June 19
PENNSYLVANIA:
DA's office in hot water with judge----Over not releasing file to
Selenski's attorney
A Luzerne County judge threatened "serious sanctions" against the district
attorney's office for not turning over other law enforcement's
investigative files of missing Penn State co-ed Cindy Song to the defense
team of accused double homicide suspect Hugo Selenski.
Last week, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. ordered Assistant District
Attorney Joseph Giovannini to release certain investigative documents to
Selenski's lead defense attorney, Demetrius Fannick.
While some were resolved during the past week, the investigative file of
Song was not given to Fannick.
"I made it clear last week, the Song file was to be given to Mr. Fannick
by 4 p.m. today," Judge Olszewski said.
"We don't have it," Giovannini replied. "It was done by Centre County;
that file is easily accessible if he (Fannick) files a request with the
state police commissioner."
"If not done by 4 p.m., there will be serious sanctions," Judge Olszewski
said.
"In that case, we'll file an appeal," Giovannini noted.
Giovannini cited case law supporting his position that on-going
investigations in another law enforcement jurisdiction does not give him
authority to release it. One case cited by Giovannini was Commonwealth vs.
Miller, written by Judge Olszewski's father, Superior Court Justice Peter
Paul Olszewski Sr.
Giovannini argued it is not his responsibility to conduct the
investigation of the defense related to Fannick's request for the Song
investigative file.
"(Judge Olszewski) you're asking the district attorney's office to go out
and do the investigation work for the defense; we don't have it,"
Giovannini said.
As of 4:30 p.m. Friday, no appeal was filed with the court.
Fannick is attempting to obtain the Song investigative file stemming from
statements made by police informant Paul Raymond Weakley.
According to search warrant affidavits, Weakley allegedly told authorities
Selenski and Michael Jason Kerkowski abducted Song from State College.
Song was kept inside a safe inside Kerkowski's Hunlock Township home where
he "had his way with her," according to the search warrant affidavits.
Song, 21, was reported missing Nov. 1, 2001, after returning to her
apartment following a Halloween costume party.
The Ferguson Township, Centre County, Police Department and state police
at Rockview are conducting the investigation of Song's disappearance.
Giovannini said the investigative file of Selenski's alleged robbery of
Kerkowski's father, Michael Stanley Kerkowski, were given to Fannick. Also
turned over to Fannick were copies of statements to authorities by
Kerkowski's estranged wife, Kimberly Kerkowski, Selenski's girlfriend,
Christina Strom, and Carey Ann Bartoo.
Bartoo is the mother of one of Selenski's children and a cousin and former
neighbor to Kimberly Kerkowski.
What remains to be settled are the release of certain investigative
records in possession of the U.S. attorney's office, Scranton.
Fannick said a task force was formed shortly after the bodies of Michael
Jason Kerkowski, 37, Tammy Lynn Fassett, 37, and the charred remains of 3
other persons were found at Selenski's Kingston Township home on June 5,
2003.
Fannick said the task force consisted of the state police, district
attorney's office and federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms.
"I believe there is a sharing of information, sharing of witnesses and
sharing of manpower," Fannick said.
Giovannini, as he argued last week, said again Friday he does not have the
authority to instruct the U.S. attorney's office to release their
investigative files on Selenski.
"The district attorney's office of Luzerne County does not have access to
those records," Giovannini said. "I'm telling you, judge, I have no
authority to get them."
Selenski is facing the death penalty for the shotgun slayings of Frank
James, 28, and Adeiye Ossasis Keiler, 22, at his home on May 14, 2003.
Their bodies were burned and the charred remains were shoveled in garbage
bags.
No charges have been filed related to the murders of Michael Jason
Kerkowski, Fassett or the 3rd unidentified person.
(source: The Citizens Voice)
******************
Did Eshbach get a fair trial?
In Pottstown, news of Matthew Eshbach's murder conviction continued to
send shockwaves through the circle of his family and friends Friday.
Eshbach's mother said her son's case is a miscarriage of justice. She said
her son made some mistakes, but that he was not responsible for the deaths
of Kerry and Katherine Schadler and the couple's unborn child.
"The biggest mistakes he made were thinking he could calm Mike (McGrory)
down that night and going to the police voluntarily," Linda Eshbach said
in a telephone interview Friday. "He went to the police because he
couldn't live with what he saw."
