,
Case No: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (Oct. 6, 2015), available at http://documents.latimes.com/californias-solitarysettlement/; see also Ian Lovett, California Agrees to Overhaul Use of Solitary Confinement, N.Y. TIMES (Sep. 1,
2015), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/solitary-confinement-california-prisons.html. The
United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the settlement
agreement. Ashker v. Governor, Case No: 4:09:-cv-05796-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-CA-0054-9001.pdf.

In 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement
between a class of New York prisoners and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision that would limit the circumstances in which disciplinary solitary confinement can be imposed,
implement a step-down program for prisoners leaving solitary confinement, and create alternatives to solitary
confinement for juveniles and special needs prisoners. Peoples v. Annucci, Case No: 1:11-cv-02694-SAS (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2016), available at http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/3_31_Solitary_Confine_settlement_approval.pdf.

Several agreements illustrate the role played by such challenges. The Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania
reached a settlement agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in 2013 to stop housing prisoners
with serious mental illness in solitary confinement in the Restricted Housing Units and to establish new treatment
units that provide significant out-of-cell time. Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania v. Wetzel, Case No: 1:13CV-00635 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2015), available at https://www.aclupa.org/download_file/view_inline/2714/677/. The
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ordered the matter dismissed without prejudice
in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania v. Wetzel,
Case No: 1:13-CV-00635 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2015), available at http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PCPA-0031-0004.pdf.

The Illinois Department of Corrections entered a settlement agreement under which prisoners with mental
illness in solitary confinement must be allowed a certain minimum number of hours per week out of the cell, receive
periodic reviews of placement, and continue to receive mental health treatment while in segregation. Rasho v.
Baldwin, Case No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2016), available at http://www.clearinghouse.net/
chDocs/public/PC-IL-0031-0009.pdf. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

See H.B. 1328, 70th Gen. Assemb. (Co. 2016) (defining “youth” to mean “an individual who is less than twentyone years of age” and forbidding holding youth “in seclusion under any circumstances for more than eight total
hours in two consecutive calendar days without a written court order”); and http://aclu-co.org/colorado-legislaturepasses-bill-protect-children-solitary-confinement.
Motion by Chair Hilda L. Solis and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Ending Juvenile Solitary Confinement in Los
Angeles County, BD. OF SUPERVISORS, CNTY. OF LOS ANGELES (May 3, 2016), available at
http://supervisorkuehl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/5.3.16-Solitary-Confinement-Motion-REVISED.pdf
(providing that “[i]n very rare situations, after all other interventions have been exhausted, a juvenile may be
separated from others as a temporary response” and that “[e]ven in such cases, the placement should be brief,
designed as a ‘cool down’ period, and done only in consultation with a mental health professional”); see also Adam
Nagourney & Timothy Williams, Los Angeles County Restricts Solitary for Juveniles, N.Y. TIMES (May 3, 2016),
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/los-angeles-county-restricts-solitary-for-juveniles.html?_r=0.
In 2015, a class of California prisoners reached a settlement agreement with the state of California, in which the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation agreed to limit the amount of time a prisoner could be held
in a segregated housing unit, to cease placing prisoners in segregation solely on the basis of gang affiliation, and to
speed up the rate at which segregated prisoners are reintegrated to the general population. See Ashker v. Governor,
Case No: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (Oct. 6, 2015), available at http://documents.latimes.com/californias-solitarysettlement/; see also Ian Lovett, California Agrees to Overhaul Use of Solitary Confinement, N.Y. TIMES (Sep. 1,
2015), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/solitary-confinement-california-prisons.html. The
United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the settlement
agreement. Ashker v. Governor, Case No: 4:09:-cv-05796-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-CA-0054-9001.pdf.

Central District of Illinois in May, 2016. See Rasho v. Walker, 07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill. May 13, 2016)
(finding agreement “fair and reasonable”).

The Arizona Department of Corrections entered a stipulation in 2014 to increase access to health care,
increase time spent out-of-cell, and restrict the use of chemical agents for seriously mentally ill prisoners in solitary
confinement. Parsons v. Ryan, No. CV 12-00601-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2014), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-AZ-0018-0028.pdf.

See, e.g., A Solitary Failure, supra note 3; Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons,
N.Y. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (2012), available at
http://www.nyclu.org/publications/report-boxed-true-cost-of-extreme-isolation-new-yorks-prisons-2012;
Ending
Torture in U.S. Prisons, NAT’L RELIGIOUS CAMPAIGN AGAINST TORTURE, available at http://www.nrcat.org/torturein-us-prisons; Margo Schlanger, Regulating Segregation: The Contribution of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards
on the Treatment of Prisoners, 47 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1421 (2010); Alison Shames, Jessa Wilcox & Ram
Subramanian, Solitary Confinement: Common Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives, VERA INST. OF
JUSTICE (May 2015), available at http://www.vera.org/pubs/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives;
Keramet Ann Reiter, The Most Restrictive Alternative: A Litigation History of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons,
1960-2006, 57 STUD. IN L., POL, & SOC’Y 71 (2012); see also ASCA-Liman, Time-In-Cell, supra note 4.

A Death Before Dying: Solitary Confinement on Death Row, AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (July 2013), available
at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/deathbeforedying-report.pdf [hereinafter A Death Before
Dying].

Prieto v. Clarke, No. 1:12CV1199 LMB/IDD, 2013 WL 6019215, at *11 (E.D. Va. 2013).

Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. dismissed as moot, 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015).

See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 4100302 (2015) (No. 15-31), cert. dismissed as
moot, 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015). In June of 2016, the Court granted review in a death penalty case regarding the
standards that should be used to determine intellectual disability; the Court declined to consider a second question in
the case – whether the death-sentenced prisoner’s more than three decades of incarceration awaiting execution
(spent in solitary confinement) violated the Eighth Amendment. See Ex Parte Moore, 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015), cert. granted in part, Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797, 2016 WL 3128994, at *1 (U.S. June 6, 2016); see
also Adam Liptak, Supreme Court to Hear Death Penalty Cases, N.Y. TIMES (Jun. 1, 2016), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-death-penalty-cases.html?_r=0.

See Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2765 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting, joined by Ginsburg, J.) (stating that
“nearly all death penalty States keep death row inmates in isolation for 22 or more hours per day” and discussing the
“dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement.”); Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208-10 (2015) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring).

Ayala, 135 S.Ct. at 2208 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Id.

Id. at 2209-10.

Associated Press, Appeals Exhausted, Alfred Prieto, Serial Killer, Is Executed, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 1, 2015),
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/appeals-exhausted-alfredo-prieto-serial-killer-is-executed.html.
See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 4100302 (2015) (No. 15-31), cert. dismissed as
moot, 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015). In June of 2016, the Court granted review in a death penalty case regarding the
standards that should be used to determine intellectual disability; the Court declined to consider a second question in
the case – whether the death-sentenced prisoner’s more than three decades of incarceration awaiting execution
(spent in solitary confinement) violated the Eighth Amendment. See Ex Parte Moore, 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015), cert. granted in part, Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797, 2016 WL 3128994, at *1 (U.S. June 6, 2016); see
also Adam Liptak, Supreme Court to Hear Death Penalty Cases, N.Y. TIMES (Jun. 1, 2016), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-death-penalty-cases.html?_r=0.
See Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2765 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting, joined by Ginsburg, J.) (stating that
“nearly all death penalty States keep death row inmates in isolation for 22 or more hours per day” and discussing the
“dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement.”); Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208-10 (2015) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring).

See Sharon Shalev & Kimmett Edgar, Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in
England and Wales, PRISON REFORM TRUST (2015), available at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf. A comprehensive review of practices can be found in Sharon

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Courts review the length and nature of conditions when considering whether the confinement violates rights
against degrading treatment and rights to family life. See, e.g., Ramirez-Sanchez v. France, App. No. 59450/00,
2006 Eur. Ct. H.R. 685; Öcalan v. Turkey (No. 2), App. Nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06, 10464/07, 2014 Eur. Ct.
H.R. 286; see also Breivik v. Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Case No. 15-107496TVI-OTIR/02 (Oslo
District Court, 2016).
See Sharon Shalev & Kimmett Edgar, Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in
England and Wales, PRISON REFORM TRUST (2015), available at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf. A comprehensive review of practices can be found in Sharon

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Shalev, A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement, MANNHEIM CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY, LONDON SCH. OF ECON.
(2008), available at http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/sourcebook_web.pdf.

U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Nelson Mandela Rules”), G.A. Res. 11745,
U.N. Doc. E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1 (May 22, 2015), available at http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/
CCPCJ/CCPCJ_Sessions/CCPCJ_24/resolutions/L6_Rev1/ECN152015_L6Rev1_e_V1503585.pdf;
see
also
General Assembly Adopts 64 Third Committee Texts Covering Issues Including Migrants, Children’s Rights, Human
Rights Defenders (Dec. 17, 2015), available at http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11745.doc.htm.

Id. at 18 (Rule 44).

Id. (Rule 43(1)).

Id. (Rule 45(1)).

Fins, supra note 2, at 36 (listing the number of prisoners on death row in each jurisdiction as of October 1, 2015).
These thirty-five jurisdictions included: thirty-two jurisdictions, including thirty-one states and the federal system
(including the federal government and the U.S. military – counted as one jurisdiction), with a death penalty statute in
effect for all of 2015; one state (New Mexico) that repealed the death penalty prospectively prior to 2016, but
continued to hold prisoners whose death sentences may or may not be carried out; one state (Nebraska) in which the
status of the death penalty was the subject of a pending referendum; and one state (Connecticut) in which, at the
time, the retroactive application of the death penalty after a prospective legislative repeal was an issue pending
before the state supreme court.

Id. (Rule 45(2)).

Fins, supra note 2, at 1.

In doing this research, at least two law students reviewed each jurisdiction’s statutes and administrative codes on
LexisNexis or WestLaw, consulted each jurisdiction’s Department of Corrections policies, where publicly available,
and ran a Google search for relevant news articles and reports. Specifically, the following search strings were used:
“death w/3 sentence,” “death AND row,” “solitary AND confin*,” and “execut*.” In addition, the students
individually read all death penalty-related sections of each jurisdiction’s statute or administrative code. This
functioned as an additional accuracy check to ensure that the search strings did not omit important information.

The jurisdictions are Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. See Appendix
A.

These jurisdictions are Alabama, California, Oregon, and New Hampshire. See Appendix A.

These jurisdictions are Alabama, California, Oregon, and New Hampshire. See Appendix A.
See Appendix A.

See Appendix A.

IDAHO CODE ANN. § 19-2705 (2016).

61 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 4303 (West 2016).

WYO. STAT. ANN. §7-13-907 (2015).

WASH. REV. CODE § 10.95.170 (2015).

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.113(b)(1) (West 2015).

FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 33-601.830 (2015).

FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 33-601.830 (2015).
Id.

38
39
40
41
42
43

Id.

S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 23A-27A-31.1 (2015).

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.112 (2015).

OR. ADMIN. r. 291-093-0005 (2015).

OHIO ADMIN. CODE r. 5120-9-12 (2016).

46
47

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Id.

CONN. GEN. STAT. § 18-10b (2015).

49
50

Id. In the spring of 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court reaffirmed that the death penalty abolition statute
applied to those individuals who had been sentenced to death before the statute was enacted. See State v. Peeler, 321
Conn. 375 (2016).

See Appendix A.

ALA. CODE § 15-18-80(a) (2016).

CAL. PENAL CODE § 3600(b)(1) (2015).

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18-1.3-1205 (West 2016).

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 630:5 (West 2016).

LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15:568 (West 2016).

54
55
56
57

See COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18-1.3-1205 (West 2016); IDAHO CODE ANN. §19-2705 (2015); S.D. CODIFIED
LAWS § 23A-27A-31.1 (2015); WYO. STAT. ANN. §7-13-907 (2015). Colorado and Wyoming affirmatively protect
prisoners’ access to specified visitors, while Idaho and South Dakota assume the availability of such visits, but
indicate that they are subject to the rules of the facility.

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18-1.3-1205 (West 2016).

IDAHO CODE ANN. § 19-2705 (2016).

IDAHO CODE ANN. § 19-2705 (2016).
S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 23A-27A-31.1 (2016).

S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 23A-27A-31.1 (2016).

WYO. STAT. ANN. §7-13-907 (2015).

See Ala. Code § 15-18-81 (2016); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-6-4 (2016).

ALA. CODE § 15-18-81 (2016).

IND. CODE ANN. § 35-38-6-4 (West 2016).

61 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 4303 (West 2016).

63
64
65
66

See Appendix A; FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 33-601.830 (2015) (allotting minimum of six hours); OHIO ADMIN. CODE
r. 5120-9-12 (2016) (permitting five hours); OR. ADMIN. R. 291-093-0015 (2016) (specifying minimum hours for
exercise). A few jurisdictions’ laws also provide for particular security classifications for death-sentenced prisoners,
at least initially, which may impact out-of-cell time and other cell privileges. These jurisdictions include California,
which considers a death sentence to be an “administrative determinant” that overrides other classification factors,
see CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15 § 3375.2(b)(5) (2015); Connecticut, see CONN. GEN. STAT. § 18-10b (2015); New
Hampshire, see N.H. CODE ADMIN. R. ANN. COR 402.04 (2015); and Oregon, see OR. ADMIN. R. 291-104-0111
(2015).

FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 33-601.830 (2015).

OHIO ADMIN. CODE r. 5120-9-12 (2016).

68
69

The eighteen states with published policies were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. In determining which states had published policies, we considered only states
in which the state’s Department of Corrections had made available online a formal statement of policy or procedure
regarding the housing of death-sentenced prisoners – whether referred to as a “policy,” “regulation,” or by some
other name – to have a published policy. States for which information regarding housing procedures for deathsentenced prisoners could be inferred from descriptions of death row conditions on Department of Corrections
websites, in handbooks intended for use by prisoners and their families, or from media reports were not considered
to have published policies. These states included Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, and Utah.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

See Inmate Security Classification Levels 1 Through 4, OHIO DEP’T. OF CORR. POLICIES, No. 53-CLS-01 (Aug. 4,
2015), available at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/53-CLS-01.pdf.

Restrictive Housing, IDAHO DEP’T OF CORR., No. 319.02.01.002 (Sep. 6, 2011), available at
https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/policy/720.

Id.

