death penalty news June 14, 2004
OKLAHOMA: After Second Nichols Trial, Frustration on Both Sides Seven years ago, when Terry L. Nichols was first spared execution in a federal trial for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing, people in Oklahoma, including the relatives of the 168 killed in the blast, were divided over what should come next. Some said they hoped that it would be the last they ever heard of Mr. Nichols; he was imprisoned now, and they could try to move on. Others said they wanted Mr. Nichols tried once more, in state court this time, so he could be sentenced to death. But this weekend, after Mr. Nichols, 49, was once again spared a death sentence, in a second trial that took months to hear, years to plan and millions of dollars to pay for, people on both sides of the divide came away saying they were left disappointed and disillusioned. "It is unreal," said Jannie Coverdale, whose two grandsons died in the day care center in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. "I can't understand, with the evidence that the prosecutors presented, how the jury could not reach the death penalty in this case. If any case deserved the death penalty, this one did." Meanwhile those who had opposed another trial - because of its emotional and financial tolls and because of questions over the fairness of prosecuting someone twice - said yesterday that they, too, felt saddened. To them, the outcome was simply proof that Mr. Nichols should not have been tried again. "It was a total waste of time and this just shows that," said Bud Welch, whose grown daughter was killed in the blast and who has become an opponent of the death penalty. "I'm hearing all kinds of cost figures tossed around for this trial, and the cost in money is not even the most important thing. The most important thing was how this re-victimized people all over again, made us relive it." C. Wesley Lane II, the prosecutor at the center of a decision to try Mr. Nichols in state court this year, defended his choice and said that given the chance, he would make it again - despite the repeat sentence, the potential political fallout, the bitterness of some Oklahomans. "You're either a person who stands up for principles or you're just some whimsical madman," Mr. Lane said in a telephone interview. Since Mr. Lane was appointed district attorney for Oklahoma County in 2001, the Nichols case has been a focal point for debate. When the former prosecutor, Robert H. Macy, retired, Mr. Lane found himself wrestling with the crucial question: Should he go forward with the murder case Mr. Macy filed against Mr. Nichols in 1999 or should he drop the matter, given Mr. Nichols's earlier conviction in federal court? In 1997, Mr. Nichols was convicted of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter - but not murder - in the deaths of eight federal agents in the bombing. He was sentenced to life in federal prison without parole. (His Army friend, Timothy J. McVeigh, was tried separately the same year, and sentenced to die; Mr. McVeigh was executed in 2001.) Advocates of another trial for Mr. Nichols argued that the earlier conviction held no one accountable for the 160 victims who were not federal agents, and failed to portray Mr. Nichols, officially, as a murderer. But critics asserted that state prosecutors were simply trying to get what federal prosecutors had failed to: a death sentence. They also questioned whether a second trial would amount to double jeopardy, though the United States Supreme Court has held that state and federal authorities are separate sovereigns and thus can pursue separate cases. Early on, Mr. Lane recalled, he had "grave concerns" about pursuing the case. But his doubts, he said, were swept away after he met with victims' families in 2001. In a 2002 election, Mr. Lane's political opponents focused on his choice to pursue the Nichols case, but he won anyway. Still, not long ago, a poll in The Tulsa World found that 70 percent of Oklahomans opposed a second trial. Then on Friday night, in McAlester, Okla., where the trial had been moved because of intense publicity, jurors announced that they were deadlocked over Mr. Nichols's sentence. Earlier, they had swiftly convicted him of 161 counts of murder, but said they were stuck on the question of death. Jurors reached over the weekend declined to discuss their deliberations. "All I'll say is that we went through an ordeal," said Daniel Cochran, a juror. On Aug. 7, Judge Steven Taylor will sentence Mr. Nichols to life in prison, either with the possibility of parole or without the possibility of parole, but he is barred from sentencing him to death. Mr. Lane insisted that he was not disappointed by that. "This was never about a sentence," he said. "This was not about blood. It was about justice, and he was held accountable." Mr. Lane and W. Creekmore Wallace II, a defense lawyer appointed to represent Mr. Nichols, said they were unsure what the cost of Mr. Nichols's trial would amount to. Estimates have ranged from $5 million to more than $10 million. Mr. Lane, 48, said he intended to run for re-election in 2006. He said he knew he would hear about the Nichols case again then. "If people want to vote me out, that's their call." (source: New York Times) ================================== USA: To the Editor: Re "Should Doctors Help in Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer" (news article, June 10): I am the author of a law, passed in California in 2001, that specifically excludes physicians from participation in executions (lethal injection in California). The answer to the question "Should doctors help in executions?" is no. The codes of medical ethics of the California Medical Association, the American Medical Association and the World Medical Association are clear: Physician participation in executions is unethical. MICHAEL J. FRANZBLAU, M.D. San Francisco, June 10, 2004 *** To the Editor: "Should Doctors Help in Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer" (news article, June 10) revives a dilemma I faced in drafting the first lethal injection law in 1977, when I was serving in the Oklahoma Legislature. I had sought technical assistance from the Oklahoma Medical Association, which elected not to participate. The bill I ultimately wrote with assistance from the state medical examiner, Dr. Jay Chapman, preserved the requirement that a licensed physician be present to declare the executee dead. I did not provide for the participation of a physician in the process itself, however, having been assured that a phlebotomist would be fully capable of establishing a saline drip. WILLIAM J. WISEMAN JR. Tulsa, Okla., June 10, 2004 *** To the Editor: Re "Should Doctors Help With Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer" (news article, June 10) and "After Abu Ghraib: Physician, Turn Thyself In," by M. Gregg Bloche (Op-Ed, June 10): What is a greater perversion of medical practice? Doctors who "help" execute their patients or doctors who do not intervene when their patients are tortured and murdered? Who thought we would ever see this day in America? LYNN WINKELMAN Shaker Heights, Ohio, June 10, 2004 The writer is a registered nurse. *** To the Editor: "Should Doctors Help with Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer" (news article, June 10) does list dilemmas: having a technician take 39 minutes to find a vein by which to lethally inject certainly does constitute what anyone would consider "cruel and unusual" punishment. But I wonder about the consistency of allowing physicians to assist the state in executing people and the moral outcry that would prohibit any examination of physician-assisted suicide. I, too, have no easy answers. But I do believe that the questions must be raised. I have ministered to too many people in constant, excruciating mental and physical pain resulting from terminal illnesses to shrug off the questions with moral platitudes. (Rev.) J. BERT CARLSON Mount Laurel, N.J., June 10, 2004 *** To the Editor: Re "Should Doctors Help With Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer" (news article, June 10): The ultimate oxymoron: humane execution. DON McCANNE, M.D. San Juan Capistrano, Calif. June 10, 2004 (source: Letters to the Editor, New York Times)
