Oct. 2 PENNSYLVANIA: Retrial in deadly 1988 fire delayed--Use of testimony from 1990, expert witnesses in question. A retrial scheduled this month for Dennis Counterman, the Allentown man who was convicted of setting a 1988 fire that killed his 3 children, has been postponed because of recent developments. One of the prosecution's witnesses in the first trial, Counterman's wife, Janet, has no memory of the fire and doesn't even remember her children's names. She was seriously injured in the fire at 4361/2 Chestnut St. After the prosecution and defense agreed that she was "unavailable" as a witness, prosecutors wanted to use her testimony from the 1990 trial. A Lehigh County judge said they can't because a former prosecutor withheld important evidence from the defense in the 1st trial and Janet Counterman couldn't be effectively cross-examined back then. On Thursday, the prosecution appealed the ruling to state Superior Court. In another development, defense lawyers are asking a judge to prohibit prosecutors from using 2 experts from the 1st trial who testified about the cause and origin of the fire. Guidelines for fire investigators have changed, and the opinions of those witnesses aren't credible, the defense says. The defense has pounced on a report by a potential prosecution expert in a retrial who called some of the previous experts' conclusions "pure speculation." Special Deputy District Attorney Michael McIntyre said the prosecution offered Counterman a plea that the defense turned down. He wouldn't discuss details but said, "It was something less than a plea to first-degree murder." Defense lawyers Patrick O'Connor and Peter Rossi of Philadelphia wouldn't comment on the offer but were adamant about accepting nothing less than Counterman's release from jail. Asked what he would consider, O'Connor said Thursday, "Freedom." Tensions are beginning to mount as the defense expresses frustration with prosecutors and the prosecution remains steadfast in its belief that it has evidence to prove that Counterman, and not one of his children, started the fire. "The defense, as far as I am concerned, lacks credibility," McIntyre said. "They distort everything. That angers me." McIntyre said the pending appeal is not frivolous and is not a delay tactic. "It is a good issue. It has to be taken up" to a higher court, he said. Not having the testimony of Counterman's wife will substantially hinder the prosecution's case, according to McIntyre. Both sides said they want an expedited appeal. If the ruling goes against prosecutors, they can ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case, causing further delay. Counterman, 44, remains in jail, where he has been for the last 16 years. In 1990, a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. A local group of death penalty opponents alleges that trying to convict Counterman again "clearly demonstrates arrogance of power, contempt for human life and disregard for the taxpayers of Lehigh County." Member David Rose of Easton said in a statement on behalf of the group that the prosecution is perpetuating "the cover-up of investigative incompetence and duplicity that made the initial trial a mockery of justice." Rose, a member of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against State Killing, said that one of the lawyers who won Counterman a new trial asked the group for help in arranging support for Counterman if he is acquitted. After a new trial was ordered in 2001, District Attorney James B. Martin said he stood by the police investigation. "I think we got the right guy the 1st time," Martin said. Judge Lawrence J. Brenner ordered a new trial and set aside the death sentence. He found that the prosecution's conduct in the first trial deprived Counterman of a fair trial. A former prosecutor didn't give defense lawyers certain police reports. In those reports, a neighbor and other people said Janet Counterman told them that the children had set previous fires. Some of the information that should have been shared with the defense wasn't discovered until more than 12 years after the trial. O'Connor claims the prosecution now has no eyewitness without Janet Counterman's testimony, has expert witnesses from the first trial whose credibility is in serious doubt and can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Counterman started the fire and that it wasn't an accident. "We're going to let the evidence speak for itself at the trial . and we think it is going to be compelling," O'Connor said. In the trial, the prosecution's experts, Joseph D'Annibale, former deputy fire chief in Allentown, and private fire investigator Martin Wenzler said burn patterns showed the fire was started with a liquid accelerant, although no accelerant was found. In preparation for a retrial, the prosecution asked George F. Umberger, a retired state police fire marshal, to give his opinion after reviewing trial testimony and evidence. In parts of the report, Umberger said that some of D'Annibale's and Wenzler's opinions and those of a defense expert were speculation. Indications of other fires at the house and reports that the children played with matches "certainly has to add some credence to the possibility that this fire may have been a juvenile act," Umberger said. He questioned many parts of the investigation and the experts' conclusions and noted inconsistencies. By today's fire investigation standards, he said, the prosecution's experts do not have "truly provable" theories of how and where the fire started. However, Umberger noted in an introduction that he didn't see the fire scene and that it is very difficult to properly consider everything that was or wasn't done. (source: The Morning Call) VIRGINIA: Wrongly Convicted Inmate's Files Unsealed In Richmond, a federal appeals court has ordered the state police to unseal most of the documents in its investigation of the slaying that former death row inmate Earl Washington Jr. was wrongly convicted of committing. