June 1
OKLAHOMA:
Death penalty sought for Nichols
Terry Nichols deserves execution by lethal injection for helping with the
deadly bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, a prosecutor told
jurors today as the penalty phase of Nichols' murder trial got under way.
Nichols, who was convicted in state court last Thursday of 161 counts of
1st-degree murder, "constitutes a continuing threat to society",
prosecutor Sandra Elliott said.
The April 19, 1995, bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building killed
168 people and injured hundreds more.
Nichols, 49, was acquitted of federal murder charges in 1997 but convicted
of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter charges in the deaths of 8
federal law enforcement officers in the bombing. He was sentenced to life
in prison.
Oklahoma prosecutors charged Nichols in 1999 with the deaths of the 160
other victims and one victim's fetus.
Defence lawyer Creekmore Wallace urged the jury to listen to all of the
evidence and consider all sentencing options before deciding whether
Nichols should be sentenced to death or to life in prison.
He said defence lawyers will give jurors a glimpse of Nichols' life before
and after the bombing, including his relationships with his 2 former
wives, his 3 children and his large extended family in Michigan.
"Terry worked hard at these relationships," Wallace said.
Before the sentencing phase began, Judge Steven Taylor ruled that rescuers
could testify about the experiences of victims of the bombing. Defence
lawyers wanted to block testimony from about 20 rescuers who are among
dozens of people expected to testify.
Nichols' jury found him guilty of 161 counts of 1st-degree murder on
Thursday, just 5 hours after they began deliberating.
Jurors also found him guilty of 1st-degree arson and conspiracy to commit
arson in the bombing.
Taylor barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty on the count
involving the fetus after ruling prosecutors did not give his lawyers
adequate notice of their plan to seek the death penalty on that count. The
jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole on that count.
The penalty phase of Nichols' trial is expected to last about 3 weeks.
Prosecutors will question dozens of bombing survivors and members of
victims' families about the impact the blast had on their lives.
Nichols' relatives, including mother, Joyce Wilt, and sister, Suzanne
McDonnell, are expected to plead for his life. Nichols, who did not
testify in his own defence, could still testify during the penalty phase.
Nichols was found guilty after prosecutors presented evidence that he
bought the explosive ammonium nitrate fertiliser used in the homemade bomb
that destroyed the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building and stole detonation
cord, blasting caps and other explosives.
The defence contended others helped executed bomber Timothy McVeigh carry
out the bombing and Nichols was the fall man for a wider conspiracy.
(source: Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia)
USA:
Court sides with police on juvenile questioning
The Supreme Court clashed today over whether police must take extra care
when questioning young people about crimes, narrowly siding with officers
in their interrogation of a 17-year-old murder suspect in California.
The case is one of four that justices are using this year to clarify
police responsibilities in using the familiar Miranda warning that begins
"You have the right to remain silent."
Today's decision was a limited victory for law enforcement.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, said the court
has never said that police must make special concessions to younger
suspects as part of the requirements in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona
ruling.
But the decision left open the door for future challenges of questioning
of young people.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a separate opinion, said that there may be
cases in which age is a factor.
Michael Alvarado, then 17, had been questioned for more than 2 hours at a
police station while his parents were forced to wait outside.
Police contend they did not have to tell Alvarado his rights because he
was not in custody and could have left the station.
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that ordinary common sense is
all that is required to know that Alvarado was under police control and
would not have understood that he could walk out of the interview.
"A reasonable person would not have thought he was free simply to pick up
and leave in the middle of the interrogation," Breyer wrote on behalf of
himself and the three other liberal-leaning justices: John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Alvarado is serving a sentence of 15-years to life in prison for his part
in a 1995 murder at a shopping mall in Santa Fe Springs, Calif.
His case was a prelude to the court's consideration this fall of another
youth issue: the constitutionality of executing underage killers.
The Supreme Court has two more Miranda cases to decide before ending the
term by July. The other cases involve how much leeway police have when
they mistakenly or deliberately fail to tell suspects their rights. The
fourth case was settled in January, in a ruling reminding police that
before they try to get confessions from criminal suspects facing formal
charges, they must first tell them they have a right to see a lawyer.
The case is Yarborough v. Alvarado, 02-1684.
(source: Associated Press)
**********************
Judge sides with inmate on execution procedure----Hammer says method being
challenged across country
As the day of his scheduled execution draws closer, federal inmate David
Paul Hammer has won another court battle concerning how he should be put
to death.
On Friday, Senior U.S. Judge Malcolm Muir ruled that the federal
government cannot perform a venous cut-down procedure to deliver the
lethal drugs to Hammer unless medically necessary, attorney David Rohnke
said Sunday.