Linda Eshbach also released a written statement from the family expressing
their problems with Matthew Eschbach's trial, which began Monday in
Chester County Court and ended early Friday with a guilty verdict.
Linda Eshbach said her son's voluntary statement to police helped convict
him. She said she wishes now he would have just gotten a lawyer and not
spoken to the police.
Linda Eshbach also said the disruption in the courtroom Wednesday proved
to her that justice was not being served.
The first 2 witnesses presented by Eshbach's lawyer halted the proceedings
after the 1st invoked his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination, and the 2nd suffered a memory lapse on the stand.
Even after he was handed a copy of his own handwritten, signed statement
dated a week before, inmate George Bates said he could not remember what
he told investigators.
After reading the document to refresh his recollection, Bates said he was
still unable to recall the statement.
Defense lawyer Christian Hoey accused some "12th-hour interviews" by
detectives of having the power to change his witnesses' decision to
testify for the defense.
"Who knows if those 2 witnesses would have been enough?" Linda Eshbach
said on Friday.
After the 2nd witness proved troublesome, Matthew Eshbach's sister,
Melodie Eshbach, yelled out in the courtroom.
"How is he supposed to get a fair trial?" she yelled. "They're messing
with his witnesses!"
Melodie Eshbach was escorted out of the courthouse by sheriff's deputies
as she continued to proclaim her brother's innocence.
"She was overwhelmed," Theresa Miller, a friend of the Eshbach family,
said Friday. "The witnesses were obviously intimidated. (Bates) wanted to
say something. You could see it. It just got to her; she couldn't contain
herself."
Miller said there were several things that happened during the trial to
make her believe the system is unfair.
"Remember that Detective (Michael) McGinnis testifying?" she asked. "He
said Matt told him he was going to finish his cigarette (before giving his
statement). Matt has never smoked. Ever. Anyone who knows him knows he
hates cigarette smoke. So as far as I'm concerned, that detective was
lying."
Later in the trial, it was revealed Eshbach requested a new cellmate at
one point because the man smoked.
Eshbach was a man who worked hard to start his own construction company.
He was devoted to his family, especially his young son, according to
sister-in-law, Julie Bieber.
"In the blizzard of 1996 he drove through the snow, risked his own life to
bring my kids food and diapers," Bieber said. "He is a good man. He is not
a murderer."
Several family members and friends expressed frustration over the fact
that Michael McGrory, the man who pleaded guilty to the Schadler murders
in January, received a deal from the prosecution in exchange for his
testimony against Eshbach.
"How can the man actually responsible for the murders get a deal?" Miller
said. "To me, that is not justice."
A point of contention throughout the trial was whether Eshbach actually
killed Katherine Schadler. McGrory admitted to killing Kerry Schadler, and
admitted to strangling Katherine. But he said Eshbach reached up from the
back seat of the car and "ripped" the pregnant woman into the back, where
Eshbach killed her.
"We wholeheartedly believe that Matthew Eshbach has become another in a
long line of the victims of Michael McGrory," the Eshbach family wrote in
a prepared statement.
A jury deliberated more than 6 hours Thursday evening before coming back
with a verdict shortly after midnight. In addition to 3 counts of 2nd-
degree murder, Eshbach was also convicted of 2 counts each of kidnapping,
aggravated assault, intimidating a witness or victim, and robbery, and 1
count each of possession of an instrument of crime and terrorist threats.
Both Eshbach and McGrory will be sentenced during the week of June 28.
They will appear before Judge Juan R. Sanchez and be scheduled for
sentencing on the same day.>{? Chester County District Attorney Joseph
Carroll, who prosecuted the case, said on Friday he will review the
testimony of McGrory to determine whether he upheld his end of his plea
bargain agreement with the state.
"Now, can I prove that he lied on the stand?" Carroll asked in an
interview. "The person who disagrees with him is Matt Eshbach. I don't
believe Eshbach told the truth."
In exchange for pleading guilty to the murders of Kerry and Katherine
Schadler and their unborn child in February and his truthful testimony
against Eshbach this week, McGrory was promised he would be spared from
death row.
Shortly after the verdict was read early Friday morning, Carroll
acknowledged the risk of putting McGrory on the witness stand.
McGrory's demeanor vacillated between remorseful for his victims and
belligerent toward defense attorney Christian J. Hoey.
"People like McGrory vary from day to day," Carroll said. "There were
times (before the trial) he was very belligerent with me and there were
times he was focused."