See Inmate Security Classification Levels 1 Through 4, OHIO DEP’T. OF CORR. POLICIES, No. 53-CLS-01 (Aug. 4,
2015), available at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/53-CLS-01.pdf.
Restrictive Housing, IDAHO DEP’T OF CORR., No. 319.02.01.002 (Sep. 6, 2011), available at
https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/policy/720.
Id.

See Alanna Durkin, Virginia Quietly Grants Death Row Inmates New Privileges, AP: THE BIG STORY (Oct. 16,
2015), available at
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/24129250f1b74fefb1c4d4921f3aa199/virginia-quietly-grants-death-row-inmates-newprivileges. See also Brief in Opp’n to Cert., Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 5312503, at *7-9, No. 15-31 (Sept. 9, 2015)
(describing modifications to conditions for death-sentenced prisoners).

A Death Before Dying, supra note 14, at 4.

Id. at 4.

Id. at 5.

Id. at 4.

Id. at 5 (“In fact, 81 percent of states allow only one hour or less of exercise daily for death row prisoners. And
nearly half provide only a cage, pen, or cell in which to exercise.”); accord Inmates Sentenced to Death Housing
Policy, ASS’N OF STATE CORR. ADMINS. (Feb. 2013), available at http://www.asca.net/system/assets/
attachments/5520/WA%20-%20Death%20Penalty%20Housing.pdf?1362689706 [hereinafter 2013 ASCA Survey]
(showing a majority of responding states do not allow group recreation).

A Death Before Dying, supra note 14, at 5.

Id. at 5.

81
82

Id. (“The majority of death row prisoners eat alone in their cells, fed on trays inserted through a slot in the door.
They also receive the majority of their medical and mental health care through these slots.”).
Id. at 5 (“In fact, 81 percent of states allow only one hour or less of exercise daily for death row prisoners. And
nearly half provide only a cage, pen, or cell in which to exercise.”); accord Inmates Sentenced to Death Housing
Policy, ASS’N OF STATE CORR. ADMINS. (Feb. 2013), available at http://www.asca.net/system/assets/
attachments/5520/WA%20-%20Death%20Penalty%20Housing.pdf?1362689706 [hereinafter 2013 ASCA Survey]
(showing a majority of responding states do not allow group recreation).

A Death Before Dying, supra note 14, at 5 (“An overwhelming majority of states do not allow death row prisoners
to have access to work or employment opportunities, or provide access to educational or vocational programming of
any kind.”); accord 2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79 (providing qualitative responses indicating the sorts of
programming available in each responding state).

See ASCA-Liman, Time-in-Cell, supra note 4.

Id. at 52-53.

Id. (“Most death row prisoners will never be able to touch or hug family members or loved ones, as 67 percent of
states mandate no-contact visitation for death row prisoners. This means that all human interactions during family
visits occur while the prisoner is behind some sort of barrier. Frequently, prisoners will also be in arm and leg
restraints during visits.”); accord 2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79.
A Death Before Dying, supra note 14, at 5 (“An overwhelming majority of states do not allow death row prisoners
to have access to work or employment opportunities, or provide access to educational or vocational programming of
any kind.”); accord 2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79 (providing qualitative responses indicating the sorts of
programming available in each responding state).

2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79, at 3-4. The 2013 ASCA survey was from February 2013. Maryland abolished
the death penalty later that year. See Ian Simpson, Maryland Becomes Latest U.S. State to Abolish Death Penalty,
REUTERS (May 2, 2013), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-maryland-deathpenaltyidUSBRE9410TQ20130502.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

ASCA received responses from the following states reporting that they housed death-sentenced prisoners at the
time of the survey: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. 2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79. This survey is also discussed in Marah Stith McLeod, Does the
Death Penalty Require Death Row? The Harm of Legislative Silence, 77 OHIO STATE L.J. 2016 (forthcoming 2016),
available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2589716 (last visited June 6, 2016).
2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79, at 3-4. The 2013 ASCA survey was from February 2013. Maryland abolished
the death penalty later that year. See Ian Simpson, Maryland Becomes Latest U.S. State to Abolish Death Penalty,
REUTERS (May 2, 2013), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-maryland-deathpenaltyidUSBRE9410TQ20130502.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79, at 1-8.

Id. at 9-16. These states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Utah.

Id. These states were Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, South Carolina and Utah.

Id. at 25-32. The states reporting programming opportunities were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas
and Utah. The states permitting contact visitation opportunities were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee.

See Sandra Babcock, Survey of Death Row Conditions, DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR. (2008), available at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row.

Id.

2013 ASCA Survey, supra note 79, at 1-8.

Id. at 9-16. These states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Utah.
Id. These states were Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, South Carolina and Utah.
Id. at 25-32. The states reporting programming opportunities were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas
and Utah. The states permitting contact visitation opportunities were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee.
See Sandra Babcock, Survey of Death Row Conditions, DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR. (2008), available at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row.
Id.

Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, South Carolina and Utah.

Id. These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia and Washington.

Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada,
Virginia and Washington.

Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

Andrea D. Lyon & Mark D. Cunningham, “Reason Not the Need”: Does the Lack of Compelling State Interest in
Maintaining a Separate Death Row Make It Unlawful?, 33 AM. J. CRIM. L. 1, 4-5 (2005); see also Mark D.
Cunningham, Thomas J. Reidy,& Jon R. Sorensen, Wasted Resources and Gratuitous Suffering: The Failure of a
Security Rationale for Death Row, 22 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL’Y & L. 185 (2016) [hereinafter Cunningham, Reidy &
Sorenson, Wasted Resources].

100

See McLeod, supra note 87.

100

See McLeod, supra note 87.

101

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18-1.3-1205 (West 2016).

101

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18-1.3-1205 (West 2016).

102

Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, South Carolina and Utah.
Id. These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia and Washington.
Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada,
Virginia and Washington.
Id. These jurisdictions were Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.
Andrea D. Lyon & Mark D. Cunningham, “Reason Not the Need”: Does the Lack of Compelling State Interest in
Maintaining a Separate Death Row Make It Unlawful?, 33 AM. J. CRIM. L. 1, 4-5 (2005); see also Mark D.
Cunningham, Thomas J. Reidy,& Jon R. Sorensen, Wasted Resources and Gratuitous Suffering: The Failure of a
Security Rationale for Death Row, 22 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL’Y & L. 185 (2016) [hereinafter Cunningham, Reidy &
Sorenson, Wasted Resources].

Mark D. Cunningham, Thomas J. Reidy & Jonathan R. Sorensen, Is Death Row Obsolete? A Decade of
Mainstreaming Death-Sentenced Inmates in Missouri, 23 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 307 (2005) [hereinafter Cunningham,
Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?].

102

103

See Cunningham, Reidy, & Sorenson, Wasted Resources, supra note 99.

103

See Cunningham, Reidy, & Sorenson, Wasted Resources, supra note 99.

Director Raemisch and Deputy Director Wasko were interviewed together.

104

Director Raemisch and Deputy Director Wasko were interviewed together.

Fins, supra note 2, at 35.

105

Fins, supra note 2, at 35.

104
105
106

Executions Carried Out Under Current Death Penalty Statute, N.C. DEP’T OF PUB. SAFETY (2016), available at
https://ox.dps.prod.nc.gov/Adult-Corrections/Prisons/Death-Penalty/List-of-persons-executed/Executions-19842006.

106

107

Id.

108

Telephone Interview with Kenneth Lassiter, Deputy Dir. for Operations, N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (April 2,
2015). Although death-sentenced prisoners were moved within Central Prison in 2000, the relocation did not entail a
change of conditions.

108

109

Id.

109

Id.

Fins, supra note 2, at 52.

110

Fins, supra note 2, at 52.

110

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

111

A description of the conditions on North Carolina’s death row for men at Central Prison can be found on the
NCDPS website. See Death Row and Death Row Watch, N.C. DEP’T OF PUB. SAFETY [hereinafter Death Row and
Death Row Watch], available at https://www.ncdps.gov/index2.cfm?a=000003,002240,002327. The policies on
conditions of confinement are available online. See Division of Prisons, Policies and Procedures: Conditions of
Confinement, N.C. DEP’T OF CORR. (Nov. 1, 2011), available at http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/
policy_procedure_manual/C1200.pdf. In addition, a number of media accounts have reported on Unit III. See Steve
Daniels, I-Team: Inside the Walls of Raleigh’s Central Prison, ABC NEWS (Feb. 24, 2014), available at
http://abc11.com/archive/9443918/; Life on Death Row: ‘Am I Going to Be Next?’,’ WRAL (Feb. 27, 2013),
available at http://www.wral.com/life-on-death-row-am-i-going-to-be-next-/12160383/; WRAL Visits NC’s Death
Row, WRAL (Feb. 27, 2013), available at http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/12161641/; Inside NC’s Death
Row, WRAL (Feb. 27, 2013), available at http://www.wral.com/news/local/image_gallery/12155529/; On Death
Row...a Rare Look Inside the Chambers, WFMY NEWS (May 17, 2012), available at
http://archive.digtriad.com/news/article/229062/1/On-Death-RowA-Rare-Look-Inside-The-Chambers.

111

112

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111. This Report focuses on Central Prison, which houses male
prisoners. However, NCDPS reported that the conditions for women were similar, consisting of a single cell with a
bed, lavatory, and commode, in a cellblock with a dayroom that had a television and table and chairs for meals.
Women were given at least an hour per day for exercise and showers and had access to religious services.

112

113

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

113

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

114

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

114

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

115

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

115

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

116

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

117

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

118

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

116
117
118
119

Prisoners watching television listened to the audio through portable headsets. The television channel was
determined by a committee of prisoners. Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

119

120

Id.

120

Id.
Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

121

Prisoners watching television listened to the audio through portable headsets. The television channel was
determined by a committee of prisoners. Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

121

122

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

122

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

123

Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

123

Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.
Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

124

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

124

125

Interview with Lassiter, supra note108.

125

Interview with Lassiter, supra note108.

126

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

126

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

127

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

128

Id.; Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.
Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

127
128
129

Death Row and Death Row Watch, supra note 111.

129

130

Id.

130

Id.

131

Id.

131

Id.

132

133

Gary D. Robertson, North Carolina House Committee Votes to Remove TVs for Death Row Inmates,
FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER (Jun. 7, 2012), available at http://www.fayobserver.com/ news/crime_courts/northcarolina-house-committee-votes-to-remove-tvs-for-death/article_1a20530c-7991-59f8-921f-ca722192d168.html.

133

134

H.B. 1008, 2011-2012 Leg. Sess. (N.C. 2011).

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108. Lassiter stated that the only time he could remember North Carolina’s
death row policies being subject to political criticism was the incident discussed here.
Gary D. Robertson, North Carolina House Committee Votes to Remove TVs for Death Row Inmates,
FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER (Jun. 7, 2012), available at http://www.fayobserver.com/ news/crime_courts/northcarolina-house-committee-votes-to-remove-tvs-for-death/article_1a20530c-7991-59f8-921f-ca722192d168.html.
H.B. 1008, 2011-2012 Leg. Sess. (N.C. 2011).

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

135
136
137

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

135

Interview with Lassiter, supra note 108.

Id.

136

Id.
Id.

Id.

137

138

Id.

138

Id.

139

Id.

139

Id.
Id.

140

Id.

140

141

Id.

141

Id.

142

Id.

142

Id.

143

Id.

144

Id.
Id.

143
144
145

Id.

145

146

Id.

146

Id.

147

Id.

147

Id.

148

George Lombardi, Richard D. Sluder & Donald Wallace, Mainstreaming Death Sentenced Inmates: The Missouri
Experience and Its Legal Significance, 61 FED. PROBATION 3 (1997).

149

150

Id.

150

Id.
Id.

See
Execution
List
2016,
DEATH
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2016.

PENALTY

INFO.

CTR.

(2016),

available

149

151

See
Execution
List
2016,
DEATH
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2016.

PENALTY

INFO.

CTR.

(2016),

Id.

152

Lyon & Cunningham, supra note 99, at 4.

152

Lyon & Cunningham, supra note 99, at 4.

153

Telephone Interview with George Lombardi, Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Corr. (April 16, 2015).

153

Telephone Interview with George Lombardi, Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Corr. (April 16, 2015).

McDonald v. Armontrout, Case No. 85-4422-CV-C-5 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 1985), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-MO-0001-0005.pdf.

154

155

Id. at 1.

155

Id. at 1.

156

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

156

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

157

McDonald v. Armontrout, Case No. 85-4422-CV-C-5 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 1985), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-MO-0001-0005.pdf.

Consent Decree, McDonald v. Armontrout, No. 85-4422-CV-C-5 (W.D. Mo. May 22, 1986), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-MO-0001-0001.pdf.

157

158

Id. at 4–15.

158

Id. at 4–15.

159

Id. at 8, 10.

159

Id. at 8, 10.

Id. at 9.

160

Id. at 9.

Id. at 19.

161

Id. at 19.

160
161
162

Consent Decree, McDonald v. Armontrout, No. 85-4422-CV-C-5 (W.D. Mo. May 22, 1986), available at
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-MO-0001-0001.pdf.

See McDonald v. Armontrout, No. 85-4422CVC5, 1989 WL 1128973, at *1 (W.D. Mo. May 10, 1989). The
physical structure and security measures at PCC were “quite similar” to most other maximum-security facilities in
the nation. Lyon & Cunningham, supra note 99, at 7.

162

163

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 9.

163

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 9.

164

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

164

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

165

McDonald v. Bowersox, 1995 WL 17013058, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 18, 1995) (describing history of litigation).

165

McDonald v. Bowersox, 1995 WL 17013058, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 18, 1995) (describing history of litigation).

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 9.

166

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 9.

166

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

George Lombardi, Richard D. Sluder & Donald Wallace, Mainstreaming Death Sentenced Inmates: The Missouri
Experience and Its Legal Significance, 61 FED. PROBATION 3 (1997).
151

154

available

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

167
168
169

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

167

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Id.

168

Id.
Id.

Id.

169

170

Id.

170

Id.

171

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 10.

171

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 10.

Id. at 13.

172

Id. at 13.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

173

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

172
173
174

Id.; see also McDonald v. Bowersox, No. 89-1086 C (2), 1995 WL 17013058, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 18, 1995)
(noting that officials at the PCC altered the conditions of class members’ confinement by “mainstreaming” them
with other prisoners at the PCC and that by 1995 death-sentenced prisoners at the PCC were treated the same as
other maximum security prisoners incarcerated there).

