A letter from death row
Dublin Core
Title
A letter from death row
Subject
Capital punishment
Description
A newspaper article regarding capital punishment which includes a letter written by death row inmate Joe Giarratano. The Ninth Amendment is referenced addressing constitutional law and the existence of "unenumerated" rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. Giarratano references in his letter the Lokean political theory which provides additional inquiry. Columnist James K. Kilpatrick expresses concern with the brief, non-jury trial, Giarratano had along with a case for reasonable doubt.
Creator
Kilpatrick, James K
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1990-10-08
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Language
English
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Let me ask a favor. Take a couple of minutes, if you will, to read a letter from Joe Giarratano. He is on death row in Virginia’s prison at Boydton.
On Oct. 1 the Supreme Court turned down his last appeal. His legal roads have run out. If Gov. Doug Wilder refuses to intervene, Joe will be executed before the end of the year.
By way of background: On the unchallenged record, Joe Giarratano was the product of a sordid childhood. He had a limited high school education. Those facts do not excuse, but they help to explain.
In February 1979, when this sad chapter began, Giarratano was 21 years old, a drug addict, a drunkard, and a drifter working on a fish boat.
The ugly details of the crime are now irrelevant. Joe was charged and convicted of the rape-murder of a 15-year-old girl and the murder of her mother.
The only evidence against him came from five separate confessions he signed in the hours immediately after the arrest. The confessions were internally inconsistent: they smacked of police coaching.
Following a brief non-jury trial, a judge sentenced him to death. That was almost 12 years ago. He has been spent his time studying law and remaking his life.
I learned of the case three years ago. I spent hours reading the record and came away deeply troubled. I’m not sure Joe is guilty: I’m not sure he is innocent; but I’ve spent 50 years covering courts and I am certain of this: He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now to the letter. It is dated Oct. 8, 1990:
“I truly appreciate the efforts you have made on my behalf, and for bringing my plight to the attention of the public through your columns. Knowing that folks really care has been boon for my morale.”
“Overall I am holding up well, and I remain hopeful. The news from the U.S. Supreme Court came as a surprise, though it is terribly frustrating to see that procedural default mechanisms can outweigh the truth-finding process in such obdurate fashion.”
“Even though I understand the judiciary’s frustration with the capital cases, I really find it impossible to reconcile that imbalance with the Constitution (state or federal). The ball is now in the governor’s court, and I can only hope that he will exercise his executive authority.”
“In the meanwhile my chin is up, and I keep fairly busy. I’ve recently completed an article for the Yale Law Journal. It is in the final editing stages. And I in the process of co-authoring another law review with Professor Mike Mello (Vermont Law School). The subject is the ‘forgotten’ Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.”
“Early in November, 50 law students from Georgetown and Maryland will be coming to the prison, and I plan to talk to them about the Ninth Amendment and Lockean political theory and its role in the formation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
“I’ve given two talks like this in the past, and I was amazed to discover how little is known about the historical underpinnings of the Constitution.”
A personal note: I am not opposed to the death sentence. Given a killer in the weird mold of Ted Bundy, I see no reason for society to keep such a monster alive.
The prospect of capital punishment may not be a deterrent to rape or murder – I doubt that it is, but that issue defies resolution. In truly heinous cases, a death sentence ought to be available to a jury as an option.
But let me ask: what would be the point in killing Joe Giarratano now? In all my instincts I am a man of the law. But Joe was convicted 12 years ago by a single trial judge on evidence of doubtful reliability.
The confused, suicidal drug addict of 1979 is gone. In his place one finds a young man with a good mind and a healthy outlook on life. How would killing him avenge the victims or sustain respect for judicial process?
Some useful purpose ought to be served by putting Joe to death. I see no useful purpose at all.
On Oct. 1 the Supreme Court turned down his last appeal. His legal roads have run out. If Gov. Doug Wilder refuses to intervene, Joe will be executed before the end of the year.
By way of background: On the unchallenged record, Joe Giarratano was the product of a sordid childhood. He had a limited high school education. Those facts do not excuse, but they help to explain.
In February 1979, when this sad chapter began, Giarratano was 21 years old, a drug addict, a drunkard, and a drifter working on a fish boat.
The ugly details of the crime are now irrelevant. Joe was charged and convicted of the rape-murder of a 15-year-old girl and the murder of her mother.
The only evidence against him came from five separate confessions he signed in the hours immediately after the arrest. The confessions were internally inconsistent: they smacked of police coaching.
Following a brief non-jury trial, a judge sentenced him to death. That was almost 12 years ago. He has been spent his time studying law and remaking his life.
I learned of the case three years ago. I spent hours reading the record and came away deeply troubled. I’m not sure Joe is guilty: I’m not sure he is innocent; but I’ve spent 50 years covering courts and I am certain of this: He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now to the letter. It is dated Oct. 8, 1990:
“I truly appreciate the efforts you have made on my behalf, and for bringing my plight to the attention of the public through your columns. Knowing that folks really care has been boon for my morale.”
“Overall I am holding up well, and I remain hopeful. The news from the U.S. Supreme Court came as a surprise, though it is terribly frustrating to see that procedural default mechanisms can outweigh the truth-finding process in such obdurate fashion.”
“Even though I understand the judiciary’s frustration with the capital cases, I really find it impossible to reconcile that imbalance with the Constitution (state or federal). The ball is now in the governor’s court, and I can only hope that he will exercise his executive authority.”
“In the meanwhile my chin is up, and I keep fairly busy. I’ve recently completed an article for the Yale Law Journal. It is in the final editing stages. And I in the process of co-authoring another law review with Professor Mike Mello (Vermont Law School). The subject is the ‘forgotten’ Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.”
“Early in November, 50 law students from Georgetown and Maryland will be coming to the prison, and I plan to talk to them about the Ninth Amendment and Lockean political theory and its role in the formation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
“I’ve given two talks like this in the past, and I was amazed to discover how little is known about the historical underpinnings of the Constitution.”
A personal note: I am not opposed to the death sentence. Given a killer in the weird mold of Ted Bundy, I see no reason for society to keep such a monster alive.
The prospect of capital punishment may not be a deterrent to rape or murder – I doubt that it is, but that issue defies resolution. In truly heinous cases, a death sentence ought to be available to a jury as an option.
But let me ask: what would be the point in killing Joe Giarratano now? In all my instincts I am a man of the law. But Joe was convicted 12 years ago by a single trial judge on evidence of doubtful reliability.
The confused, suicidal drug addict of 1979 is gone. In his place one finds a young man with a good mind and a healthy outlook on life. How would killing him avenge the victims or sustain respect for judicial process?
Some useful purpose ought to be served by putting Joe to death. I see no useful purpose at all.
Contributor of the Digital Item
Hunter-Sowers, Ruby
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Kilpatrick, James K, “A letter from death row,” HIST299, accessed March 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/134.