(source: Daily Local News)
USA:
Where Are the Jocks for Justice?
Adonal Foyle, 29, is a 6-foot, 10-inch center for the NBA's Golden State
Warriors. Like most pro athletes, he spent his youth perfecting his game,
hoping for a shot at big-time sports. But off the court he's an outspoken
critic of America's political system. "This mother of all democracies,"
Foyle insists, "is one of the most corrupt systems, where a small minority
make the decisions for everybody else."
3 years ago Foyle started a grassroots group called Democracy Matters
(www.democracymatters.org). Its goal is to educate young people about
politics, mobilize them to vote and bring pressure on elected officials to
reform the nation's campaign finance laws. When he's not playing
basketball, Foyle is frequently speaking at high schools, colleges and
conferences about the corrupting role of big money in politics. "I have
lots of support [from fellow players] and I explain to them a lot what I'm
doing," says Foyle. "The players understand that I want people to be
excited about the political system."
Foyle's activism is rare in the world of professional sports. Many
athletes visit kids in hospitals, start foundations that fix inner-city
playgrounds, create scholarship funds to help poor students attend college
and make commercials urging kids to stay in school and say no to drugs.
But when it comes to political dissent, few speak out on big issues like
war, sweatshop labor, environmental concerns or the increasing gap between
rich and poor. While Hollywood celebrities frequently lend their fame and
fortune to candidates and causes, athletes are expected to perform, not
pontificate. On the few occasions when they do express themselves, they
are often met with derision and contempt.
Last year, for example, just before the United States invaded Iraq, Dallas
Mavericks guard Steve Nash wore a T-shirt to media day during the NBA's
All-Star weekend that said No War. Shoot for Peace. Numerous sports
columnists criticized Nash for speaking his mind. (One wrote that he
should "just shut up and play.") David Robinson, an Annapolis graduate and
former naval officer, and then center for the San Antonio Spurs, said that
Nash's attire was inappropriate. Flip Saunders, coach of the NBA's
Minnesota Timberwolves, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "What opinions
you have, it's important to keep them to yourselves." Since then, no other
major pro athlete has publicly expressed antiwar sentiments.
Although political activism has never been widespread among pro athletes,
Foyle is following in the footsteps of some courageous jocks. After
breaking baseball's color line in 1947, Jackie Robinson was outspoken
against racial segregation during and after his playing career, despite
being considered too angry and vocal by many sportswriters, owners and
fellow players. During the 1960s and '70s some prominent athletes used
their celebrity status to speak out on key issues, particularly civil
rights and Vietnam. The most well- known example, boxing champion Muhammad
Ali, publicly opposed the war and refused induction into the Army in 1967,
for which he was stripped of his heavyweight title and sentenced to five
years in prison (he eventually won an appeal in the Supreme Court and
didn't serve any time). Today he is among the world's most admired people,
but at the time sportswriters and politicians relentlessly attacked him.
Many others were also unafraid to wear their values on their uniforms--and
sometimes paid the price. Coaches and team executives told Dave Meggyesy,
an All-Pro linebacker for the St. Louis Cardinals in the late 1960s, that
his antiwar views were detrimental to his team and his career. As he
recounts in his memoir Out of Their League, Meggyesy refused to back down,
was consequently benched, and retired at age 28 while still in his
athletic prime. Tennis great Arthur Ashe campaigned against apartheid well
before the movement gained widespread support. Bill Russell led his
teammates on boycotts of segregated facilities while starring for the
Boston Celtics. Olympic track medalists John Carlos and Tommie Smith
created an international furor with their Black Power salute at the 1968
Olympics in Mexico City, which hurt their subsequent professional careers.
When St. Louis Cardinals catcher Ted Simmons came to the majors from the
University of Michigan in 1967, some teammates were taken aback by his
shaggy hair and the peace symbols on his bat, but they couldn't argue with
his All-Star play. In 1972, almost a year before the Supreme Court's
landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, tennis star Billie Jean King was 1 of 53
women to sign an ad in the first issue of Ms. magazine boldly proclaiming,
"We Have Had Abortions." Washington Redskins lineman Ray Schoenke
organized 400 athletes to support George McGovern's 1972 antiwar
presidential campaign despite the fact that his coach, George Allen, was a
close friend of McGovern's opponent, Richard Nixon.