174

175

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 13.

176

McDonald v. Bowersox, No. 89-1086 C (2), 1995 WL 17013058, at *1-2 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 18, 1995) (“By their
motion to vacate, defendants seek an order dissolving the decree adopted by the May 10, 1989, ruling and
terminating the Court’s jurisdiction over this case . . . . Defendants urge the purposes of the decree have been
fulfilled because the changes in conditions meet or supersede the requirements of the May 10, 1989, decree. Because
the purposes and goals of that decree are achieved by the present conditions of plaintiffs’ confinement, movants
argue, it is proper to vacate the decree.”)

176

177

Id. at *3-27.

177

Id. at *3-27.

178

McDonald v. Carnahan, 109 F.3d 1319 (8th Cir. 1997).

178

McDonald v. Carnahan, 109 F.3d 1319 (8th Cir. 1997).

179

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 8-9.

179

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 8-9.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

180

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

181

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

Id.

182

Id.

183

Id.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

184

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

185

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

180
181
182
183
184
185
186

Id. These units included: four administrative segregation units; one transitional administrative segregation unit;
two levels of “baseline” general population units; two levels of general population units; one “positive action
community” or “honor dorm;” one protective custody unit; one special needs unit; and one partial treatment unit.

186

187

Id.

187

Id.

188

Id.

188

Id.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

189

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

190

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.
Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

189
190
191

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

191

192

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

192

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

193

Id.

193

Id.
Id.

194

Id.

194

195

Id.

195

Id.

196

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11.

196

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

197

Joint Committee on Corrections: Information for Legislative Institutional Visits, MO. GEN. ASSEMBLY JOINT
COMM’N 1, at 3 (2012), available at http://www.moga.mo.gov/corrections/Potosi.pdf.

197

198

199

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Joint Committee on Corrections: Information for Legislative Institutional Visits, MO. GEN. ASSEMBLY JOINT
COMM’N 1, at 3 (2012), available at http://www.moga.mo.gov/corrections/Potosi.pdf.
199

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11–12.

200

Visiting Hours by Institution, MO. DEP’T OF CORR. (2010), available at http://doc.mo.gov/DAI/
Visiting_Hours.php.

200

201

202
203
204
205

Id. at 311–12.

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11–12.

Visiting Hours by Institution, MO. DEP’T OF CORR. (2010), available at http://doc.mo.gov/DAI/
Visiting_Hours.php.
202

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Id. at 311–12.
Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11–12.

203

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 11–12.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

204

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.
Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 12.

Lombardi, Sluder, & Wallace, supra note 149, at 12.

205

206

Id. at 10.

206

Id. at 10.

207

Id. at 11–12.

207

Id. at 11–12.

Id. at 7.

208

Id. at 7.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

209

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

208
209
210

Director Lombardi notes that at MSP, where capital punishment prisoners were locked down in segregation day
after day, he saw more prisoners acting out. Id.

210

211

Id.

211

Id.

212

Id.

212

Id.

213

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

213

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 311.

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

214

Interview with Lombardi, supra note 153.

Id.

215

Id.

216

Id.

214
215
216

Director Lombardi notes that at MSP, where capital punishment prisoners were locked down in segregation day
after day, he saw more prisoners acting out. Id.

217

See Execution List by State, DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR. (2016), available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
node/5741#CO.

217

218

See Erica Goode, After 20 Hours in Solitary, Colorado’s Prisons Chief Wins Praise, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 15, 2014),
available
at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/us/after-20-hours-in-solitary-colorados-prisons-chief-winspraise.html. Tom Clements’s brief two-year tenure as the head of CDOC came to an end in March 2013 when a
former CDOC prisoner murdered him at his home. See Keith Coffman, Prosecutors Say Neo-Nazi Killed Colorado
Prison Chief, Pizza Delivery Man, REUTERS (Feb. 10, 2014), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usacolorado-shooting-idUSBREA1A03C20140211. The prisoner, Evan Ebel, had spent much of his eight-year prison
sentence housed in administrative segregation and had been released directly from isolation to the community. Id.

218

219

Rick Raemisch, COLO. OFFICIAL STATE WEB PORTAL, https://www.colorado.gov/governor/rick-raemisch; Press
Release, Colo. Office of the Governor, Gov. Hickenlooper Names New Department of Corrections Executive
Director (June 14, 2013), available at
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/gov-hickenlooper-names-new-department-corrections-executive-director.

219

220

Death Row FAQ, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/death-row-faq. This is an
archived website that is no longer active.

220

221

Id.

222

Id. The most secure custody level in Colorado today was “Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status.”
Offender Classification, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., Administrative Regulation 600-01, at 3 (effective Jan. 1, 2015),
available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ar/0600_01_010115_3.pdf. For information on conditions,

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

See Execution List by State, DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR. (2016), available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
node/5741#CO.
See Erica Goode, After 20 Hours in Solitary, Colorado’s Prisons Chief Wins Praise, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 15, 2014),
available
at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/us/after-20-hours-in-solitary-colorados-prisons-chief-winspraise.html. Tom Clements’s brief two-year tenure as the head of CDOC came to an end in March 2013 when a
former CDOC prisoner murdered him at his home. See Keith Coffman, Prosecutors Say Neo-Nazi Killed Colorado
Prison Chief, Pizza Delivery Man, REUTERS (Feb. 10, 2014), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usacolorado-shooting-idUSBREA1A03C20140211. The prisoner, Evan Ebel, had spent much of his eight-year prison
sentence housed in administrative segregation and had been released directly from isolation to the community. Id.
Rick Raemisch, COLO. OFFICIAL STATE WEB PORTAL, https://www.colorado.gov/governor/rick-raemisch; Press
Release, Colo. Office of the Governor, Gov. Hickenlooper Names New Department of Corrections Executive
Director (June 14, 2013), available at
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/gov-hickenlooper-names-new-department-corrections-executive-director.
Death Row FAQ, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/death-row-faq. This is an
archived website that is no longer active.
Id.

222

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

see Restrictive Housing, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., Administrative Regulation 650-03, (effective Jan. 15, 2015),
available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ar/0650_03_011515_1.pdf.

223

Death Row Daily Routine, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/daily-routine (on file
with authors).

223

224

Telephone Interview with Rick Raemisch, Dir., and Kellie Wasko, Deputy Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (Mar. 30,
2015).

224

225

Id.

225

Id.

226

Id.

226

Id.

227

Goode, supra note 218.

227

Goode, supra note 218.

E-mail from Rick Raemisch, Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

228

E-mail from Rick Raemisch, Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

228

Death Row Daily Routine, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/daily-routine (on file
with authors).
Telephone Interview with Rick Raemisch, Dir., and Kellie Wasko, Deputy Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (Mar. 30,
2015).

229

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr., to staff (Mar. 4, 2014, 14:57 MST),
available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/244050829/Death-Row-Ad-Seg-Colorado-DOC.

229

230

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper granted
prisoner Nathan Dunlap a temporary reprieve from his 2013 execution date and announced that it is “highly
unlikely” that he will reconsider allowing the execution to go forward during his time in office. Karen Augé & Lynn
Bartels, Nathan Dunlap Granted ‘Temporary Reprieve’ By Governor, THE DENVER POST (May 22, 2013), available
at http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23299865/nathan-dunlap-temporary-reprieve-from-governor; Karen
Augé & Adrian Garcia, Judge: Nathan Dunlap to Face Execution on Week of Aug. 18, THE DENVER POST (May 1,
2013), available at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23147555/nathan-dunlap-execution-date-august-18-24-2013.
Hickenlooper won a second term in November 2014.

230

231

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

232

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr., to staff (Mar. 4, 2014, 14:57 MST),
available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/244050829/Death-Row-Ad-Seg-Colorado-DOC.
Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper granted
prisoner Nathan Dunlap a temporary reprieve from his 2013 execution date and announced that it is “highly
unlikely” that he will reconsider allowing the execution to go forward during his time in office. Karen Augé & Lynn
Bartels, Nathan Dunlap Granted ‘Temporary Reprieve’ By Governor, THE DENVER POST (May 22, 2013), available
at http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23299865/nathan-dunlap-temporary-reprieve-from-governor; Karen
Augé & Adrian Garcia, Judge: Nathan Dunlap to Face Execution on Week of Aug. 18, THE DENVER POST (May 1,
2013), available at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23147555/nathan-dunlap-execution-date-august-18-24-2013.
Hickenlooper won a second term in November 2014.
Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

Death Row, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/death-row (last visited May 2015)
(on file with authors). There are currently no female death-sentenced prisoners in Colorado. Id.

232

233

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

233

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

234

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

235

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

234
235

236

237

The designations were: Close Custody General Population; Close Custody Management Unit; Close Custody
Management Unit / Protective Custody; Close Custody Management Unit / High Risk; Close Custody Transition
Unit. Id. at 1-2.

237

238

Id. at 3.

238

Id. at 3.

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

239

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

Id.

240

Id.

239
240
241

Management of Close Custody Offenders, COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., Administrative Regulation 600-09, at 3
(effective June 30, 2014). CDOC defined close custody as “[a] general population offender classification level
which requires an increased level of housing, supervision, controlled movement, and monitored programming. Close
custody offenders may have an additional designation based on their management needs.” Id. at 2.
The designations were: Close Custody General Population; Close Custody Management Unit; Close Custody
Management Unit / Protective Custody; Close Custody Management Unit / High Risk; Close Custody Transition
Unit. Id. at 1-2.

Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 3; see also Telephone Interview with Raemisch and
Wasko, supra note 224.

241

242

See Dunlap v. Zavaras, No. CIV.A 09CV01196BNB, 2009 WL 2006848, at *2 (D. Colo. Jul. 9, 2009).

243

Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 3; see also Telephone Interview with Raemisch and
Wasko, supra note 224.

See Dunlap v. Clements, No. 09-CV-01196-WJM-MEH, (D. Colo. Aug. 4, 2011); see also Kirk Mitchell,
Colorado Moves Death-Row Inmates So They Can Exercise Outdoors, THE DENVER POST (Jul. 28, 2011), available
at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18564471.

243

244

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

See Dunlap v. Zavaras, No. CIV.A 09CV01196BNB, 2009 WL 2006848, at *2 (D. Colo. Jul. 9, 2009).

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

245

Troy Anderson challenged the conditions of confinement in administrative segregation at Colorado State
Penitentiary (CSP). See Anderson v. Colorado, Dep’t of Corr., 848 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1294 (D. Colo. 2012). Mr.
Anderson alleged that he had been denied appropriate diagnosis and treatment for serious mental health issues; that
the Colorado State Penitentiary provided no facility for outdoor exercise and therefore caused physical and mental
harm; and that an arbitrary system prevented him from earning his way out of administrative segregation and
effectively punished his improperly treated mental illness. Id.

245

The district court held that the long-term lack of access to outdoor exercise, coupled with the problems in
conditions, violated the Eight Amendment. See Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1140-42 (D. Colo.
2012). The court ordered the CDOC to develop and present a plan that “ensures that Troy Anderson has access for at
least one hour, at least three times per week, to outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside and that includes
overhead access to the elements, e.g., to sunlight, rain, snow and wind.” Id. at 1157. Colorado initially transferred
Mr. Anderson to Sterling. See Anderson v. Colorado, 10 Cv. 1005 (RBJ/KMT), at 3 (D. Col. Apr. 7, 2015).
Subsequently, Colorado agreed to build an outdoor recreation area at CSP. See Alan Pendergrast, Colorado
Supermax Will Build Rec Yards to Settle Prisoners’ Lawsuit, WESTWARD (Dec. 7, 2015), available at
http://www.westword.com/news/colorado-supermax-will-build-rec-yards-to-settle-prisoners-lawsuit-7402391.

246

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

246

E-mail from Kellie Wasko, Deputy Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr. (May 5, 2016) (on file with authors).

247

Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 5-6.

247

Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 5-6.
Id. at 8-9.

248

Id. at 8-9.

248

249

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

249

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

250

See Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 9.

250

See Management of Close Custody Offenders, supra note 236, at 9.

Id. at 7.

251

Id. at 7.

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

252

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

251
252
253

253

254

Joey Bunch, Tom Clements’ Widow Tells Bob Beauprez to Stop Using Prison Chief’s Death, THE DENVER POST:
THE SPOT (Oct. 23, 2014, 3:39 pm), available at
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/10/23/tom-clements-widow-tells-bob-beauprez-stop-using-prison-chiefsdeath/114478.

254

255

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

255

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

256

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

256

Telephone Interview with Raemisch and Wasko, supra note 224.

257

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 310.

257

Cunningham, Reidy & Sorenson, Is Death Row Obsolete?, supra note 102, at 310.

Id. at 313-314.

258

Id. at 313-314.

Id. at 316.

259

Id. at 316.
Id.

258
259
260

Todd Shepherd, Dept of Corrections Wants Less Solitary, More ‘Leisure Time’ for Death Row Inmates, THE
COMPLETE COLORADO: PAGE TWO
(Oct.
22,
2014),
available
at
http://completecolorado.
com/pagetwo/2014/10/22/dept-of-corrections-wants-less-solitary-more-leisure-time-for-death-row-inmates/.
Joey Bunch, Tom Clements’ Widow Tells Bob Beauprez to Stop Using Prison Chief’s Death, THE DENVER POST:
THE SPOT (Oct. 23, 2014, 3:39 pm), available at
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/10/23/tom-clements-widow-tells-bob-beauprez-stop-using-prison-chiefsdeath/114478.

Id.

260

261

Id.

261

Id.

262

Id. at 316.

262

Id. at 316.

263
264
265
266

See generally Cunningham, Reidy, & Sorenson, Wasted Resources, supra note 99.

263

See generally Cunningham, Reidy, & Sorenson, Wasted Resources, supra note 99.

Id. at 191.

264

Id. at 191.

Id. at 195.

265

Id. at 195.

Id. at 185.

266

Id. at 185.