Hammer, who is diabetic, has good surface veins so the procedure is not
necessary, so the government must use an alternate way of injecting him,
Rohnke said. A venous cut-down involves cutting through layers of fat and
muscle to find a vein in which to insert a catheter.
The inmate, however, still awaits a ruling from the Third Circuit Court on
whether he will be allowed to reinstate his appeals. Attorneys expect the
ruling sometime this week. Hammer is scheduled to die by lethal injection
at 3 p.m. June 8 in the U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute.
He was sentenced to death in 1998 after pleading guilty to the 1996
strangulation death of his cellmate, Andrew Marti, in the U.S.
Penitentiary, Allenwood in Pennsylvania. Hammer was then serving more than
1,200 years on myriad Oklahoma charges, including kidnapping and attempted
murder.
He was transferred in 1993 to federal custody from the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections because of his history of discipline problems and escaping.
In the 3 previous federal executions, officials inserted a catheter in the
leg, which then was covered up by a sheet. Officials have declined in the
past to comment on whether the cut-down procedure was used in those
executions.
Dan Dunne, spokesman for the Bureau of Prisons, said in 2003 that the
process is handled in "an appropriate, humane, professional and dignified
manner" that conforms to established medical ethics.
Prison officials told Hammer that local anesthetic is applied when making
the incision, court records. When asked by Hammer and his attorneys if the
procedure was medically necessary or if they had looked at others means of
delivering the drugs, prison officials did not respond, according to court
records.
Prison officials could not be reached for comment Sunday.
Hammer has claimed that the cut-down procedure violates the Eighth
Amendment because it is "cruel and unusual punishment," noting that it is
being challenged in several cases across the country.
On May 24, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Alabama death
row inmate, David Nelson, could challenge the cut-down procedure for his
execution even though his veins were damaged from drug abuse.
Nelson argued, citing a physician's testimony in the case, that the
cut-down procedure could be painful and lead to complications.
Friday's ruling, with the exception of the pending appeals request, was
Hammer's last motion on which a ruling awaits before his scheduled
execution.
In the past 2 weeks, after Hammer filed motions, Muir changed the time of
the execution to 3 p.m. from 7 a.m. so it would be consistent with
Pennsylvania execution protocol and ordered the federal government to
prepay or reimburse travel expenses for Hammer's execution witnesses.
But Muir denied Hammer access to his attorneys in the final 2 hours before
the execution, which is federal protocol.
Over the years, Hammer has been a litigious inmate who has filed numerous
cases alleging that his civil rights, including access to media and to his
attorneys, were being violated while imprisoned in the federal system.
(source: Tribune Star)
******************************
Death penalty bad for victims' relatives, U.S. campaigner says
In Tokyo, a son of a murdered man in the United States voiced opposition
Saturday to the death penalty as "bad for victims of crime."
At a symposium on capital punishment in Tokyo, sponsored by the Japan
Federation of Bar Associations, Renny Cushing, the executive director of
Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, said bereaved families of
victims are expected to welcome the execution of offenders, even if they
are opposed to the death penalty.
Cushing told the audience of more than 200 people that there is a
stereotype saying victims want or need the death penalty. But Cushing
called such expectations "re-victimization" as they "take away my values."
Cushing's father was shot to death in 1988 but Cushing opposed capital
punishment before the incident.
He said he wants to live in "a world where life is respected" and did not
want to lose this values because of his father's murder. The change would
"make the tragedy worse," he said.
Cushing, a former member of New Hampshire's state house of
representatives, also noted that a society with the death penalty tends to
focus on how offenders will be punished while ignoring victims.
He said people should think about what victims need and how to help them,
and he showed appreciation of a JFBA proposal calling for establishing a
system to fully support crime victims and bereaved families and to enable
them to recover from their losses.
In the November 2002 proposal, Japan's largest lawyers' group said the
government should suspend executions until public debate over capital
punishment reaches a certain consensus, though the JFBA has never sought
an end to the death penalty.
Cushing said he once drafted a bill to abolish the death penalty in order
to say, as a member of a bereaved family, "no more killing."
His lecture is part of a series of nationwide JFBA symposiums on capital
punishment prior to the federation's annual human rights meeting in
October in the city of Miyazaki.
It will be the first time the JFBA brings up capital punishment at one of
its human rights meeting.
The Tokyo symposium on Saturday will be followed by 6 others in Osaka,
Sendai, Matsuyama, Sapporo, Hiroshima and Fukuoka.
(source: Japan Today)