Contemporary activism hasn't infiltrated the locker rooms as it did in the
past, in large measure because of dramatic improvements in athletes'
economic situation. A half-century ago, big-time sports--boxing and
baseball in particular--was a melting pot of urban working-class ethnics
and rural farm boys. Back then, many professional athletes earned little
more than ordinary workers. Many lived in the same neighborhoods as their
fans and had to work in the off-season to supplement their salaries.
Today's athletes are a more diverse group. A growing number come from
suburban upbringings and attended college. At the same time, the number of
pro athletes from impoverished inner-city backgrounds in the United States
and Latin America has increased. Regardless of their backgrounds, however,
all pro athletes have much greater earning power than their predecessors.
Since the 1970s, television contracts have brought new revenues that have
dramatically increased salaries. The growing influence of players'
unions-- particularly in baseball, since the end of the reserve clause in
1976--has also raised the salaries of stars and journeyman jocks alike.
For example, the minimum salary among major league baseball players
increased from $16,000 in 1975 to $100,000 in 1990 to $300,000 last year,
while the average salary during those years grew from $44,676 to $578,930
to $2.3 million. Even ordinary players are now able to supplement their
incomes with commercial endorsements. At the upper echelons of every
sport, revenue from product endorsements far exceeds the salaries paid by
the teams superstars play for or the prize money for the tournaments they
win.
Thanks to their unions, pro athletes now have more protection than ever
before to speak out without jeopardizing their careers. But, at the same
time, they have much more at stake economically. "Athletes now have too
much to lose in endorsement potential," explains Marc Pollick, founder and
president of the Giving Back Fund, which works with pro athletes to set up
charitable foundations. "That has neutralized their views on controversial
issues. Companies don't want to be associated with controversy."
A few years ago labor activists tried and failed to enlist basketball
superstar Michael Jordan in their crusade to improve conditions in Nike's
factories. But with a multimillion-dollar Nike contract, he was unwilling
to speak out against sweatshop conditions in overseas plants. In 1990
Jordan had refused to endorse his fellow black North Carolinian Harvey
Gantt, then running for the US Senate against right-winger Jesse Helms, on
the grounds, Jordan explained at the time, that "Republicans buy sneakers,
too." (The criticism must have stung. 6 years later he contributed $2,000
to Gantt's 2nd unsuccessful effort to unseat Helms.
And in 2000, like many NBA players, he publicly supported former New York
Knicks star Bill Bradley's campaign for President. In March he contributed
$10,000 to Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, who recently won the
Democratic Party's nomination for an open US Senate seat.)
Early in his professional career, golfer Tiger Woods stirred some
political controversy with one of his 1st commercials for Nike after
signing a $40 million endorsement contract. It displayed images of Woods
golfing as these words scrolled down the screen: "There are still courses
in the United States I am not allowed to play because of the color of my
skin. I've heard I'm not ready for you. Are you ready for me?" At the time
Woods told Sports Illustrated that it was "important...for this country to
talk about this subject [racism].... You can't say something like that in
a polite way. Golf has shied away from this for too long. Some clubs have
brought in tokens, but nothing has really changed. I hope what I'm doing
can change that."
According to Richard Lapchick, executive director of the National
Consortium for Academics and Sports at the University of Central Florida,
and a longtime activist against racism in sports, Woods was "crucified" by
some sportswriters for the commercial and his comments. Nike quickly
realized that confrontational politics wasn't the best way to sell shoes.
"Tiger seemed to learn a lesson," Lapchick says. "It is one that I wish he
and other athletes had not learned: no more political issues. He has been
silent since then because of what happened early in his career." Woods
remained on the sidelines during the 2002 controversy over the
intransigence of the Augusta National Golf Club, host of the annual
Masters tournament, on permitting women to join.
Like Lapchick, former New York Yankees pitching ace Jim Bouton, whose 1970
tell-all book Ball Four scandalized the baseball establishment, bemoans
the cautiousness of today's highly paid athletes. "I'm always disappointed
when I see a guy like Michael Jordan, who is set up for life, not speaking
out on controversial issues," said Bouton. Today's athletes, he observed,
"seem to have an entourage around them that they have to consult before
making a statement or getting involved in something. Ali was willing to go
to jail and relinquish his boxing title for what he believed in. He was a
hero. It's a scared generation today." And it may be no coincidence that
some of today's more outspoken athletes grew up outside the United States.