267

“From a violence risk-management standpoint, widespread adoption of mainstreaming [capital punishment]
inmates is fiscally sound, promotes the most efficient use of limited staffing resources, reflects a scientifically

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

267

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

informed approach to classification, and reduces the substantial psychological costs of death row. The closing of
death row is efficient, enlightened, and humane. To do otherwise is to perpetuate a legacy of wasted resources and
gratuitous suffering.” Id. at 197.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016

Administrative
Regulation
Ala. Admin. Code r.
240-X-1-.01 (2016):
“(2) The Commissioner is
vested with the authority
to carry out and enforce
the provisions of Title 14,
Code of Ala. 1975, and to
promulgate rules and
regulations not
inconsistent with Title 14
[Criminal Correctional
and Detention
Facilities].”
McCray v. Bennet, 467
F. Supp. 187, 190 (M.D.
Ala. 1978):
"The segregation unit is
located on the west side of
Holman prison; it consists
of 244 individual cells,
including 48 cells in the
old death row unit. Not all
of these cells are in
operation at the present
time. Inmates who are
housed in the segregation
unit are restricted to single
cells. They are not allowed
to work. They receive a
maximum of thirty

Laube v. Haley, 234 F.
Supp. 2d 1227, 1238 n. 5
(M.D. Ala. 2002):
“Disciplinary segregation
is different from other
types of segregation.
Inmates may be housed in
segregation [at Tutwiler]
for a variety of reasons;
for example, they are in
protective custody, are on
death row, or their security
classification calls for
constant segregation.”

Case Law

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -1

“The Holman Correctional Facility
houses Death Row inmates and is the
only facility in the state that carries
out executions. Additional housing
of Death Row inmates is located at
the William C. Donaldson
Correctional Facility in Bessemer,
Alabama. The present population of
Holman C.F. consists of minimum
through closed custody inmates,
including life without parole and

Alabama Department of
Corrections website:
“As planned in response to Kilby
Prison’s continued deterioration, the
Main Office moved . . . [in]
November 1968. To accommodate
the inmates, during November of
1969, Holman Prison was
completed. . . . [T]he maximum
security unit housed all death row
inmates and was designated by
statute to be the location for all
electrocutions.”2

Alabama Department of
Corrections Male Inmate
Handbook:
Level VII, the highest security level,
“is the security level for Death Row
housing.”1

Other Sources

Statute
Ala. Code § 15-18-80 (2016):
“(a) Whenever any person is
sentenced to death, the clerk of the
court in which the sentence is
pronounced shall, within 10 days
after sentence has been
pronounced, issue a warrant under
the seal of the court for the
execution of the sentence of death,
. . . which shall be directed to the
warden of the William C. Holman
unit of the prison system at
Atmore, commanding him to
proceed, at the time and place
named in the sentence, to carry the
same into execution, as provided
in Section 15-18-82, and the clerk
shall deliver such warrant to the
sheriff of the county in which such
judgment of conviction was had, to
be by him delivered to the said
warden, together with the
condemned person as provided in
subsection (b) of this section;
provided, however, that in case of
appeal to the Supreme Court of
Alabama by the defendant and the
suspension of execution of
sentence by the trial court, said
condemned person shall remain in
the county jail of the county in
which the conviction was had

Jurisdiction
Alabama

McCray v. Bennet, 467
F. Supp. 187, 190 (M.D.
Ala. 1978):
"The segregation unit is
located on the west side of
Holman prison; it consists
of 244 individual cells,
including 48 cells in the
old death row unit. Not all
of these cells are in
operation at the present
time. Inmates who are
housed in the segregation
unit are restricted to single
cells. They are not allowed
to work. They receive a
maximum of thirty

Case Law

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -1

Alabama Department of
Corrections Male Inmate
Handbook:
Level VII, the highest security level,
“is the security level for Death Row
housing.”1

Other Sources

Appendix A: Statutes, Administrative Regulations and Case Law by Jurisdiction

Ala. Code § 15-18-80 (2016):
“(a) Whenever any person is
sentenced to death, the clerk of the
court in which the sentence is
pronounced shall, within 10 days
after sentence has been
pronounced, issue a warrant under
the seal of the court for the
execution of the sentence of death,
. . . which shall be directed to the
warden of the William C. Holman
unit of the prison system at
Atmore, commanding him to
proceed, at the time and place
named in the sentence, to carry the
same into execution, as provided
in Section 15-18-82, and the clerk
shall deliver such warrant to the
sheriff of the county in which such
judgment of conviction was had, to
be by him delivered to the said
warden, together with the
condemned person as provided in
subsection (b) of this section;
provided, however, that in case of
appeal to the Supreme Court of
Alabama by the defendant and the
suspension of execution of
sentence by the trial court, said
condemned person shall remain in
the county jail of the county in
which the conviction was had

Alabama

Statute

Appendix A: Statutes, Administrative Regulations and Case Law by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction

Ala. Code § 15-18-81 (2016):
“Upon the receipt of a condemned
person by the warden of Holman
prison, he shall be confined therein
until the time for his execution
arrives; and, while so confined, all
persons outside the said prison
shall be denied access to him,
except his physician and lawyer,
who shall be admitted to see him
when necessary to his health or for
the transaction of business, and the
relatives, friends and spiritual
advisors of the condemned person,
who shall be admitted to see and
converse with him at all proper
times, under such reasonable rules
and regulations as may be made by
the Board of Corrections."

unless the court in which the case
is tried orders otherwise, in which
case, upon the affirmation of the
appeal by the Supreme Court, said
warrant for the execution of the
death sentence, under seal of the
court, together with the person of
the condemned shall be delivered
within 10 days after such
affirmation to the warden of
Holman prison as provided
above.”

Eaton v. Capps, 348 F.
Supp. 237, 242 (M.D.
Ala. 1972), aff'd, 480
F.2d 1020 (5th Cir.

Mitchell v. Fuqua, 2000
WL 362040, at *3 (S.D.
Ala. Mar. 20, 2000):
"First, plaintiff has
provided this Court with
no evidence whatsoever
that the defendant knew
that housing a segregation
inmate on the death row
side of the segregation unit
would increase the
likelihood of an attack on
that inmate's person
particularly since death
row inmates are housed in
single cells almost the
entire day."

minutes of exercise per
day. They have no access
to the general population
of the prison. They are
allowed to have visitors,
but even on these
occasions they are kept
isolated from the rest of
the prisoners. Normally, a
prisoner is released from
his segregation cell only
when he is accompanied
by two guards."

Eaton v. Capps, 348 F.
Supp. 237, 242 (M.D.
Ala. 1972), aff'd, 480
F.2d 1020 (5th Cir.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -2

Alabama Department of
Corrections Administrative
Regulations:
Does not contain a section on
housing death row inmates.

Death Row inmates. . . . There are
200 segregation unit beds and Death
Row has a capacity of 194 for a total
of 1031 beds.”3

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -2

Alabama Department of
Corrections Administrative
Regulations:
Does not contain a section on
housing death row inmates.

Death Row inmates. . . . There are
200 segregation unit beds and Death
Row has a capacity of 194 for a total
of 1031 beds.”3

Arizona

1973):
“Petitioner is not being
confined on death row for
purposes of reasonable
maintenance of prison
discipline . . . nor for
“administrative” purposes,
. . . rather, Petitioner is
being held on death row
segregated from the
general prison population
solely because of a now
invalid sentence which
was imposed upon him. . .
. [C]ontinued segregation
solely because of this
invalid sentence cannot be
sanctioned. It is, therefore,
the Order, judgment and
decree of this Court that . .
. Petitioner be removed
from death row and placed
in general population in
the prison system of
Alabama . . .”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -3

Arizona Department of
Corrections website:
“Arizona’s Death Row for men is
located in the Browning Unit at
Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman which is located just outside
the city of Florence Arizona. Female
inmates on Death Row are housed at
the Lumley Unit at the Arizona State
Prison Complex-Perryville, near

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -3

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -4

All male and female inmates on
Death Row are classified as
maximum custody. All inmates are
in single cells which are equipped
with a toilet, sink, bed and mattress.
Each Death Row inmate has no
contact with any other inmate. Outof-cell time is limited to outdoor
exercise in a secured area, two hours
a day, three times a week, and a
shower, three times a week. All
meals are delivered by correction
officers at the cell front. Limited
non-contact visitation is available.
Death Row inmates may place two
ten minute telephone calls per week.
Personal property is limited to
hygiene items, two appliances, two
books and writing materials, which
can be purchased from the inmate

The Browning Unit at ASPC-Eyman
has 720 single-man cells. In addition
to confining Condemned Death Row
male inmates, Browning Unit also
houses 230 validated gang members
of eight certified Security Threat
Groups. In addition Browning Unit
has a Violence Control unit where
inmates requiring exceptional
management are housed.

Goodyear Arizona. All executions
are performed in Central Unit at the
Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence in Florence Arizona.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -4

Goodyear Arizona. All executions
are performed in Central Unit at the
Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence in Florence Arizona.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -5

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 100,
Sec. 101.02, 1.4 (2010):

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 700,
Sec. 704.08, 1.5.11.1 (2013):
“Neither inmate placed together in a
double cell environment shall have: .
. . A sentence to condemned row or
an active court appeal pending the
death sentence.”7

1.3.1 Death Sentence – maximum
custody.”6

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 800,
Sec. 801.03, 1.3 (2010):
“Non-discretionary overrides – The
following criteria requires the inmate
to be classified no lower than the
highest custody level associated with
the criteria as applicable to the
inmate. . . .

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 800,
Sec. 801.09, 1.1.1 (2010):
Classifying death-sentenced inmates
as maximum custody prisoners.5

commissary. Health care is provided
at the Health Unit; medication is
passed out at the cell front. Clergy
contacts are provided at the cell.”4

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -5

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 100,
Sec. 101.02, 1.4 (2010):

1.3.1 Death Sentence – maximum
custody.”6

Arizona Department of
Corrections Orders, Chapter 800,
Sec. 801.09, 1.1.1 (2010):
Classifying death-sentenced inmates
as maximum custody prisoners.5

commissary. Health care is provided
at the Health Unit; medication is
passed out at the cell front. Clergy
contacts are provided at the cell.”4

California

Arkansas

California

Arkansas

Cal. Penal Code § 3600 (2016):
“(a) Every male person, upon
whom has been imposed the
judgment of death, shall be
delivered to the warden of the
California state prison designated
by the department for the
execution of the death penalty,
there to be kept until the execution
of the judgment, except as

15 Cal. Code Regs., tit.
15 § 3375.2 (2016):
“(b) [A]dministrative
determinants . . . may be
imposed by Departmental
officials to override the
placement of an inmate at
a facility according to
his/her placement score.
(5) DEA. Inmate was

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -6

CA Department of Corrections
Operation Manual:
Section 61010.11.5 (Placement):
“Apply Mandatory Minimum Score
Factor Code A to inmates sentenced
to Death.” Code A is a Mandatory
Minimum Score of 52, the highest
minimum possible. The Mandatory
Minimum Score determines the
minimum Placement Score. “The

News Sources:
An account from a released former
death row prisoner describes his
experience at the super maximum
security facility in Grady, Arkansas.
He described being in a single cell in
solitary confinement; being able to
communicate orally with other
death-sentenced prisoners held in
single cells; being transported in
shackles to an exercise yard; having
no-contact visitation with a nonspouse and chaperoned visitation
with a spouse.10

Department of Corrections Inmate
Handbook (2016):
“Special Status/Assignment
. . . Death Row visits are held in
accordance with the appropriate
administrative directive.”9

Provides that all orders must be
approved by the Director of the
Arizona DOC.8

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -6

Department of Corrections Inmate
Handbook (2016):
“Special Status/Assignment
. . . Death Row visits are held in
accordance with the appropriate
administrative directive.”9

Provides that all orders must be
approved by the Director of the
Arizona DOC.8

provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law:
(1) A condemned inmate who,
while in prison, commits any of
the following offenses, or who, as
a member of a gang or disruptive
group, orders others to commit any
of these offenses, may, following
disciplinary sanctions and
classification actions at San
Quentin State Prison, pursuant to
regulations established by the
Department of Corrections, be
housed in secure condemned
housing designated by the Director
of Corrections, at the California
State Prison, Sacramento:
(A) Homicide.
(B) Assault with a weapon or with
physical force capable of causing
serious or mortal injury.
(C) Escape with force or attempted
escape with force.
(D) Repeated serious rules
violations that substantially
threaten safety or security.
(2) The condemned housing
program at California State Prison,
Sacramento, shall be fully
operational prior to the transfer of
any condemned inmate.
(3) Specialized training protocols
for supervising condemned
inmates shall be provided to those
line staff and supervisors at the

formerly or is currently
sentenced to death.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -7

News Sources:
According to an article in 2015, eath
row at San Quentin was a five-tiered
unit, housing over 500 prisoners in
6-by-9 foot single cells. California
had a 40-inmate psychiatric unit to
treat death-sentenced prisoners
suffering from mental illness, and

Section 62050.6 (Inmates with Death
Sentences):
San Quentin “is the reception center
for all male inmates with a death
sentence unless the Director has
designated another institution as the
place of reception. Death sentence
inmates shall not be transferred to
any other institution without the
prior approval of the DRB and the
Director. Exceptions may be made
for temporary transfer to CMF for
urgent or emergency medical
treatment with prior approval . . .”
The California Institution for
Women “is the reception center for
all female inmates with a death
sentence. Upon exhaustion of her
appeal and by order of the Deputy
Director, Institutions, a female
inmate sentenced to death shall be
transferred to [San Quentin] within
three days of her execution date.”12

Placement Score is one of the factors
used to determine the security level
to which the inmate is assigned.”11

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -7

Placement Score is one of the factors
used to determine the security level
to which the inmate is assigned.”11

California State Prison,
Sacramento, who supervise
condemned inmates on a regular
basis.
(4) An inmate whose medical or
mental health needs are so critical
as to endanger the inmate or others
may, pursuant to regulations
established by the Department of
Corrections, be housed at the
California Medical Facility or
other appropriate institution for
medical or mental health
treatment. The inmate shall be
returned to the institution from
which the inmate was transferred
when the condition has been
adequately treated or is in
remission.
(c) When housed pursuant to
subdivision (b) the following shall
apply:
(1) Those local procedures relating
to privileges and classification
procedures provided to Grade B
condemned inmates at San
Quentin State Prison shall be
similarly instituted at California
State Prison, Sacramento, for
condemned inmates housed
pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 3600.
Those classification procedures
shall include the right to the
review of a classification no less
than every 90 days and the