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that 10 of the documents in the investigation file should be opened because state police "failed to present a compelling governmental interest that is sufficient to keep these documents sealed." The panel sent the case back to U.S. District Court in Charlottesville to reconsider whether 4 other files should be made public. "This is a victory for accountability in government," said Eric M. Freedman, Washington's lead attorney. "The legal system did precisely what it was supposed to do. To see to it that public servants are accountable to the public." The attorney general's office disagreed, and will ask the full appeals court to hear the case, spokesman Tim Murtaugh said. "The state police and we are very concerned with law enforcement's ability to protect criminal investigations," Murtaugh said. The dispute stems from a civil rights lawsuit filed by Washington in an effort to clear his name. Washington - who spent 9 years on death row - claims police coerced his confession and that prosecutors still think he could have committed the crime even though then-Gov. Jim Gilmore pardoned him in 2000 after DNA evidence implicated another man. Lawyers for several news organizations, including The Associated Press, joined in Washington's attempts to open the files, based on First Amendment issues. The attorney general's office had argued that releasing the documents could compromise the "active and ongoing" investigation into the 1982 rape and murder of Rebecca Williams in Culpeper. It also contended that opening the files could endanger public safety, damage the reputations of innocent people, and violate the rights of Kenneth Tinsley, the convicted rapist whose DNA was found at the murder scene. Tinsley has not been charged in Williams' death. Freedman, who also is a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, said state attempts to keep the documents sealed were an "attempt to prevent the public from learning about the extraordinary set of errors that were made in Earl Washington's case that were indefensible from the beginning." (source: Associated Press) CONNECTICUT----inmate seeks to drop appeals Ross Signals End To Appeals--Move Would Clear Way For Killer's Execution Serial killer Michael Ross has signaled that he intends to waive further appeals and proceed to his execution - which could be scheduled as early as next month and no later than next May. He would become the 1st person executed in Connecticut since 1960. Ross has dismissed his team of aggressive public defenders and has retained West Hartford attorney T.R. Paulding, who was Ross' court-appointed lawyer in 1995 and 1996 when Ross wanted to stipulate to a death sentence rather than go through a 2nd penalty hearing. Ross' first death sentences were reversed by the state Supreme Court in 1994 because of trial error. Paulding and New London State's Attorney Kevin Kane said they have had discussions about what will transpire next Wednesday, when a new execution date is set. New London Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Clifford is mandated to choose a date that falls no sooner than 30 days from that court appearance of Oct. 6 but within 6 months of it. Neither Paulding nor Kane would reveal Ross' intentions. However Edwin Shelley, whose 14-year-old daughter, Leslie, was killed by Ross, said Kane has told him that Ross no longer wants to appeal his death sentence. "We're very elated right now," said Shelley, who plans to be in court Wednesday. "It will be the 2nd time I've heard the execution date set," he said. "Hopefully, and I do believe, this time it will happen. And I will be at his execution." Department of Correction spokesman Brian Garnett said his agency is fully prepared to carry out the state's 1st execution in nearly 45 years, and its 1st ever by lethal injection. "We are prepared to carry out the mandates of the law," Garnett said. One of the public defenders who recently represented Ross on appeal, John Holdridge, said Friday that it appears neither he nor his colleague, Lauren Weisfeld, have any official role in Ross' case. But it is clear they are finding it difficult to step back and allow Ross to face execution. Holdridge said he prepared a draft petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ross' behalf, and sent copies to Ross and Paulding. "Mr. Ross said he would think about it," Holdridge said. He also intimated that the public defenders may proceed, even without Ross' consent. "There are ethical dimensions to withdrawal [from the case] that we're talking about, and researching, quite frankly," Holdridge