Foyle, now a US citizen, is from the Grenadines, and the Mavericks' Nash
is a Canadian.
American sports--from the Olympics to pro boxing to baseball--have long
been linked, by politicians, business leaders and sports entrepreneurs, to
conservative versions of nationalism and patriotism. At all professional
sports events, fans and players are expected to stand while the national
anthem is played before the game can begin. No similar expressions of
patriotism are required, for example, at symphony concerts or Broadway
shows.
Over the past century Presidents have routinely invited championship teams
to the White House for photo ops. A few weeks after 9/11 President Bush
attended a World Series game at Yankee Stadium. His press secretary
explained that Bush (who once owned the Texas Rangers) was there "because
of baseball's important role in our culture." In January, just before the
Super Bowl, Bush invited New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to sit
in the gallery during his State of the Union address. Of the more than 900
Americans who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, none were singled out for
as much attention--by the media or politicians--as Arizona Cardinals
safety Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan in April. Sometimes
politicians' efforts to align themselves with sports figures can backfire.
In 1991, for example, when President George H.W. Bush invited the Chicago
Bulls to the White House to celebrate their NBA championship, Bulls guard
Craig Hodges handed Bush a letter expressing outrage about the condition
of urban America.
While most pro athletes are silent on political issues, many team owners
regard political involvement as essential to doing business. Owners like
Jerry Colangelo of the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks, Art Modell
of the Baltimore Ravens, Charles Monfort of the Colorado Rockies and
George Steinbrenner of the New York Yankees make large campaign
contributions to both Republicans and Democrats; invite elected officials
to sit next to them at games; and lobby city, state and federal
officeholders on legislation and tax breaks for new stadiums.
The emergence of professional players' unions should have been a voice for
athletes on political and social issues. According to Ed Garvey, who ran
the NFL Players Association from 1971 until 1983, racial turmoil was
critical to the union's early development. The union "was driven by the
African-American players, who knew there was an unwritten quota on most
teams where there would not be more than a third blacks on any one team,"
says Garvey, who now practices law in Wisconsin. "And they knew they
wouldn't have a job with the team when their playing days were over." The
players also understood that team owners were "the most powerful monopoly
in the country," he says.
Garvey brought the association into the AFL-CIO--the only professional
sports union to do so--to give the players a sense that they were part of
the broader labor movement. In the early 1970s several NFL players walked
the picket lines with striking Farah clothing workers, joined bank
employees in Seattle to boost their organizing drive and took other public
stands.
But "now they're making enough money, so they want to keep their heads
down," he says. When Marvin Miller, a former Steelworkers Union staffer,
became the 1st executive director of the Major League Baseball Players
Association (MLBPA) in 1966, he sought to raise players' political
awareness. "We didn't just explain the labor laws," he recalls. "We had to
get players to understand that they were a union. We did a lot of internal
education to talk to players about broader issues."
But those days are long gone. Bouton believes that athletes' unions now
consider themselves partners in the sports business. They are "part of the
same club," Bouton says, negotiating mainly to give players a greater
share of proceeds from ticket sales, television contracts and the
marketing of player names and team logos. Donald Fehr, the MLBPA's
executive director, argues that players' unions should stick to the issues
that directly affect them. "It is not our role to go around taking
positions on things for the sake of taking positions," he insists. "Only
if it's a matter involving baseball or the players do we look at an issue
and determine what to do."
Like its counterparts in other sports, the MLBPA occasionally goes beyond
the narrow confines of business unionism. For example, Fehr sent letters
asking ballplayers to honor the recent United Food and Commercial Workers
picket lines in Southern California and gave verbal support to the
striking workers of the New Era Cap Company, who make major league
baseball's caps in a Derby, New York, facility.
The players associations could usefully go beyond such symbolic gestures.
After the 234-day 1994-95 strike ended, catcher Mike Piazza, then with the
Los Angeles Dodgers, donated $100 for every home run he hit to the union
that represented the concessionaires, who lost considerable pay while 921
games were canceled. It was an individual gesture of empathy with Dodger
Stadium's working class--ushers, ticket takers, parking-lot attendants and
food vendors--that generated tremendous good will among the Dodgers' fan
base. As an organization, the MLBPA could have followed Piazza's example
and set aside a small part of its large strike fund to help stadium
employees who were temporarily out of work.