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -8

According to an article in 2014, all
female death-sentenced prisoners
were housed at the Central California
Women’s Facility, and all male
death-sentenced prisoners were
housed in three units at San Quentin.
Those three units included: the
Adjustment Center, where deathsentenced prisoners were initially
housed, and to which they were
returned “if they behave badly;”
North Segregation, for prisoners
“who have behaved well for years;”
and East Block, which housed
“everyone else.” Prisoners housed in
the Adjustment Center were in single
cells for 23 ½ hours of the day. In
North Segregation, prisoners were
released from their cells from 7AM
to 1:30PM and permitted to walk
freely in a contained environment.14

was about to open a 100-inmate
wing to shift some death-sentenced
prisoners. 68 death-sentenced
prisoners are held in the “North
Block,” which houses prisoners with
good behavior.13

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -8

was about to open a 100-inmate
wing to shift some death-sentenced
prisoners. 68 death-sentenced
prisoners are held in the “North
Block,” which houses prisoners with
good behavior.13

opportunity to petition for a return
to San Quentin State Prison.
(2) Similar attorney-client access
procedures that are afforded to
condemned inmates housed at San
Quentin State Prison shall be
afforded to condemned inmates
housed in secure condemned
housing designated by the Director
of Corrections, at the California
State Prison, Sacramento.
Attorney-client access for
condemned inmates housed at an
institution for medical or mental
health treatment shall be
commensurate with the
institution's visiting procedures
and appropriate treatment
protocols.
(3) A condemned inmate housed in
secure condemned housing
pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
returned to San Quentin State
Prison at least 60 days prior to his
scheduled date of execution.
(4) No more than 15 condemned
inmates may be rehoused pursuant
to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(d) Prior to any relocation of
condemned row from San Quentin
State Prison, whether proposed
through legislation or any other
means, all maximum security
Level IV, 180-degree housing unit
facilities with an electrified
perimeter shall be evaluated by the

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -9

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1.31205 (West 2016):
“When a person is convicted of a
class 1 felony, the punishment for
which is death, and the convicted
person is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death, the judge passing
such sentence shall appoint and
designate in the warrant of
conviction a week of time within
which the sentence must be
executed; the end of such week so
appointed shall be not fewer than
ninety-one days nor more than one
hundred twenty-six days from the
day of passing the sentence. Said
warrant shall be directed to the
executive director of the
department of corrections . . . and
shall be delivered to the sheriff of
the county in which such
conviction is had, who, within
three days thereafter, shall proceed
to the correctional facilities at
Canon City and deliver the
convicted person, together with the
warrant, to said executive director
or designee, who shall keep the
convict in confinement until
execution of the death penalty.
Persons shall be permitted access

Department of Corrections for
suitability for the secure housing
and execution of condemned
inmates.”

Dunlap v. Clements, No.
09-CV-01196-WJMMEH, (D. Colo. Aug. 4,
2011):
Order granting parties’
request to administratively
close § 1983 suit based on
parties’ entry of settlement
agreement. The agreement
provided that deathsentenced inmates would
be moved to Sterling
Correctional Facility to
give them the opportunity
for outdoor exercise,
which was not available at
the Colorado State
Penitentiary at Canon
City.15

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -10

(IV)(A)(6) Offenders with death
penalty sentences may initially be
assigned to Restrictive Housing

Colorado Department of
Corrections Policies, Regulation
Number 600-09, (2014):
“(III)(C) Close Custody
Management Control Unit (MCU):
A close custody designation that
provides an increased level of
housing, supervision and control to
maintain the safety of the public,
volunteers, staff and offenders. . . .

Colorado Department of
Corrections Policies, Regulation
Number 600-01, (IV)(D)(6)(b)
(2016):
“All offenders received with a death
penalty sentence will be reviewed for
Close Custody Management Control
Units, in accordance with AR 60009, Close Custody Offenders. All
male offenders will be initially
assigned to the Sterling Correctional
Facility (SCF) or the Colorado State
penitentiary (CSP) and all female
offenders will initially be assigned to
the Denver Women’s Correctional
Facility (DWCF).”16

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -10

(IV)(A)(6) Offenders with death
penalty sentences may initially be
assigned to Restrictive Housing

to the inmate pursuant to prison
rules. Such rules shall provide, at a
minimum, for the inmate's
attendants, counsel, and physician,
a spiritual adviser selected by the
inmate, and members of the
inmate's family to have access to
the inmate.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -11

(IV)(C)(9) Visiting Privileges:
Offenders designated as Close
Custody shall have opportunities for
contact, non-contact and attorney
visiting, unless there are documented
substantial reasons for withholding
such privileges. . . .

(IV)(C)(7) Access to Services:
Offenders designated as Close
Custody shall have access to
Programs and services that include,
but are not limited to the following;
educational services, commissary
services, library services, social
services, counseling services,
religious guidance and recreational
programs. . . .

(IV)(C)(6) Telephone Access:
Offenders designated as Close
Custody shall be allowed limited
telephone privileges unless phone
restrictions have been invoked by the
Warden or designee. . . .

Maximum Security Status in
accordance with AR 650-03,
(Restrictive Housing), prior to
transitioning to Close Custody
Management Control Units. The
Director of Prisons/designee will be
consulted and shall approve all initial
placements and transition plans for
these offenders.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -11

(IV)(C)(6) Telephone Access:
Offenders designated as Close
Custody shall be allowed limited
telephone privileges unless phone
restrictions have been invoked by the
Warden or designee. . . .

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -12

(IV)(G)(1)(b); (IV)(G)(2)(b); and
(IV)(G)(3)(c): states that offenders in
Management Control Unit (MCU),
MCU/High Risk, or MCU/Protective
Custody “will be afforded a
minimum of 4 hours of out of cell
time per day (7 days per week) to
participate in pod/day hall,
recreational, and programming
activities. Out of cell time includes 3
hours of indoor or outside recreation
per week.
(1) A maximum of 8 offenders
designated as Close Custody
Management Control (MCU) may be
allowed out of their cells at a time to
participate in pod/day hall,
recreational, and programming
activities in the day hall or outside

(IV)(C)(19) Offender Work
Assignments: Offenders designated
as Close Custody shall be given
consideration for facility, unit,
and/or pod employment
opportunities in accordance with AR
300-23 . . .”

(IV)(C)(11) Recreational
Opportunities: Offenders designated
as Close Custody shall receive a
minimum of one hour of exercise per
day outside their cells, a minimum of
five days per week, unless security
or safety considerations dictate
otherwise. . . .

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -12

(IV)(C)(19) Offender Work
Assignments: Offenders designated
as Close Custody shall be given
consideration for facility, unit,
and/or pod employment
opportunities in accordance with AR
300-23 . . .”

Connecticut

News Sources:
Since the Connecticut Supreme
Court has ruled the death penalty
unconstitutional, with another case
pending, there remain questions
about whether the inmates will
continue to be held in death row or
in similar conditions to those
sentenced to life in prison without
parole.19

(c)(1) The commissioner shall
place such inmate in a housing unit
for the maximum security
population if, after completion of
such reclassification process, the
commissioner determines such
placement is appropriate, provided
the commissioner (A) maintains
the inmate on special
circumstances high security status,
(B) houses the inmate separate
from inmates who are not on

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -13

Chief Attorney Report on Prison
Conditions:
Written in 2011, the report states that
inmates sentenced to death were
housed at Northern Correctional
Institution, where DOC directives set
out the conditions of confinement.
Death-sentenced prisoners were held
in single cells, had “two hours of
recreation outside of their cells six
days a week and [were] always by
themselves,” “[ate] meals alone in
their cells,” were “allowed up to
three non-contact visits per week that
[were] limited to one hour,” needed
to be “escorted by at least one staff
person” and “placed in restraints
when moving outside their cell,” and
“may have work assignments that are
restricted to the death row housing
unit.”18

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-10b
(2016):
“(a) The Commissioner of
Correction shall place an inmate
on special circumstances high
security status and house the
inmate in administrative
segregation until a reclassification
process is completed under
subsection (b) of this section, if . . .
(2) the inmate is in the custody of
the Commissioner of Correction
for a capital felony committed
prior to April 25, 2012, . . . for
which a sentence of death is
imposed . . . and such inmate’s
sentence is (A) reduced to a
sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of release
by a court of competent
jurisdiction . . . .

recreation areas. . . .”17

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -13

recreation areas. . . .”17

Delaware

special circumstances high security
status, and (C) imposes conditions
of confinement on such inmate
which shall include, but not be
limited to, conditions that require
(i) that the inmate’s movements be
escorted or monitored, (ii)
movement of the inmate to a new
cell at least every ninety days, (iii)
at least two searches of the
inmate’s cell each week, (iv) that
no contact be permitted during the
inmate’s social visits, (v) that the
inmate be assigned to work
assignments that are within the
assigned housing unit, and (vi) that
the inmate be allowed no more
than two hours of recreational
activity per day.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -14

Delaware Department of
Corrections Website:
“All inmates currently sentenced to
the death penalty are housed in
maximum security at James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center
(JTVCC). The inmates may be
housed in any of the available
maximum housing units and may be
assigned to any program available to
other maximum security classified
inmates. The cells are approximately
13 feet long, 7 feet wide and 8 feet
high. They may be housed in single
cells or in cells with another inmate
in some maximum security units.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -14

Florida

Fla. Admin. Code r. 33601.830 (2016):
“(1)(a) Death Row – The
single-cell special
housing status of an
inmate who, upon

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -15

Death-sentenced prisoners,
depending on their security control
level, may be allowed to participate
in group recreation, join available
programs, and move without
restraints.20

. . . Showers and Exercise: Inmates
sentenced to the death penalty
receive opportunities to shower and
exercise up to seven days each week
depending on their maximum
security unit assignment. The weekly
time permitted for [showers] and
recreation can range from as few as
three hours each week and can reach
up to 21 hours each week.”

Meals: All inmates sentenced to the
death penalty are served the same
meals as the general population . . .
In more restrictive units, they are
served meals in their cells; those
assigned to less restrictive units eat
in a dining hall in a group setting.

Their housing assignment, program
assignment, and privilege level are
reviewed every 90 days.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -15

Death-sentenced prisoners,
depending on their security control
level, may be allowed to participate
in group recreation, join available
programs, and move without
restraints.20

Their housing assignment, program
assignment, and privilege level are
reviewed every 90 days.

(15) Death Warrants –
Upon receipt of a death
warrant signed by the
Governor authorizing
execution, the warden or
designee will determine
the housing location of
the inmate. Inmates
housed at Union

(7)(j) Exercise – An
exercise schedule shall be
implemented to ensure a
minimum of six hours per
week of exercise out-ofdoors. . . .
(7)(l) Visitation – Death
row visits shall be contact
visits unless security
concerns indicate that a
non-contact visit is
necessary . . .

(5)(a) Prior to opening a
death row cell for any
reason, staff members
shall restrain the inmate. .
..

conviction or
adjudication of guilt of a
capital felony, has been
sentenced to death. Death
row housing shall be
separate from general
population housing. . . .

(15) Death Warrants –
Upon receipt of a death
warrant signed by the
Governor authorizing
execution, the warden or
designee will determine
the housing location of
the inmate. Inmates
housed at Union

(5)(a) Prior to opening a
death row cell for any
reason, staff members
shall restrain the inmate. .
..

conviction or
adjudication of guilt of a
capital felony, has been
sentenced to death. Death
row housing shall be
separate from general
population housing. . . .

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -16

Georgia

Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-33 (West
2016):
“Upon a judgment of death made
by a judge, it shall be the duty of
the judge to sentence the defendant
to death and to indicate the
sentence in writing, . . . . In all
cases it shall be the duty of the
sheriff of the county in which the
defendant is sentenced, . . . to
convey the defendant to the
appropriate state correctional
institution, not more than 20 days
nor less than two days prior to the
time fixed in the judgment for the
execution of the defendant, unless
otherwise directed by the

Correctional Institution
will be immediately
transferred to Florida
State Prison. . . . If the
inmate is housed at
Lowell Correctional
Institution, the inmate
shall not be transferred to
Florida State Prison until
Phase II. . . .
(2) The inmate’s visiting
list shall be frozen once
an execution date is set. .
. . All visits shall be noncontact, except that the
inmate may receive a
one-hour contact visit on
the day of execution.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -17

News Sources:
Prison Legal News reported in 2010
that the Georgia DOC had decided to
revoke contact family visits and cap
the number of non-family visitors.
Although the rules required that
prisoners be allowed one hour of
yard recreation a day, the prisoners
told reporters that they were
receiving 2.5 hours a week instead.22
These Rules and Regulations are not

Georgia Department of
Corrections Facility Descriptions:
Indicates men under death sentence
were housed at Georgia Diagnostic
and Classification Prison.21

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -17

Georgia Department of
Corrections Facility Descriptions:
Indicates men under death sentence
were housed at Georgia Diagnostic
and Classification Prison.21

Idaho

(3) Whenever a person is under
death warrant, execution of which
has not been stayed, the warden of
the prison in which the person is
incarcerated shall keep the
condemned person in solitary
confinement until execution. No
person shall be allowed access to
the condemned person except law
enforcement personnel
investigating matters within the
scope of their duties, the attorney
of record, attending physicians, a
spiritual adviser of the
condemned’s choosing, and
members of the immediate family
of the condemned, and then only in
accordance with prison rules.
Persons under death warrant will
be allowed contact visits with their
attorneys of record and the agents

Idaho Code Ann. § 19-2705
(West 2016):
“(1) Whenever a person is
sentenced to death, the judge
passing sentence shall . . . sign and
file a death warrant fixing a date of
execution not more than thirty (30)
days thereafter. . . .

Governor or unless a stay of
execution has been caused by an
appeal, granting of a new trial, or
other order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -18

After this hearing, the “director will
review all the information and make

Idaho Department of Corrections
Directive 319.02.01.002, Sec.
07.02.00–07.10.00 (2016):
“Newly committed offenders under
sentence of death will be placed
directly into restrictive housing . . . .
Investigation staff will have fifteen
(15) days to . . . complete a referral
file . . . . The restrictive housing
committee for offenders under
sentence of death has two (2) weeks
to review the file submitted by the
investigation staff . . . . Within
seventy-two (72) hours following the
two (2) week review period, the
chairperson will schedule a
restrictive housing hearing.”

Idaho Department of Corrections
Directive 303.02.01.001, Sec. 5
(2014):
“Inmates under the sentence of death
. . . will be housed in either the Idaho
Maximum Security Institution
(IMSI) for males or the Pocatello
Women’s Correctional Center
(PWCC) for females.”23

publicly available.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -18

After this hearing, the “director will
review all the information and make

publicly available.

