death penalty news June 16, 2004
FLORIDA: Attorney takes aim at death penalty A local attorney's request has the potential to stop lethal injections in Florida and eliminate the death penalty throughout the country. Defense attorney Paul Sullivan is asking a judge to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. If Circuit Judge Donald Pellecchia grants the motion, the decision would have far-reaching effects across the country where heated debates regularly occur about the death penalty. Sullivan filed the motion, along with several others in recent weeks, on behalf of his client Stephen Smith -- who is one of three prisoners accused of murdering Charlotte Correctional Institution Officer Darla Lathrem, 38, and inmate Charles Fuston, 36, during a failed escape attempt last year. A decision in Sullivan's favor would not only keep Smith from seeing death row if convicted, but would also benefit two of Sullivan's other clients facing lethal injection. Suspected serial killer Daniel Conahan and murderer James "Jimbo" Ford were sentenced to death following murders they committed in Charlotte County. Sullivan's motion cites several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Two in particular may be applicable in Florida. When someone is charged with murder in Florida, they face life in prison unless there are certain aggravating factors which make them eligible for the death penalty. One case, cited by Sullivan, states that jurors should make the decision as to whether aggravating factors exist. In Florida, both the jurors and judge make that decision, Sullivan said. In Smith's case, the aggravating factors include several matters. First, Smith is already a convicted killer. In addition, the murders were committed while he was incarcerated and one of the victims was an officer. Another case cited by Sullivan regards an Arizona case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that jurors should be the ones who decide whether to place someone on death row. In Florida, jurors make a recommendation to the judge who ultimately decides, Sullivan said. "I'm satisfied that it's unconstitutional," Sullivan said. No hearing date has been scheduled to argue Sullivan's motions. Sullivan has also filed several other routine motions as well. One requests that prospective jurors be questioned individually due to the high publicity given to the prison murder cases. Another motion asks to keep the state from presenting Smith's alleged lack of remorse about the killings during the penalty phase of the trial. And a third requests that Pellecchia prevent prosecutors from introducing arguments or testimony from the penalty phase of Smith's 1993 first-degree murder case in Broward County. Smith, 43, is currently serving a life sentence for murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. Smith, who is being housed at Florida State Prison in Stark, will appear in a Charlotte County courtroom on Sept. 9 for a status hearing. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 8, 2005. (source: Sun-Herald) ===================== ILLINOIS: Attorney explains why convict agreed to death penalty The attorney for Cecil Sutherland on Tuesday offered four possible reasons that his client has opted for the death penalty. In a surprise move, Sutherland, 49, on Monday cut short a death penalty hearing in circuit court in Belleville to agree to execution. He was found guilty last week for the second time in the brutal sex killing in 1987 of 10-year-old Amy Schulz near her rural home about 70 miles east of St. Louis. Sutherland, who maintains his innocence, made the request over the objection of his lead defense attorney, John Paul Carroll, of Naperville, Ill. Carroll, however, acknowledged Sutherland's move offers four possible advantages: His appeal will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, which overturned his first conviction for Amy's murder. Otherwise the appeal would go to an appellate court. The Supreme Court could decide to review a decision by that court. He will get a one-bunk cell on death row at the Menard Correctional Center in Chester, isolated from other inmates who sometimes mete out their own punishment for crimes against children. He will continue to have access to the state's Capital Litigation Fund for appeal. His defense has cost taxpayers about $2 million so far. Carroll said Tuesday that he was so sure of Sutherland's innocence he would handle the appeal for free. And, Carroll said, his client told him he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. At least two other murder defendants have accepted execution since the Illinois death penalty was reinstated in 1977. Unlike Sutherland, both admitted guilt and genuinely wanted their execution. Charles Walker, 50, of the Mascoutah area, died by lethal injection in September 1990 for murdering a young engaged couple at a fishing hole on Silver Creek in 1983. He refused all appeals on his behalf. His execution was the first in Illinois in 28 years. Walker's family and the victims' family all agreed with him that he deserved to die for his crime. Walker seemed to find peace on death row. He spent his time crocheting items he gave to those he considered friends, including law enforcement officers and news people who had handled his case. Lloyd Wayne Hampton, 44, a drifter from Texas, was executed in January 1998 for the murder of man, 69, after robbing and torturing him in a motel in Troy in 1990. Hampton also pleaded guilty and accepted his fate. A sister persuaded him to start an appeal in 1992 as execution approached, but he later ordered it halted. He dictated a final statement saying he had been filled with rage since boyhood, but blamed no one but himself. "I hope my loved ones will forgive