A glaring example of the MLBPA's shortsightedness is its reaction to a
recent expos by the National Labor Committee (NLC,
www.nlcnet.org/campaigns), reported in the New York Times, revealing that
Costa Rican workers who stitch Rawlings baseballs for the major leagues
are paid 30 cents for each ball, which is then sold for $15 in US
sporting-goods stores. According to a local doctor who worked at the
Rawlings plant in the 1990s, 1/3 of the workers developed carpal-tunnel
syndrome, an often-debilitating pain and numbness of the hands and wrists.
When the Times asked Fehr about the situation, he said he didn't know
about it, despite the fact that the Rawlings plant had been the subject of
news stories for several years. (Another recent NLC report documented that
NBA sweatshirts are made in Burmese sweatshops.)
Echoing growing concern about corporate responsibility and runaway jobs,
professional players associations could demand that teams purchase their
uniforms, bats, helmets and balls solely from companies--in the United
States and abroad--that provide workers with decent wages, working
conditions and benefits. The associations could send fact-finding
delegations of athletes to inspect the working conditions at factories
where their uniforms and equipment are made. The associations could demand
that teams provide a living wage for all stadium employees, encourage
politically conscious athletes to express their views and endorse
candidates for office, support organizations like Adonal Foyle's Democracy
Matters and even walk picket lines and do commercials for labor causes. As
Foyle understands, taking stands on such issues could help the players
forge better relations with the community whose support is critical to
their continued economic success.
Foyle has refused to be intimidated by those sportswriters and fans who
object to his beliefs. "How can we say we are creating a society in Iraq
based on democracy and freedom and tell people here who have the audacity
to speak out to keep quiet?" he says. "If people shut down because they
are afraid the media is going to spank them or fans are going to boo them,
then the terrorists have won." A history major at Colgate University,
Foyle says, "The 1960s generation was against the war, people coming home
in body bags, dogs gnawing at black people's feet. Today issues are more
complicated, and you have to read between the lines.
When you talk about campaign finance reform, you are talking about all of
the issues--war, civil rights, environment, gender, globalization--because
they are all connected." He adds: "If people want us to be role models,
it's not just saying what people want you to say. It's pushing the
boundaries a bit, saying things that you may not want to think about.
That's good for a society. Morality is much bigger than athletics."
(source: The Nation, June 28)
************************
Press Release----Recent Study Shows Recording Felony Custodial
Interrogations Benefits Law Enforcement; Study of 238 Law Enforcement
Agencies in 38 States Urges National Reform
The search for truth and justice in our legal system is best served by
recording custodial interrogations of felony suspects from Miranda until
the interviews end. This practice benefits law enforcement, suspects,
prosecutors, juries and judges, according to officers contacted in a
recent study conducted by Thomas P. Sullivan, a Jenner & Block partner and
former U.S. Attorney. His study of 238 law enforcement agencies in 38
states presently recording felony custodial interrogations reveals that
law enforcement personnel enthusiastically favor the practice.
As Co-Chair of the Illinois Governor George H. Ryan's Commission on
Capital Punishment, Sullivan led the subcommittee charged with making
recommendations to the full Commission about police investigatory
practices. "We found a major problem concerning disputes as to what
occurred when suspects under arrest are brought to a police station for
questioning," said Sullivan. "The simple solution is for law enforcement
agencies to require that all in-custody interviews be recorded in their
entirety."
Recording custodial interrogations saves time and money, creates
compelling evidence and is effective in resolving disputes involving
allegations of police misconduct and whether confessions are voluntary.
Partly as a result of the Commission's recommendations, Illinois became
the 1st state to enact a law requiring the electronic recording of police
interrogations in homicide investigations. Maine and the District of
Columbia have recently followed suit. This needed reform, Sullivan said,
may be accomplished by legislation, by practices voluntarily adopted by
law enforcement agencies, or by rulings of state supreme courts as in
Alaska and Minnesota. "This is a matter of national concern, involving
every law enforcement agency in the U.S.," said Sullivan.
Sullivan's report and findings on the taping of police interrogations is
available online at http://www.jenner.com/policestudy.
For further comment or interviews please contact Mr. Sullivan at
312-923-2928 or [email protected].
(source: Jenner & Block)
******************
Death penalty invites mistakes
I strongly believe that we should not have the death penalty. There are
mistakes that could be made. The person could be sentenced, and then two
weeks later, we find the killer. We can't release the innocent person
because they are dead.