Indiana

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-6-3
(West 2016):
“Sec. 3. A sheriff who receives a
warrant under section 2 [death
warrant] or section 7 of this

(11) When a person has been
sentenced to death, but the death
warrant has been stayed, the
warden is not required to hold such
person in solitary confinement or
to restrict access to him until the
stay of the death warrant is lifted
or a new death warrant is issued by
the sentencing court; provided
however, no condemned person
shall be housed in less than
maximum security confinement,
and provided further that nothing
in this section shall be construed to
limit the warden’s discretion to
house such person under
conditions more restrictive if
necessary to ensure public safety
or the safe, secure and orderly
operation of the facility . . .”

of their attorneys of record. Such
visits will take place subject to
prison rules. No other contact
visits shall be permitted. Prison
officials have authority to suspend
or deny visits when the safe,
secure and orderly operation of the
facility or public safety could be
compromised. . . .

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-6-3
(West 2016):
“Sec. 3. A sheriff who receives a
warrant under section 2 [death
warrant] or section 7 of this

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -19

Indiana Department of
Corrections, Policy and
Administrative Procedures 02-03115, (IV), (IX) (2007):
Stating that death-sentenced

a decision regarding the offender’s
housing placement . . . . If the release
to close-restricted custody is not
approved, the offender will remain
unclassified in administrative
segregation. If the release is
approved, the offender will be
classified as close-restricted custody
and released from administrative
segregation.” The restrictive housing
committee will review the housing
status of death-sentenced prisoners at
least once a year to determine if they
may be released into close-restricted
housing with the rest of the general
prison population that has been
classified into close-restricted
housing. Inmates in close-restricted
housing are permitted to work.24

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -19

Indiana Department of
Corrections, Policy and
Administrative Procedures 02-03115, (IV), (IX) (2007):
Stating that death-sentenced

Kansas

(b) The convicted person’s: (1)
attorney; (2) physician; (3)
relatives; (4) friends; and (5)
spiritual advisor; may visit the
convicted person while the
convicted person is confined. The
department of correction shall
adopt rules, under IC 4-22-2,
governing such visits.”

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-6-4
(West 2016):
“Sec. 4. (a) The convicted person
shall be confined in the state
prison until the date of the
convicted person’s execution. The
convicted person may temporarily
be held in a maximum security
facility for security purposes or
during renovation of the state
prison. A convicted female shall
be confined in a maximum security
women’s prison until not more
than thirty (30) days before the
date of her execution. A convicted
female shall be segregated from
male prisoners after her transfer
from the women’s prison.

chapter shall immediately:
(1) transport the person to the state
prison; . . . .”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -20

Kansas Department of
Corrections, Internal Management
Policy and Procedure 20-104

Indiana Department of
Corrections Website:
“Offenders sentenced to death in
Indiana are housed at the Indiana
State Prison in Michigan City, IN. . .
. All offenders on Death Row are
classified as maximum security and
housed in single cells.”26

prisoners are flagged as ‘Potential
High Risk Offenders,’ who may
upon further review be categorized
as ‘High Risk Offenders’ depending
on other factors; ‘High Risk
Offenders’ may be placed in
administrative segregation if they
present a threat to safety or
security.25

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -20

Kansas Department of
Corrections, Internal Management
Policy and Procedure 20-104

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:568
(West 2016):
“Until the time of his execution,

Louisiana

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:568
(West 2016):
“Until the time of his execution,

Louisiana

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.100
(West 2016):
“(3) When a sentence of death is
imposed, the court shall commit
the defendant to the custody of the
Department of Corrections with
directions that the sentence be
carried out according to law.”

Kentucky

Ball v. Leblanc, 792 F.3d
584, 589-90 (5th Cir.
2015):

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -21

“An inmate may be placed in
administrative segregation for one
(1) or more of the following: . . . f.
Pending orientation and
classification of an inmate received
under sentence of death, if
necessary.”29

Kentucky Corrections Policies and
Procedures, Policy No. 10.2,
Special Management Inmates:
“‘Death row’ means a maximum
security housing situation to control
the inmate serving a sentence of
death.”28

(2004):
“(I)(A) Inmates may be confined in
administrative segregation for any of
the reasons or conditions articulated
under procedure I.B. of this IMPP. . .
.
(II)(B)(16) An inmate may be placed
in administrative segregation if the
inmate has been sentenced to death
subsequent to his or her conviction
of a capital offense, and such
inmates shall not be subject to the
[periodic reviews] . . . unless there is
some departure from their capital
status due to any substantive action
taken by the courts.”27

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -21

Mississippi

the Department of Public Safety
and Corrections shall incarcerate
the offender in a manner affording
maximum protection to the general
public, the employees of the
department, and the security of the
institution.”

Stating that Louisiana's
death row facility, Angola,
houses death row inmates
in cells for 23 hours.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -22

Mississippi Department of
Corrections Website:
“All male Death Row offenders are
housed at MSP [Mississippi State
Penitentiary], Unit 29, and all female
offenders sentenced to Death are
housed at Central Mississippi

Identifies Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility and Mississippi
State Penitentiary as the facilities
that house Death Row custody
assignments.30

Mississippi Department of
Corrections, Inmate Handbook
Chapter 1, (II)(D) (2015):
“Death Row
Inmates committed to the MDOC
under a sentence of death and are
housed in a facility/unit deemed
appropriate by the MDOC
Commissioner.
Death Row status requires the
highest level of custody supervision
available. Inmates in this status are
precluded from assignment to a
principal custody designation.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -22

Identifies Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility and Mississippi
State Penitentiary as the facilities
that house Death Row custody
assignments.30

Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-2543
(West 2016):

Nebraska

Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-2543
(West 2016):

Department of Corrections,
Montana State Prison Operational
Procedure 4.2.1, Inmate
Classification System:
“Maximum custody: is the third
highest custody level as determined
by the prison’s objective
classification system. Inmates
classified to this level require the
highest degree of control and
supervision because of extreme
misconduct or the nature of their
sentence (death sentence). Inmates
classified to this level must be
housed in a locked housing unit.”33

Montana

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -23

Department of Correctional
Services Administrative

“Inmates within the following
categories will be separated from the
general population, to the extent
possible: . . . Maximum custody,
administrative segregation, and
restricted administrative segregation
cases.”34

Missouri Department of
Corrections Website:
Paper detailing Missouri’s
mainstreaming of death row inmates
into the general prison population
after January 8, 1991.32

Correctional Facility in Rankin
County.”31

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -23

Department of Correctional
Services Administrative

Missouri

Nebraska

Montana

Missouri Department of
Corrections Website:
Paper detailing Missouri’s
mainstreaming of death row inmates
into the general prison population
after January 8, 1991.32

Correctional Facility in Rankin
County.”31
Missouri

Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-2546
(West 2016):
“Whenever the Supreme Court
reverses the judgment of
conviction in accordance with
which any convicted person has
been sentenced to death and is
confined in a Department of
Correctional Services adult
correctional facility as herein
provided, it shall be the duty of the
Director of Correctional Services,
upon receipt of a copy of such
judgment of reversal, duly certified
by the clerk of the court and under
the seal thereof, to forthwith
deliver such convicted person into
the custody of the sheriff of the
county in which the conviction
was had to be held in the jail of the
county awaiting the further

“(1) Whenever any person has
been tried and convicted before
any district court in this state, has
been sentenced to death, and has
had his or her sentence of death
affirmed by the Supreme Court on
mandatory direct review, it shall
be the duty of the Supreme Court
to issue a warrant, . . . establishing
a date for the enforcement of the
sentence directed to the Director of
Correctional Services,
commanding him or her to proceed
at the time named in the warrant.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -24

Department of Correctional
Services Administrative
Regulation 201.05:
“The Director shall designate
Restrictive Housing units to house
special management inmates. . . .
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

Uses the term “death row.”37

Department of Correctional
Services Administrative
Regulation 201.02:
“All male inmates committed to the
NDCS [Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services], with the
exception of males sentenced to
death, shall be received at the
Diagnostic & Evaluation Center . . . .
Males sentenced to death shall be
received at, or immediately
transferred to the NDCS institution
designated by the Director.”36

Regulation 210.01:
Provides a table that shows how
Death Row prisoner conditions of
confinement differ from other
differently classified individuals. For
instance, death-sentenced prisoners
may not receive meals in their cells,
but can shave and shower once per
day, have contact visits, can exercise
outside their cell for two hours, once
per day, and have work
assignments.35

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -24

Department of Correctional
Services Administrative
Regulation 201.05:
“The Director shall designate
Restrictive Housing units to house
special management inmates. . . .
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

Uses the term “death row.”37

New
Hampshire

Nevada

New
Hampshire

Nevada

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5
(West 2016):
“XIII. When the penalty of death is
imposed, the sentence shall be that
the defendant be imprisoned in the
state prison at Concord until the
day appointed for his execution,
which shall not be within one year
from the day sentence is passed.”

judgment and order of the court in
the case.”

N.H. Code Admin. R.
Ann., Cor 402.04
(2016):
“(e) Death sentence
inmates shall: (1) Not be
assigned a classification
score lower than C-5
[maximum custody] at
initial classification; (2)
Not be eligible for reclassification lower than
C-5 and thus not be
subject to reclassification hearings;
and (3) Be afforded all
the same access to

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -25

Department of Corrections “Time
in Prison” Handbook (2001):
The C-5 custody level “provides the
highest degree of supervision and
control. Inmates are locked in their
cells approximately 22 hours daily
with limited time for exercise within
the living quarters.”41

News Sources:
Death-sentenced male prisoners were
housed in single cells at Ely State
Prison, and many spent 23 hours per
day in their cells.40

INMATES INCLUDE, BUT ARE
NOT LIMITED TO, INMATES IN
ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: . . .
B. Death Row – The confinement of
inmates sentenced to the death
penalty.”38
Department of Corrections
Website:
Ely State Prison contains a
“Condemned Men’s Unit” with
visiting hours posted online.39

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -25

News Sources:
Death-sentenced male prisoners were
housed in single cells at Ely State
Prison, and many spent 23 hours per
day in their cells.40

North
Carolina

New Mexico

North
Carolina

New Mexico

programs, recreation and
other services as afforded
to other C-5 inmates.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -26

North Carolina Department of
Public Safety Policy & Procedure
Manual, C.1201:
“Death Row is the classification
status established for inmates
sentenced to Prisons under a death

Corrections Department, Policies
and Procedures, CD-143003:
“Inmates Sentenced to Death: . . 2.
Inmates in this status shall be subject
to conditions of confinement as per
the Table of Services, Step 4, with
the exception of congregate activity,
which must be approved by the
Warden.”43

Corrections Department, Policies
and Procedures, CD-143000:
“Involuntary Placement into Custody
Levels V and VI: Separation from
the general population of an inmate
whose continued presence in the
general population represents a
threat to the security of the
institution or the inmate is in danger
of bodily harm or other violent acts
from himself/herself or other
inmates, if the inmate remains in the
general population. This category
includes all pre-trial detainees
(county jail holds) and deathsentenced inmates.”42

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -26

North Carolina Department of
Public Safety Policy & Procedure
Manual, C.1201:
“Death Row is the classification
status established for inmates
sentenced to Prisons under a death

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -27

“If approved by the Director,
television privileges may be
authorized by the facility head for
death row . . . inmates depending
upon programmatic needs of the
offender and physical plant
characteristics.”47 When receiving

Death-sentenced prisoners also
“have the opportunity to shave twice
a week and shower at least three
times per week . . . limited to a
maximum of ten (10) minutes per
day.” Furthermore, “Unless
specifically restricted under the
provisions of this policy, inmates
assigned to death row . . . shall be
provided one hour per day to
exercise outside the cell.”46

Death-sentenced prisoners are
“permitted to receive meals outside
the cell if control can be maintained
in the protective and death row
facility.”45

order commitment. Only Central
Prison and the North Carolina
Correctional Institution for Women
are authorized to establish a death
row housing unit. Death Row
classification inmates shall be
housed in a secure area of the facility
and segregated from the general
inmate population in so far as
feasible.”44

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -27

Death-sentenced prisoners are
“permitted to receive meals outside
the cell if control can be maintained
in the protective and death row
facility.”45

Ohio

(B) Absent significant
extenuating
circumstances, no inmate
shall be assigned to or
housed in death row
unless that inmate has
been sentenced to
death. . . .

Ohio Admin. Code §
5120-9-12 (2016):
“(A) All inmates
sentenced to death under
Ohio law shall be
confined in one or more
institutions designated by
the director of the
department of
rehabilitation and
correction. Such inmates
may be assigned to an
area of the institution to
be designated by the
managing officer, which
area shall be known as
‘death row.’

(B) Absent significant
extenuating
circumstances, no inmate
shall be assigned to or
housed in death row
unless that inmate has
been sentenced to
death. . . .

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -28

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction Policies, 53-CLS01:
“1. . . . Death row is not a security
classification, and inmates assigned
to this status are not subject to
security classification procedures as
long as they remain in this status. 2.
An inmate assigned to death row
status who presents a threat to
security may be subject to
assignment to a security
classification that is appropriate for
the security risk. In the event of a
potential security classification
assignment for a death row inmate,
the security classification procedures
for the proposed security level shall
be followed. Once the inmate no
longer poses a threat to security in
death row, he may be returned to that
status.”49

visitors, “death row offenders will
normally visit only in the noncontact
visiting area.”48

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -28

visitors, “death row offenders will
normally visit only in the noncontact
visiting area.”48

(D) Inmates who are
sentenced to death and
who have not been
reassigned to some other
status shall receive cell
privileges which at a
minimum, shall include:
(1) Personal hygiene
articles;
(2) Mail and kite
privileges;
(3) Access to legal
materials and services,
including legal kit;
(4) Access to cleaning
articles for cell sanitation
as approved by the
warden or his designee;
(5) Visits by department

classification or special
management status other
than that which is
normally used for such
inmates, based on the
security or medical and
mental health
requirements for the
inmate. The inmate so
assigned shall receive the
privileges and
programming that are
appropriate for the other
security or management
status, notwithstanding
paragraph (D) of this rule.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -29

staff;
(6) Adequate food;
(7) Access to current
rules of the Ohio
administrative code, also
known as ‘ARs,’ 5120-9
series;
(8) Cell furnishings to
include toilet, wash basin,
running water, mattress,
sheets, blanket
(depending on weather
conditions);
(9) Access to medical
services as required by
their medical condition;
(10) Regular assessment
of their mental health
condition by the bureau
of behavioral health
services and access to
such services as required
by their mental health
condition;
(11) Institution coveralls
or clothing, underwear,
and footwear;
(12) Adequate lighting
for reading;
(13) Five hours of
recreation per week;
(14) Opportunity to
shower and shave five
times per week;
(15) One non-contact
visit per visitor, per

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -30

Oregon

Oklahoma

Oregon

Oklahoma

Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137.463
(West 2016):
“(1) When a sentence of death is
pronounced, the clerk of the court
shall deliver a copy of the
judgment of conviction and
sentence of death to the sheriff of
the county. The sheriff shall
deliver the defendant within 20
days from the date the judgment is
entered to the correctional
institution designated by the
Director of the Department of
Corrections pending the
determination of the automatic and
direct review by the Supreme
Court under ORS 138.012.”

