June 2
CALIFORNIA:
Prosecutor Outlines the Case Against Peterson
For a year and a half, the deaths of Laci Peterson and her fetus have been
among the most talked-about crimes in America, with every detail, true or
supposed, picked apart on television, in newspapers and over bowls of
popcorn on living room couches.
On Tuesday, the process finally moved into a courtroom as the murder trial
of Ms. Peterson's husband, Scott, 31, got under way in San Mateo County
Superior Court here. This time it was Rick Distaso, the lead prosecutor in
the case, who delved into detail after detail in an opening statement that
was so exhaustive that the judge had to delay until Wednesday the response
by Mr. Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos.
"We will just go along with the program," the judge, Alfred A. Delucchi,
said in announcing the delay.
It was clear from the outset that Mr. Distaso, a senior deputy district
attorney in Stanislaus County, where the Petersons lived, assumed that the
jurors knew a lot about the case. He spent no time on the basics or even
introducing the Petersons.
At one point, when showing the photograph of a woman scheduled to testify,
he suggested to the jurors that they had already seen her many times.
"Think back to Dec. 24," Mr. Distaso said in beginning his remarks, a
reference to the day in 2002 when Ms. Peterson was reported missing from
her home in Modesto, a farming town about 70 miles east of here where she
lived with Mr. Peterson, a fertilizer salesman. Mr. Peterson has been
charged with 2 counts of murder in the deaths.
Mr. Distaso then spent the morning and much of the afternoon methodically
flipping through the pages of the calendar, building the prosecution's
case against Mr. Peterson piece by piece, mostly raising doubts about Mr.
Peterson by pointing out contradictions in his alibi and suspicions voiced
by friends and relatives. Much of the information was not new, having been
discussed at Mr. Peterson's preliminary hearing or on the countless
television shows that have been devoted to the case.
But Mr. Distaso had little choice. Though Ms. Peterson's body, and that of
her fetus, were found in April 2003 in San Francisco Bay, they were so
decomposed that experts could not determine how or when she died. With no
cause of death, no witnesses and no murder weapon, Mr. Distaso spent his
day laying out a circumstantial case against Mr. Peterson that one lawyer
friendly to his cause characterized as a double-themed prosecution based
on Mr. Peterson's "secrets and lies."
"On television there are smoking guns, but in real life, prosecutors are
faced with the challenge of building a house brick by brick," said the
lawyer, Gloria Allred, who represents Amber Frey, who was having an affair
with Mr. Peterson. Ms. Frey is considered the prosecution's star witness,
but it is unclear when she will testify in a trial that court officials
say could last 5 or 6 months.
In summing up late in the afternoon, Mr. Distaso sounded his core
contention. "Ladies and gentlemen," he said. "This is a common-sense
case."
Mr. Distaso told the jurors that the doubts about Mr. Peterson began with
his 1st phone call to his mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha, on Dec. 24, and
continued through the day of his arrest on April 18, 2003, when he was
found in Southern California with his brother's driver's license, nearly
$15,000 and a car full of clothing and camping equipment.
"He says, 'Mom, Laci's missing,' " Mr. Distaso told the jury of Mr.
Peterson's first phone call after returning home from a fishing trip Dec.
24. "Right then, Sharon Rocha knew that things were very seriously wrong."
Many of the suspicions revolve around Mr. Peterson's relationship with Ms.
Frey, whom he had told in a tearful exchange more than a month before Ms.
Peterson's disappearance that he had "lost" his wife, Mr. Distaso said.
Ms. Frey has said she did not know he was married until she heard about
Ms. Peterson's disappearance in the news.
"I worry, hope and desire to make you happy," Mr. Peterson was quoted
telling Ms. Frey in one of several cellphone conversations taped by Ms.
Frey at the request of the Modesto police. In another conversation, Mr.
Distaso said, he told Ms. Frey that he did not want to have children and
said he was considering having a vasectomy.
On Dec. 31, when friends and relatives in Modesto held a prayer vigil for
Ms. Peterson and her fetus, Mr. Peterson was on his cellphone several
times speaking with Ms. Frey, Mr. Distaso said. He told her that he was in
Europe on a business trip, Mr. Distaso said, though he was in fact in
Modesto.
A day earlier, Mr. Distaso said, when shown a photograph by the police of
himself with Ms. Frey, Mr. Peterson replied incredulously, "Is that
supposed to be me?"