Also, what if it was an accident? The person would be killed for something
they didn't mean to do. If people think it would lower the taxes, we would
still have to pay for the gas, injections or electricity for the way the
person is killed.
Some people say, "An eye for an eye." What if the criminal killed, say,
four people? Then it would be 4 lives for 1. There is no good difference
between killing people and letting them stay in jail to me. Also, what
point would it prove besides people are mean? Killing 2 people doesn't
make the pain of the victims go away. It just brings more to the
criminal's family. So if you can find 5 good reasons to have the death
penalty, let me know.
Kelsey Collins -- Seventh Grade, Mason Middle School
(source: Opinion, Lansing State Journal)
MARYLAND:
Steven Oken's letter to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
This is a word-for-word copy of the complete letter Steven Oken sent to
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
STEVEN H. OKEN, #212-612
M.C.A.C.
401 E. MADISON STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202
June 9, 2004
The Honorable Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor, the State of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Governor Ehrlich:
Over the past month, I have struggled with whether or not I was going to
choose to involve you in my case by petitioning you for clemency. As you
are aware, my attorneys, in accordance with the demand made by your Chief
Counsel, Jervis Finney, have filed such a petition on my behalf with you
requesting that you commute the sentence of death imposed upon me. I have
agreed to this for one reason and one reason only: my family. They will be
the new victims created when the State of Maryland kills me.
You will notice that I did not state, "When the state carries out my
execution." When all is said and done, this will not be "my" execution. It
will be the State of Maryland's execution. It will be your execution. My
part in this elaborate ritual will be extremely limited. I have not and
will not be consulted. I will play no role in its planning. I will not
consent to it and I will not live with its consequences. The new State
created victims, my family and friends, will live with the consequences.
All of the procedures, checklists, and bizarre rituals taking place and
playing out around me are intended for the public's consumption. It is the
public who are expected to absorb the message and meaning of my death.
What is the message? That justice has been served? Perhaps that you are
tough on crime; or that you are protecting the public and savings lives.
But is this true? Let me say this. I am solely responsible for the deaths
of Dawn Garvin. It was a despicable crime and I should be punished for it.
Should I die for committing this crime? Of course the easy answer is yes.
However, then you kill me, you learn nothing and if your learn nothing,
then how can you save lives? How can you identify and stop future Steven
Oken's? You cannot. There are other Steven Oken's out there and they will
strike the horrific results and there will be more victims. You have a
chance to make a difference. Learn from me. Learn why this happened. Learn
how to identify and stop others before they commit these heinous crimes.
This will require foresight, courage, and a stout heart. It will be the
difficult choice.
Can you make the difficult choice? Everything I have seen and read
concerning you Governor Ehrlich leads me to believe that you are a
politician in every respect of the word. You care about what all
politicians care about: getting the vote. It is all about public
perception, a perception that politicians craft and nurture. For instance,
I believe you will state that this case is about the murder of 3 women,
when in fact it is about one. I only received the death penalty for the
murder of Dawn Garvin. You will make reference to 3 murders to further
demonize me in the public's eye. As awful as this crime was you will
attempt to make it worse. You may stay that I am splitting hairs, but I am
being truthful. When you make these statements are you being truthful or
are you just trying to manipulate the public's perception of what actually
happened to advance your belief that capital punishment is valid and
necessary in our society today? Can you make the difficult choice? I do
not think that you will grant my Petition for Clemency. I do not think
that you have the foresight or courage of a politician to make the
difficult choice. I think you will hold a press conference to announce
that you have denied my clemency request. You will "appear" tough on
crime. You will say how justice has been served. Will justice have been
served on the future victims of crimes like mine?
Dismiss this letter as the final ranting of a condemned man. That is the
easy thing to do. Twist the meaning of my works. That is the easy thing to
do. Grandstand about how you did the right thing and protected the people
of Maryland from me. That is the easy thing to do. The difficult choice
will be what will genuinely saves lives. I do not expect you to make this
difficult choice in my case. Perhaps in the next case you will, however I
doubt it, that would not politically expedient.
I stand ready to do the right thing. I do not want another family to go
through what I have put Dawn Garven's family and my family through. I have
participated in a study concerning the very heart what I speak about in
this letter, trying to understand why this happened, so that it may never
happen again. I would be more that willing to do more, willing to make a
real difference, not a superficial difference.