OAR § 291-093-0015:
Detailing death row
inmates’ access to
canteen services,
clothing, exercise, mail,
telephone, visiting,
religious services,

Or. Admin. R. 291-0930005:
“(3) Policy: It is the
policy of the Department
of Corrections to assign
inmates with a sentence
of death to the Death
Row Housing Unit or to a
Death Row status cell.”

Death Row Housing
Unit, Or. Admin. R.
291-093 et seq. (2016)

month; and
(16) Limited commissary
purchases.”

OAR § 291-093-0015:
Detailing death row
inmates’ access to
canteen services,
clothing, exercise, mail,
telephone, visiting,
religious services,

Or. Admin. R. 291-0930005:
“(3) Policy: It is the
policy of the Department
of Corrections to assign
inmates with a sentence
of death to the Death
Row Housing Unit or to a
Death Row status cell.”

Death Row Housing
Unit, Or. Admin. R.
291-093 et seq. (2016)

month; and
(16) Limited commissary
purchases.”

Hooks v. State, 22 P.3d
231, 233 (Okla. 2001):
“Oklahoma’s prison
system has one Death Row
and one place of
execution, both housed in
the McAlester prison.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -31

Oklahoma Department of
Department of Corrections Policy
& Operations Manual, OP060107:
“Offenders assigned to death row
who are not employable due to
lockdown status or other justifiable
reasons may promote to Level 3 [a
less restrictive custody level] if all
other level criteria is met.”50

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -31

Or. Admin. R. 291-1040111 (2016):
“(9) Custody
Classification Level: One
of five levels of
supervision assigned to
an inmate through initial
and classification review
procedures.
(a) Level 5: An inmate
assigned at this custody
classification level meets
one of the following
criteria: . . .
(B) Has a sentence of
death or is pending retrial
in a case in which a
sentence of death may be
re-imposed.
(C) Has a pending trial

education and other
materials. Inmates on
death row “may be
provided an opportunity
for inside exercise a
minimum of 40 minutes
per day (which may
include shaving and
showering), seven days
per week” and “an
opportunity for outside
exercise for one hour per
day a minimum of five
days per week, if they
choose to participate.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -32

Pennsylvania

61 Pa. C.S.A. § 4303 (West
2016):
“Upon receipt of the warrant, the
secretary shall, until infliction of
the death penalty or until lawful
discharge from custody, keep the
inmate in solitary confinement.
During the confinement, no person
shall be allowed to have access to
the inmate without an order of the
sentencing court, except the
following:
(1) The staff of the department.
(2) The inmate's counsel of record
or other attorney requested by the
inmate.
(3) A spiritual adviser selected by
the inmate or the members of the
immediate family of the inmate.”

for a case in which a
sentence of death may be
imposed. . . .”

Jones v. Sec'y
Pennsylvania Dep't of
Corr., 549 F.Appx 108
(3d Cir. 2013) cert.
denied sub nom. Jones v.
Wetzel, 135 S. Ct. 94, 190
L. Ed. 2d 77 (2014):
Court ruled that former
death row prisoner's
Eighth Amendment rights
were not violated by his
confinement in solitary
while awaiting
resentencing to LWOP.
State statute 61 Pa.
Cons.Stat. Ann. § 4303
requires solitary
confinement of death row
prisoners, and prison
policy requires that any
death row prisoners who
may still be subject to
death after resentencing
must reside in the CCU.
Prisoner challenged that
prison policy; Third
Circuit held that the prison
was reasonably exercising
the power given to it by
the legislature to house
and classify prisoners, and
that prisoner could not

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -33

South
Carolina

demonstrate that the
administrativesegregation-like conditions
of death row infringed on
his constitutional rights.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -34

South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC) Policy and
Procures OP-22.16 (2014): Policy
Statement
To promote safety and security,
inmates assigned to the Death Row
Unit at Lieber Correctional
Institution will be housed in an area
that is separate and independent from
all other areas where other SCDC
inmates are assigned. . . . NOTE:
THESE PROCEDURES APPLY
ONLY TO MALE INMATES ON
DEATH ROW AT LIEBER
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.
FEMALE DEATH ROW INMATES
WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A
HOUSING AREA WITHIN THE
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT
AT CAMILLE GRIFFIN GRAHAM
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(CGGCI). IF A FEMALE IS
ASSIGNED TO DEATH ROW AT
CAMILLE GRIFFIN GRAHAM
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
INSTITUTIONAL SPECIFIC
PROCEDURES FOR THIS
INMATE WILL BE
DEVELOPED… [AND] WILL BE
PUBLISHED AS A SUPPLEMENT

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -34

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -35

(3) DEATH ROW UNIT: The U-1
housing unit will be utilized for
Death Row inmates at Lieber. Death
sentenced inmates will be separated
from those in Security Detention as
well as from inmates in the general
population for the purpose of
maintaining the safety, security, and

Death Row inmates will be assigned
to Level I, II, or III based upon their
behavior/classification status. Most
inmates on Death Row will be
assigned to Levels II or III.
(2.2) .. The following will be
applicable for all Death Row inmates
who are placed on execution status:
(2.2.1) The inmate placed on
execution status will be housed in a
specific location of the B-Wing on
the Death Row Unit.
(2.2.2) The inmate placed on
execution status will not be allowed
to associate with other inmates at
anytime while in execution status.
Separate visiting hours will be
established for those inmates.
(2.2.3) Inmates placed on execution
status will not be allowed out of the
cell at the same time as other Death
Row inmates.

(2) ASSIGNMENT OF INMATES
TO LEVELS:

TO THIS POLICY/PROCEDURE.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -35

(2) ASSIGNMENT OF INMATES
TO LEVELS:

TO THIS POLICY/PROCEDURE.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -36

(9) RECREATION
(9.1) Schedule: Death Row inmates
in any category of segregation will
be allowed out-of-cell recreation
privileges (indoor/outdoor) five (5)
days a week, to exclude weekends
and holidays, at least one (1) hour
per day, weather permitting, unless
safety and security reasons dictate
otherwise.
(9.1.1) Level I: Level I Death Row
inmates will retain their restraints
while they are secured within the

(7) INSTITUTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE
(ICC)
(7.3.1) … New arrivals will be
classified as Level I.
(7.3.3) Level I – Inmates assigned to
Level I will be reviewed every 30
days for behavior change and as
needed for status change.
(7.3.4) Level II – Inmates assigned
to Level II will be reviewed for a
possible change in level status every
90 days following their initial
placement in Level II.
(7.3.5) Level III – Inmates assigned
to Level III will have an annual
status review once per year, unless a
change occurs (i.e., disciplinary,
court decision, or another event) that
would affect status.

order of the facility.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -36

order of the facility.

South Dakota

S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-27A31.1 (2016):
“Segregation of defendant from
other inmates—Access to
defendant by others limited. From
the time of delivery to the
penitentiary until the infliction of
the punishment of death upon the
defendant, unless lawfully
discharged from such
imprisonment, the defendant shall

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -37

DOC Policy 1.3.D.2 (2015):
(3)(B)(1) Capital punishment
inmates will be housed one (1)
inmate to a cell.
3)(B)(2) Unless extenuating
circumstances exist, capital
punishment inmates will not be
allowed to have personal contact
with inmates in general population.
(3)(B)(3)Capital punishment inmates
will have meals brought to them by

(28) DEATH ROW SECURITY
STAFF DUTIES:
(28.2) Death Row Escort Procedures:
Death Row inmates will be stripsearched and placed in restraints
before exiting the cell block.
(28.3.1) . . . Inmates in Level I will
be housed in a separate physical
location. Inmates in Level II and III
may be housed in the same physical
location; however, an empty cell will
be maintained between the two (2)
levels.
(28.3.2) Inmates on Death Row will
be single-celled.51

individualized recreation area. (Only
one [1] inmate at a time may be
recreated in these areas.)
(9.1.2) Level II: Inmates will have
general recreation with other Level II
and Level III inmates. Only one (1)
inmate will be allowed in recreation
area.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -37

Tennessee

be segregated from other inmates
at the penitentiary. No other
person may be allowed access to
the defendant without an order of
the trial court except penitentiary
staff, Department of Corrections
staff, the defendant’s counsel,
members of the clergy if requested
by the defendant, and members of
the defendant's family. Members
of the clergy and members of the
defendant's family are subject to
approval by the warden before
being allowed access to the
defendant.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -38

Administrative Policy 404.11
(2011)(IV)(A) Mandatory
Segregation:
“Mandatory Segregation:
Assignment to maximum security
housing of those inmates committed
to the Department under the sentence
of death or in the physical custody of
the Department by court order for
safekeeping. . . .

DOC Website:
Male inmates sentenced to death are
housed in a separate wing of the
Jameson Annex of the South Dakota
State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. The
Jameson Annex is the maximumsecurity area of the Penitentiary.
Female inmates sentenced to death
are housed at the South Dakota
Women's Prison in Pierre.53

staff. They will eat their meals in
their assigned cell.
(3)(C)(1) Transportation of a capital
punishment inmate throughout the
facility (e.g. to Health Services, to
meet with an attorney, etc.) will be
scheduled when there is the least
amount of potential for the capital
punishment inmate to have contact
with general population inmates.
(4)(B) Capital punishment inmates
will normally receive forty-five (45)
minutes out of cell recreation each
weekday.52

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -38

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -39

(VI)(B)(2) Inmates who are under a
sentence of death shall be singlecelled and housed in a Maximum
Security Administrative Segregation
(MSAS) unit separate from the
general population.

Administrative Policy 506.14
(2014):
“(IV)(D) Maximum Security
Administrative Segregation (MSAS):
The purposeful separation of inmates
which are a threat to the safety and
security of an institution, the welfare
of staff, inmates, or public due to
past or current acts of violence
and/or escape or are committed to
the Department under sentence of
death.

(VI) PROCEDURES:
(A) Inmates with a sentence of death
shall be:
(A)(2) Designated as maximum
custody and assigned to mandatory
segregation on LIBD.
(A)(7) Reviewed annually thereafter
in compliance with Policy #401.05.54

(V) POLICY: Inmates who are
sentenced to death or housed in the
TDOC for the purpose of
safekeeping shall be assigned to
mandatory segregation…

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -39

(VI)(B)(2) Inmates who are under a
sentence of death shall be singlecelled and housed in a Maximum
Security Administrative Segregation
(MSAS) unit separate from the
general population.

(V) POLICY: Inmates who are
sentenced to death or housed in the
TDOC for the purpose of
safekeeping shall be assigned to
mandatory segregation…

Texas

Young v. Stephens, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16007
(W.D. Tex. 2014): Noting
that a Texas DOC Warden
testified that only death
row inmates remain in
administrative segregation
permanently.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.112
(West 2015):
“(a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b), the institutional
division may not house inmates
with different custody
classifications in the same
cellblock or dormitory unless the
structure of the cellblock or
dormitory allows the physical
separation of the different
classifications of inmates. (b) If an
appropriate justification is
provided by the unit classification
committee or the state
classification committee, the board
may permit the institutional
division to house inmates with
different custody classifications in
the same cellblock or dormitory,

Young v. Stephens, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16007
(W.D. Tex. 2014): Noting
that a Texas DOC Warden
testified that only death
row inmates remain in
administrative segregation
permanently.

Allen v. State, 2006 Tex.
Crim. App. LEXIS 2545
(Tex. 2006): Noting that a
correctional official
testified that death row is
basically identical to
administrative segregation.

Trottie v. Thaler, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19373
(E.D. Tex. 2013):
Resolving a case where an
inmate complained that
automatic administrative
segregation for death row
inmates violated his due
process rights.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.113
(West 2015):
“(b) The institutional division shall
house the following classes of
inmates in single occupancy
cells:(1) inmates confined in death
row segregation; (2) inmates
confined in administrative
segregation; . . . .”

Allen v. State, 2006 Tex.
Crim. App. LEXIS 2545
(Tex. 2006): Noting that a
correctional official
testified that death row is
basically identical to
administrative segregation.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -40

(VI)(B)(3) Inmates placed in MSAS
shall be single-celled and confined
within a maximum security unit
separate from the general
population.”55

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -40

(VI)(B)(3) Inmates placed in MSAS
shall be single-celled and confined
within a maximum security unit
separate from the general
population.”55

Utah

but only until sufficient beds
become available in the division to
allow the division to house the
inmates in the manner required by
Subsection (a) and in no event for
more than 30 days.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -41

Uinta 1 is the highest-security
building in the State’s prison system.
The building is capable of housing
96 inmates. Inmates are ‘singlecelled,’ meaning they do not have
cellmates. Unlike traditional
depictions of ‘solitary confinement,’
inmates housed in this area can
communicate with one another
through the doors of their cells. Each
cell has a window that provides
natural light, and inmates have the
opportunity to recreate either indoors
in a common area, or outdoors on a
concrete pad confined by side walls
and chain-link fencing overhead.
Like inmates in other facilities,
privilege levels vary based on
behavior. Nearly all inmates in this
section have the ability to earn

DOC website:
“The Uintas . . . include the
Maximum Security facilities at the
Utah State Prison. . . . The Uintas
also house high-profile inmates,
death-row inmates, and inmates who
pose severe management problems
such as active gang members. . . .

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -41

US Govt./
Military

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -42

12-6. Segregation: “Prisoners who
have been adjudged a sentence of
death will be segregated from the
remainder of the prison population at
all times. These prisoners will not be
commingled with other than death
sentence prisoners in billets,
recreation, employment, or
subsistence that is separate from
general population.”57

11-1. Custody procedures: “ACS
facilities will place prisoners under
sentence of death into administrative
segregation until they are prepared
for transfer to the USDB.”