The trial had originally been set to take place in Modesto, but was moved
here after a judge there determined Mr. Peterson could not get a fair
trial. Even here in San Mateo County, about 15 miles south of San
Francisco, it took three months to whittle through the pool of potential
jurors to find 12 who had not made up their minds about Mr. Peterson's
guilt or innocence.
(source: New York Times)
OHIO----impending execution
Board recommends no clemency for killer
In Columbus, the Ohio Parole Board on Tuesday recommended that Gov. Bob
Taft not spare the life of a man convicted of killing one of his jailers
in Cincinnati in 1984.
The board voted 9-0 against recommending clemency for William Zuern, 45. A
federal judge has put his June 8 execution on hold while an appeals court
decides whether the state can proceed. Attorney General Jim Petro has
appealed the delay to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Zuern, formerly of Cincinnati, also is serving a life prison term for
fatally shooting a Cincinnati man.
He had been awaiting trial on that slaying when Hamilton County jail
officials received a tip that Zuern had a homemade knife. Zuern was
notified that officers were coming to search the cell and when they
arrived, he stabbed sheriff's officer Philip Pence in the chest with a
dagger-like piece of metal he formed out of a bucket handle, fellow
officers testified.
The defense has argued that prosecutors failed to turn over a memo that
would have indicated that Zuern wanted to kill a fellow prisoner, rather
than a jailer. They contend that would have showed the lack of
premeditation needed for a death penalty conviction.
Taft will take a few days to review the case before making a decision,
spokesman Orest Holubec said. Taft can let the death sentence stand or
reduce it.
Ohio has executed 11 men since the state resumed using the death penalty
in 1999. One death row inmate, Jerome Campbell, has been granted clemency.
(source: Associated Press)
USA----impending federal execution
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: Terre Haute Tribune-Star)
***********************
Public Divided Between Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without
Parole-- Large Majority Supports Death Penalty If No Alternative Is
Specified
As an Oklahoma jury debates the punishment of Terry Nichols, convicted
last week of 161 counts of 1st-degree murder in the Oklahoma City bombing
in 1995, a recent Gallup survey finds Americans about evenly divided in
their views of the appropriate punishment for murder. About 1/2 of all
Americans choose the death penalty, while just under half opt for life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. When Americans are not
presented with life imprisonment as an alternative, about 7 in 10 support
the death penalty. Most Americans also believe the death penalty is
applied fairly, and about half say it is not imposed often enough. A
majority believes it is not a deterrent to murder, but perceptions of
deterrence have only a modest effect on support.
In 1997, Nichols was found guilty in federal court of helping Timothy
McVeigh construct a bomb that was used to destroy a federal office
building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The blast killed 168 people, including
eight federal officials. At the time, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found
that 45% of Americans thought Nichols should be sentenced to death for his
actions, while 42% supported life imprisonment. In fact, the judge
sentenced Nichols to life imprisonment.
In 1999, Oklahoma prosecutors took Nichols to court again, this time for
the deaths of 160 people who were not federal officials, plus 1 woman's
fetus. Last Wednesday, a state jury found Nichols guilty of 1st-degree
murder on all 161 counts. Once again, prosecutors are seeking the death
penalty.
The current poll finds a margin of 50% to 46% in favor of the death
penalty over life imprisonment as a penalty for murder. These results show
a more divided public than last year, when the comparable figures were 53%
to 44%, respectively.
Over the past 20 years, support for the death penalty instead of life
imprisonment has fluctuated between a low of 49% and a high of 61%. The
latter figure was measured in August 1997, just before McVeigh's death
sentence was formally handed down.
Support for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty has been higher
over the past several years than it was from 1985 to 2000. Typically
during that time, about a third or more Americans preferred life
imprisonment as a penalty for murder, but in the past 4 years, the
percentage has varied in the low- to mid-40% range.
When Gallup first began asking about the death penalty in 1936, the
question at that time did not specify life imprisonment as an alternative,
and the same question asked today finds a substantial majority of the
public supporting the death penalty. The current poll shows 71% in favor,
up from 64% last October, but about the same as it was in most of
2002-2003.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, when the legality of the death penalty was
being challenged in the courts, Americans expressed much less support for
that punishment than they did earlier and than they have since. Highest
support was reached in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when about 8 in 10
Americans were in favor.
Support for the death penalty reflects the fact that most people, 65%,
think it is a "morally acceptable" punishment, while only 28% think it is
"morally wrong."
(source: Gallup News Service)