I think that if a Court does not grant me a stay, then on June 15, 2004 my
family and friends will have become victims of the State of Maryland, and
these victims will gather at my funeral to lay me to rest. I will be free
from confinement, I will be free from the burden of living with the
despair that I created, and I will be at peace. Nothing will have been
done to stop this from happening again. It will happen again and more will
needlessly and senselessly die.
Steven H. Oken
Cc: file (Ehrlich)
Alan Feiler, The Baltimore Jewish Times
Julie Bycowicz, The Baltimore Sun
(source: The Baltimore Sun)
*************************
Opponents failed to stop just use of death penalty
For the family of Dawn Marie Garvin, who was tortured and mutilated before
Steven Oken shot her in the head, Thursday night marked the end of 17
years of seeing Oken portrayed as the victim.
Let's just cut to the chase and say that right at the top. For death
penalty opponents - who have the dubious talent of being noble with the
grief of the families of murder victims - it was Oken who was the victim
in this matter. Garvin's brother, Fred A. Romano, her father, Fred J.
Romano, her mother, Betty Romano, and all her other relatives and loved
ones were just statistics.
The state must not "murder" Oken, railed death penalty opponents, who
obviously can't make a distinction between executing a killer and what
Oken did to Garvin that night in 1987. And assuming executions are murder,
there is that legal matter of justifiable homicide that death penalty
opponents seem to have forgotten.
Capital punishment is only revenge, death penalty opponents preached
piously.
Oh, really? Let's look closely at how this group has mugged the English
language. I think we can all agree that if Fred A. and Fred J. Romano and
Dawn Garvin's husband had caught up to Oken the night of the murder,
tortured him, mutilated him and then shot him in the head, it would have
been an act of revenge. Now let's look at what death penalty opponents
compare that to.
When Oken was arrested, he was read his Miranda rights by police. He had
the right to have a lawyer represent him and be tried before a jury of his
peers.
Oken's lawyer had the right to challenge prospective jurors who might have
been for the death penalty. He had the right not to testify against
himself. The burden of proof was on the state, not Oken.
Once he was found guilty, any mitigating circumstances - mental
retardation, age, etc. - would have been taken into account. Once
convicted, Oken had the right to postconviction relief hearings and a
seemingly endless string of appeals that stretched out over 13 years.
Those appeals lasted right up until this week, with U.S. District Judge
Peter Messitte ruling that Oken's execution should be put on indefinite
hold. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling Wednesday.
For death penalty opponents, that entire 13-year process, from start to
finish, with all those rights guaranteed to Oken, are basically the same
thing as Garvin's family taking Oken out and torturing, mutilating and
shooting him. For the anti-capital punishment crowd, no stretch of the
truth, no abuse of hyperbole is off the table.
That's why when no bias could be found in Maryland when the race of
defendants was taken into account, death penalty opponents quickly shifted
gears and focused on the race of the victims. Former Gov. Parris
Glendening ordered a two-year moratorium on the death penalty so this
matter could be studied. When the results came in, they pointed to more of
a geographical disparity - Baltimore County has the curious practice of
asking for the death penalty in every case where it applies - than a
racial one.
Anti-death penalty activists took the racial disparity tack to try to
guilt-trip folks into banning capital punishment. But there is also a
racial disparity in reading and geometry scores among students throughout
the state. Would death penalty opponents suggest we put a 2-year
moratorium on learning? Let's not give them any ideas.
Here's what may be the favorite argument of death penalty opponents:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. That must come as a surprise to
Fred A. Romano, who has spent the past 13 years doing research on the
matter. He's found several studies that support the notion that the death
penalty is a deterrent.
Romano puts all that information on his Web site dedicated to giving the
pro-capital punishment side of the death penalty debate. And he's doesn't
intend to stop now that his sister's murderer has been given the justice
due to him.
"Absolutely," Romano said when asked whether he was going to continue his
pro-death penalty activities. "We're going to actually expand the Web site
and get a new Web site up for all victims of crime in Maryland."
And how does Romano feel now that his family has come to the end of a
long, sometimes torturous journey?
"I was wondering if I would feel any guilt," Romano said of his
persistence in seeing Oken's death sentence carried out. "I didn't know
how I'd feel. Now that it's over, I can honestly say that I feel relief."
And well he should. In this matter of simple justice that was made quite
complicated, all of Dawn Garvin's family can now feel a sense of relief.
(source: Column, Gregory Kane, The Baltimore Sun)