Army Regulation 190-47: The
Army Corrections System (last
updated in 2006)
3-2. Authorized place of
confinement: “Except in time of war,
the USDB [United State Disciplinary
Barracks] is the only ACS facility
authorized to incarcerate prisoners
under the sentence of death.”

greater privileges and transition to
other areas over time by
demonstrating positive behavior.
Generally, death-row inmates are the
only exception, requiring a sentence
to be overturned or commuted to life.
Utah currently has nine men on
death row.”56

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -42

11-1. Custody procedures: “ACS
facilities will place prisoners under
sentence of death into administrative
segregation until they are prepared
for transfer to the USDB.”

Washington

Virginia

Washington

Virginia

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.95.170
(2015):
“The defendant shall be
imprisoned in the state penitentiary
within ten days after the trial court
enters a judgment and sentence
imposing the death penalty and
shall be imprisoned both prior to
and subsequent to the issuance of
the death warrant as provided in
RCW 10.95.160. During such
period of imprisonment, the
defendant shall be confined in the
segregation unit, where the
defendant may be confined with
other prisoners not under sentence
of death, but prisoners under

In re Gentry, 170 Wash.
2d 711, 716, 245 P.3d
766, 768 (2010):
"In contrast to Colorado
statutes, Washington
statutes and DOC
regulations in effect at the
time of Gentry's crime and
sentence provide that
death row inmates are
initially placed in the IMU
and remain there for at
least one year. Ford Decl.,
Ex. 1A. Subsequent
transfer to SHU, with its
attendant privileges, is
dependent upon inmate

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -43

DOC Policy 320.250 and 300.380
(2015):
“(II)(C)(2) Inmates Sentenced to the
Death Penalty (ISDPs) will be
housed in the IMU at the
Washington State Penitentiary
(WSP) or Washington Corrections
Center for Women, as applicable.”60

News Sources:
Following Prieto, news sources have
reported that the Virginia DOC
relaxed some of the policies to now
allow death row prisoners to interact
with one another in groups of up to
four, see their family on a weekly
basis, and access showers and
recreational opportunities more
often.59

Virginia Department of
Corrections, Operating Procedure
830.2, (IV)(D)(7) (2015):
“Any offender sentenced to death
will be assigned directly to Death
Row. . . . No reclassification will be
completed.”58

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -43

Wyoming

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7-13-907 (West
2015):
“(a) The administrator of the state
penal institution shall keep a
person sentenced to death in
solitary confinement until
execution of the death penalty,

Wash. Rev. Code § 72.02.250
(2015):
“Female persons sentenced to
death shall be committed to the
Washington correctional
institution for women,
notwithstanding the provisions of
RCW 10.95.170, except that the
death warrant shall provide for the
execution of such death sentence at
the Washington state penitentiary
as provided by RCW 10.95.160,
and the secretary of corrections
shall transfer to the Washington
state penitentiary any female
offender sentenced to death not
later than seventy-two hours prior
to the date fixed in the death
warrant for the execution of the
death sentence.”

sentence of death shall be assigned
to single-person cells.”

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7-13-907 (West
2015):
“(a) The administrator of the state
penal institution shall keep a
person sentenced to death in
solitary confinement until
execution of the death penalty,

sentence of death shall be assigned
to single-person cells.”

"…[S]tate law requires
that all Death Row
inmates be confined in a
segregation unit. R.C.W.
10.95.170. Accordingly,
this court finds that
Washington law does not
create a protected liberty
interest regarding the
location of plaintiff's
confinement.”

Jeffries v. Reed, 631 F.
Supp. 1212, 1214–15
(E.D. Wash. 1986):
"Plaintiff initially claims
that defendants violated
his rights by transferring
him to IMU solely because
he is subject to the death
penalty. Death Row
inmates are the only
prisoners incarcerated in
IMU for reasons other
than institutional
misconduct. "

conduct."

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -44

except the following persons shall
be allowed reasonable access to
the prisoner:
(i) The prisoner’s physician and
lawyers;
(ii) Relatives and spiritual advisers
of the prisoner; and
(iii) Persons involved in examining
a prisoner believed to be pregnant
or mentally unfit to proceed with
the execution of the sentence.”

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -45

Alabama Department of Corrections, Male Inmate Handbook 8 (Aug. 1, 2013), http://www.doc.state.al.us/docs/PublicMaleInmateHandbook.pdf.
History of the ADOC, Alabama Department of Corrections, http://www.doc.state.al.us/History.aspx (last visited May 26, 2016).
3
Holman Correctional Facility, Alabama Department of Corrections, http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility.aspx?loc=33 (last visited May 26, 2016).
4
Death Row Information and Frequently Asked Questions, Arizona Department of Corrections, https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/death-row/death-rowinformation-and-frequently-asked-questions (last visited May 26, 2016).
5
Arizona Department of Corrections, Department Order: 801, Inmate Classification at 12, effective Feb. 25, 2010, revised Nov. 5, 2011,
https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/800/0801.pdf.
6
Id. at 5.
7
Arizona Department of Corrections, Department Order: 801, Inmate Classification at 13–14, effective July 6, 2013, revised Sept. 19, 2015,
https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/700/0704_effective_9-19-15.pdf.
8
Arizona Department of Corrections, Department Order: 101, System of Written Instructions at 5, effective Sept. 28, 2010, revised April 6, 2011,
https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/100/0101.pdf.
9
Arkansas Department of Correction, Inmate Handbook 30 (July 2015), http://adc.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/Inmate_Handbook_edited_March_25_2016.pdf.
10
Emma John, Damien Echols: How I Survived Death Row, THE GUARDIAN (May 25, 2013), available at
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/26/damien-echols-i-survived-death-row.
11
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Operations Manual, Policy 61010.11.5 Placement at 515 (Jan. 31, 2016),
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/DOM/DOM%202016/2016_DOM.PDF.
12
Id. at Policy 62050.6 Inmates with Death Sentences, 561.
13
Howard Mintz, San Quentin: Inside California’s Death Row, THE MERCURY NEWS (Dec. 30, 2015), available at http://www.mercurynews.com/crimecourts/ci_29323310/inside-californias-death-row.
14
Nancy Mullane, One Reporter on California’s Death Row, LIFE OF THE LAW (July 17, 2014), available at http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/2014/07/reporter-ondeath-row-2/.
15
See also Kieran Nicholson, Colorado Death Sentence Inmates Moved to State Penitentiary, THE DENVER POST (Nov. 2, 2015), available at
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18564471.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -46

Colorado Department of Corrections, Regulation Number 600-01, Offender Classification at 6, effective Jan. 1, 2015,
http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ar/0600_01_010115.pdf.
17
Colorado Department of Corrections, Regulation Number 600-09, Management of Close Custody Offenders at 9–11, effective June 30, 2014, revised April 1,
2014, http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ar/600_09_063014%20(COMPLETE%20REWRITE)_0.pdf.
18
Christopher Reinhart, Prison Conditions for Death Row and Life Without Parole Inmates, OLR RESEARCH REPORT (April 4, 2011), available at
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0178.htm.
19
Pat Eaton-Robb, Weeks After Court Ruling, Connecticut Inmates Still Living on Death Row, NEW HAVEN REGISTER (Sept. 19, 2015), available at
http://www.nhregister.com/article/NH/20150919/NEWS/150919458.
20
Death Row: General Facts, State of Delaware Department of Correction, http://www.doc.delaware.gov/deathrow/factsheet.shtml#General Facts (last visited
May 26, 2016).
21
Facility Descriptions, Georgia Department of Corrections (May 3, 2016), http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/sites/default/files/Facilities%20Descriptions%20_0.pdf.
22
David M. Reutter, Georgia Ends Contact Visits for Death Row Prisoners, PRISON LEGAL NEWS (Oct. 2010), available at
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/oct/15/georgia-ends-contact-visits-for-death-row-prisoners/.
23
Idaho Department of Correction, Standard Operating Procedure 303.02.01.001, Classification: Inmate at 7, effective Sept. 15, 2014,
https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/policy/822.
24
Idaho Department of Correction, Directive 319.02.01.002, Offenders Under Sentence of Death at 5–10, revised Feb. 25, 2016,
https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/policy/904.
25
Indiana Department of Correction, Policy 02-03-115, High Risk Offenders at 3, effective Dec. 15, 2007, http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/02-03115_High_Risk_Offenders_12-15-07.pdf.
26
Death Penalty in Indiana, Indiana Department of Correction, http://www.in.gov/idoc/3349.htm (last visited May 26, 2016).
27
http://www.doc.ks.gov/kdoc-policies/AdultIMPP/chapter-20/20104.pdf.
28
Kentucky Corrections Policies and Procedures, Policy 10.2, Special Management Inmates at 1, effective Aug. 20, 2013,
http://corrections.ky.gov/communityinfo/Policies%20and%20Procedures/Documents/CH10/CPP%2010-2%20SMU.pdf.
29
Id. at 3.
30
Mississippi Department of Corrections, Inmate Handbook: Chapter I, Admission, Orientation and Classification 5, http://www.mdoc.ms.gov/InmateInfo/Documents/CHAPTER%20I.pdf (last visited May 26, 2016).
31
State Prisons, Mississippi Department of Corrections, http://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Institutions/Pages/State-Prisons.aspx (last visited May 26, 2016).
32
George Lombardi, Richard D. Sluder & Donald Wallace, The Management of Death-Sentenced Inmates: Issues, Realities, and Innovative Strategies, 8-9
(1996), available at https://doc.mo.gov/Documents/DeathSentencedInmates.pdf.
33
Department of Corrections, Montana State Prison Operational Procedure 4.2.1, Inmate Classification System at 5, effective Sept. 1, 1998, revised Nov. 12,
2013, http://cor.mt.gov/Portals/104/Resources/Policy/MSPprocedures/4-2-1InmateClassificationSystem.pdf.
34
Id. at 6.
35
Department of Correctional Services, State of Nebraska, Administrative Regulation 210.01, Conditions of Confinement – Special Management Inmates at 4–8,
effective March 1, 1980, revised June 30, 2015, http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/ar/classification/AR%20210.01.pdf.
36
Department of Correctional Services, State of Nebraska, Administrative Regulation 201.02, Inmate Classification and Assignment – Initial Classification,
Reception and Orientation at 2, effective March 1, 1980, revised July 31, 2015, http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/ar/classification/AR%20201.02.pdf
37
Id. at 4.
38
Department of Correctional Services , State of Nebraska, Administrative Regulation 201.05, Inmate Classification and Assignment – Special Management
Inmates at 2, effective March 1, 1980, revised July 31, 2015, http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/ar/classification/AR%20201.05.pdf.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -47

Ely State Prison (ESP), State of Nevada Department of Corrections, http://doc.nv.gov/Inmates/Visiting/ESP_Visiting/ (last visited May 26, 2016).
Ana Ley, A Look Inside Nevada’s Death Row with a Federal Defense Attorney, LAS VEGAS SUN (Aug. 22, 2014), http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/aug/22/qlook-inside-nevadas-death-row-federal-defense-at/.
41
State of New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Time In Prison 9 (2001), https://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/victim/documents/timeinprison.pdf.
42
New Mexico Corrections Department, CD-143000, Prison Security Levels V and VI at 3, effective Apr. 30, 2002, revised, June 24, 2014,
http://cd.nm.gov/policies/docs/CD-143000.pdf.
43
New Mexico Corrections Department, CD-143003, Level V and VI Admission, Orientation and Conditions of Confinement at 3, effective Apr. 30, 2002,
revised June 24, 2014, http://cd.nm.gov/policies/docs/CD-143000.pdf.
44
State of North Carolina Department of Public Safety, C.1200, Conditions of Confinement at 1-2, issued Mar. 2, 2015, https://ncdps.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/div/Prisons/Policy_Procedure_Manual/C_1200_03_02_15.pdf.
45
Id. at 6.
46
Id. at 8.
47
Id. at 13–14.
48
Id. at 16.
49
State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 53-CLS-01, Inmate Security Classification Levels 1 Through 4 at 14, effective Aug. 4, 2015,
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/53-CLS-01.pdf.
50
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Policy & Operations Manual, OP-0601017, Systems of Incarceration at 5, effective July 27, 2015, revised Sept. 2, 2015,
https://www.ok.gov/doc/documents/op060107.pdf.
51
South Carolina Department of Corrections Policy/Procedure, OP-22.16, Death Row at 24, issued June 26, 2014, http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/policy/OP-2216.htm1464300036105.pdf.
52
South Dakota Department of Corrections, 1.3.D.2, Capital Punishment Housing at 2-5, effective Sept. 21, 2015,
http://doc.sd.gov/documents/about/policies/Capital%20Punishment%20Housing.pdf.
53
Frequent Questions: Capital Punishment, South Dakota Department of Corrections, http://doc.sd.gov/about/faq/capitolpunishment.aspx (last viewed May 26,
2016).
54
State of Tennessee Department of Correction, Administrative Policies and Procedure, 404.11, Mandatory Segregation at 1–2, effective Feb. 1, 2011,
https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/correction/attachments/404-11.pdf. Policy #401.05, governing annual reviews of death row inmate’s custody, does not appear
to be publicly available.
55
State of Tennessee Department of Correction, Administrative Policies and Procedure, 506.14, Housing Assignments at 1–3, effective June 1, 2014,
https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/correction/attachments/506-14.pdf.
56
Special Services Dormitory, Utah Department of Corrections, http://corrections.utah.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=18&Itemid=138
(last visited May 26, 2016).
57
U.S. Department of the Army, AR 190-47, The Army Corrections System at 3, 48, 58, revised June 15, 2015,
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r190_47.pdf.
58
Virginia Department of Corrections, OP 830.2, Security Level Classification at 5, effective Jan. 1, 2015,
https://vadoc.virginia.gov/about/procedures/documents/800/830-2.pdf.
59
Matt Zapotosky, Virginia Relaxes Restrictions on Death Row Inmates, THE WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 29, 2015), available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/virginia-relaxes-restrictions-on-death-row-inmates/2015/08/29/614b4d9e-4ce3-11e5-902f39e9219e574b_story.html.

Liman Rethinking Death Row, July 2016 -48

State of Washington Department of Corrections, DOC 320.250, Intensive Management/Treatment Status Placement/Transfer/Release at 3, revised Feb. 1,
2015, http://www.doc.wa.gov/policies/showFile.aspx?name=320250.

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side