me for the sorrow I've caused them," it said. Carroll has not indicated what might form the basis of Sutherland's appeal. But he was critical of scientific evidence presented by the prosecution. It included mitochondrial DNA and microscopic analysis of human hairs and dog hairs, plus fibers from Amy's clothes and Sutherland's car. Experts hired by prosecutors testified they connected Sutherland to the victim. There was similar testimony about boot prints on and near the body, and a nearby tire track. The weight of the evidence was overwhelming, said Jefferson County State's Attorney Gary Duncan. But Carroll, once a homicide detective on the Chicago Police Department, scoffed at the experts' conclusions. He said they really boiled down to "Maybe yes. Maybe no." (source: St. Louis Dispatch) ========================= MARYLAND: Curran's views raise concern over conflict -- Attorney general's call to abolish death penalty draws rebukes from some A federal judge had derailed execution plans for convicted murderer Steven Oken, and a final push was needed before a killer could receive an injection of toxins. So the office of one of Maryland's most prominent death-penalty opponents sprang into action. Lawyers working for state Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. rushed legal papers to a federal appeals court in Virginia Tuesday, urging the panel to reverse the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. Messitte to stay Oken's execution. They were arguing for an outcome that would violate a deeply held belief of their boss. Curran has publicly renounced the death penalty, even as he is sworn to uphold its implementation. Tuesday's flurry of activity inside the attorney general's office highlighted the potential for conflict created by Curran's personal views and the professional responsibilities of the office he oversees. "He is on the hot seat because he is an opponent of the death penalty, and everybody knows that," said Richard J. Dowling, a lobbyist for the Maryland Catholic Conference, which opposes executions. "It requires an artful tightrope for someone who believes as he does and who at the same time upholds the public trust." A devout Catholic who has overseen the three executions since Maryland's death penalty was reinstated in 1978, Curran has opposed capital punishment for decades. But he carved a more visible position early in 2003, when he publicly called for the abolition of state-sanctioned killing. "Capital punishment comes only at the intolerable risk of killing an innocent person," Curran said at the time, adding that he would actively push for laws eliminating the penalty in light of evidence of racial and regional disparities in its imple mentation. His statement and subsequent testimony in favor of anti- death penalty legislation drew rebukes from those who questioned whether Curran, a Democrat, could fulfill his public obligations despite his personal beliefs. Critics repeated those concerns Tuesday, as Curran's office was scrambling to file motions to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond to remove the execution stay imposed by Messitte and allow Oken to die by Friday, when a death warrant is to expire. "I just hope that the attorney general hasn't put us in a compromising position with regard to a vigorous defense," said Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell, the House Republican whip from Southern Maryland. "It was poor judgment on the part of the attorney general to make such a public pronouncement on such a controversial issue." Curran was traveling to California for a national conference Tuesday and did not respond to a request for a telephone interview. Other lawyers in the office said Curran had no direct communication with them Tuesday as motions were being prepared. "He always takes seriously the oath and the responsibilities of the office, despite his personal views," said Donna Hill Staton, Curran's top deputy. "That's something he's made very clear." Few political observers question the integrity of Curran, 72, the former lieutenant governor, state senator and delegate who is in his fifth term as attorney general. "He is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and he has shown he is able to do that," said Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler, a Democrat who is considering a run for attorney general in 2006. "At first blush, you might say there is the appearance of a conflict, but there really isn't." Death penalty cases weigh heavily on Curran, as they do all attorneys in the office, said Carmen M. Shepard, a former deputy attorney general. "I can tell you from personal experience that it is far more harrowing and draining than I had ever imagined," said Shepard, who left the office for private practice in 2002. While Curran is careful at drawing a line between his personal beliefs and his professional duties, he has also articulated why he has spoken out, she said. "At the end of the day, he has said, you are accountable for your positions, and you have to do something about it," Shepard said. For Curran, she said, "the place to do that is the legislature," by testifying on bills and advocating for law changes. Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican and death penalty supporter, said families of crime victims may not feel comfortable with Curran's views. "I like people who vigorously want to uphold the law and don't have a known bias going into something," Jacobs said. "And it is obvious that the man has a known bias on this subject." But Jacobs said she spoke Tuesday with members of Oken victim Dawn Garvin's family who said they were pleased with how the criminal appeals division of Curran's office was handling the case. (source: Baltimore Sun)