said. For most convicts sentenced to death, the execution date is no more than pro forma - automatically voided by appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and by habeas corpus petitions that challenge the quality of the death row inmate's trial lawyers and myriad other alleged flaws. But those appeals are voluntary. Connecticut law mandates that the state Supreme Court review all capital cases, and Ross has completed that appeal. His death sentences for the kidnap-murders of four young women in eastern Connecticut in 1983 and 1984 were affirmed by the state Supreme Court in May. Holdridge and Weisfeld filed a motion asking the state's highest court to reconsider its decision in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case, but the state court on Sept. 8 denied the motion. Ross has 90 days from that date to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. Even if he files nothing during that 90-day window, Ross at any time could halt his execution by filing a habeas corpus petition. Another death row inmate, Sedrick Cobb, last year announced he wanted to stop his appeals and be executed, just weeks before the hearing on his habeas corpus petition was scheduled to begin. Less than two weeks later he changed his mind and said he would continue with his bid to win a new trial. In 1987 Ross became the first man sentenced to death in Connecticut after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 permitted states to resume executions, if sufficient constitutional safeguards were in place. Ross, 45, is a Cornell University graduate who has written newspaper and magazine articles from death row. It has been debated in the past whether his tactics are ultimately designed to forestall his execution, or stem from genuine compassion for his victims' families, which he professed nine years ago when he wanted to broker his own death sentence. In arguing whether Ross could negotiate a death sentence, Paulding eight years ago was asked by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Ellen Peters about the likelihood Ross would change his mind if and when the high court ruled. "I feel very strongly that this decision Mr. Ross has arrived at is one he has taken years to reach," Paulding told the court then. "I think it is highly unlikely he will change his mind." The Supreme Court declined to rule on the validity of the unusual 10-page plea agreement because it did not represent a final disposition, and the trial judge ultimately ruled against it. Ross was again sentenced to death in May 2000, after tearfully apologizing to his victims' families. His defense was that he was a sexual sadist who could not control his impulses. He has admitted to killing two other eastern Connecticut women and two in New York. "It's about time," Shelley said. "Ray Roode [the parent of another victim, April Brunais] kept saying it would never happen. But by God we'll find out in 6 months won't we?" ** Triple Murderer May Speak To Jury----Decision Angers Victims' Family Judge Jon C. Blue agreed to something Friday that another judge in 2 recent death penalty cases in Connecticut would not: He granted a convicted killer permission to speak to jurors without being subjected to cross-examination. Blue said he will allow convicted triple murderer Jonathan Mills to make a "personal statement" to jurors during the penalty phase of his case next week. The jury of 8 women and 4 men will decide whether Mills is executed or spends the rest of his life in prison for the fatal stabbings of his aunt Katherine "Kitty" Kleinkauf, 43, and her children, Rachael Crum, 6, and Kyle Redway, 4, in their Guilford home in December 2000. Kleinkauf's sister, Nancy Filiault, called Blue's decision "very appalling" and said her family would most likely leave the courtroom when Mills spoke. "He's a coward," Filiault said. "He killed a woman and two children and he didn't take the stand so he could be cross-examined. And now he wants to address the jury? It's not fair that he's allowed to do that and we can't." Unsworn statements from a victim's family, known as victim-impact testimony, are allowed at sentencing proceedings in murder cases in Connecticut, but not in capital cases. Citing a tradition the judge said has lasted "hundreds of years" in the state's legal system giving convicts the "right to allocution," Blue agreed to let Mills speak on his own behalf without being sworn to tell the truth. In death penalty cases - in which judges are required to impose the jury's sentence - the right to be heard before sentencing has become a controversial issue that has been argued to the state Supreme Court. It could rule any day on the matter. "I think when a defendant's life is at stake, he should have the opportunity to address the jury," Blue said during Friday's hearing in Superior Court. "It may help him, it may hurt him. It will be largely up to Mr. Mills." Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly, who has prosecuted 6 men sent to death row since 1987, has argued against a defendant's right to allocution. He said he could not recall a capital case in which a judge allowed a killer to address a jury without facing cross-examination. "I can find nowhere in the law or in any appellate court decision where's that's been allowed," Connelly said. "There's nothing in state statutes or case law that says a defendant is entitled to make a statement without being subject to cross-examination." Blue, a former state public defender, told the court he has known for a while about Mills' wish to speak to the jury. He said he began researching the issue some time ago. "I've spent much time thinking about this," Blue said. Jurors last week found Mills guilty of 15 charges, including 3 counts of murder, 3 counts of capital felony and 6 counts of felony murder. Mills confessed to killing Kleinkauf and the children so he could steal Kleinkauf's ATM card to get money for drugs. Conviction on the capital felony charges set the stage for a penalty phase for Mills. That phase - which will begin Monday - is when Mills is expected to plead for his life. Blue warned Mills' defense team that if Mills makes factual allegations or comments on evidence in the case during his statement, prosecutors will have a chance to respond with their own evidence. Mills, 31, was not in court Friday to hear the judge's decision. Though he did not take the witness stand at trial, police reports portray Mills as a man willing to talk about his crimes. When he learned he was a suspect in the triple murder, Mills confessed not only to killing Kleinkauf and the children but also to strangling his neighbor, Mindy Leigh, and hiding her body in brush near the Guilford fairgrounds in October 2000. "I'm gonna tell you whatever you need to know," Mills told detectives, according to police reports. Blue is not requiring Mills to submit to the court ahead of time what he plans to say, but the judge warned Mills' defense team about the uncertainty of "unscripted" comments. "We all know that anything can happen. Most of you have seen this happen. So, Mr. Mills does speak at his own peril but that would be his own decision," Blue said. Public Defender Thomas J. Ullmann told Blue he expected that Mills would discuss his remorse and sadness over the killings and would ask for mercy and forgiveness. Ullmann told Blue that he has "cringed" at the words of past defendants he has represented in court, but that Mills gave no indication he planned to speak beyond his emotions and feelings. "He's going to speak from the heart to jurors," Ullmann said. State's Attorney Michael Dearington, who objected to the idea, declined to comment on Blue's decision. Blue cautioned that Friday's ruling could change if the state Supreme Court ruled soon on the appeal of Waterbury child killer Ivo Colon. Colon faces execution for torturing and beating to death his girlfriend's 2-year-old daughter, Keriana Tellado, in July 1998. One of the arguments on appeal is whether Colon had a right to allocution. Judge Frank M. D'Addabbo Jr. denied Colon's request to speak to jurors during the penalty phase of his trial. "I think that it's important for a jury that decides whether someone lives or dies to hear from the person whose life is in their hands," said Public Defender John Holdridge, who is handling Colon's appeal. D'Addabbo also barred convicted killer Robert Courchesne from reading to the jury an apology letter he wrote regarding the deaths of Demetris Rodgers, 28, and her infant, Antonia, in September 1998. In the Courchesne case, Connelly said both sides failed to reach a compromise that would have allowed Courchesne to read his statement as long as Rodgers' mother could also read her response to what Courchesne had to say. "We had no objection to Courchesne getting up in front of the jury as long as the court allowed the victim's mother to also say something in front of the jury," Connelly said. "But we don't allow victims to give victim-impact statements. It really makes it one-sided." Connelly said most states that have the death penalty do allow victim-impact statements. *** Court Order May Result In Death Penalty The state Supreme Court on Friday ordered a new sentencing hearing that could result in the death penalty for a Bridgeport man convicted of ordering the murders of an 8-year-old boy and the boy's mother. The high court upheld the conviction of Russell Peeler Jr. on capital felony charges. Peeler was convicted of plotting the murders in 1999 of Leroy "B.J." Brown Jr., 8, and his mother, Karen Clarke, 30. The court also granted an appeal by prosecutors, who argued that Judge G. Sarsfield Ford improperly imposed a life sentence when the jury deadlocked during sentencing. Prosecutors successfully argued the judge should have declared a mistrial and allowed the state to pursue a 2nd hearing. Peeler already was serving a life sentence for other crimes, and the only way he faced punishment for the killings was to be sentenced to death, prosecutors argued. In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted a new penalty hearing on both capital felony counts. Peeler's defense attorney criticized the ruling, saying he had a strong appeal, but was representing an unpopular defendant. Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano said he was pleased with the decision and said prosecutors will seek a new hearing. According to testimony, Peeler and his brother, Adrian Peeler, ran a crack cocaine ring in Bridgeport that earned them thousands of dollars a week. In 1999, Russell Peeler was to be tried for the murder of Rudolph Snead Jr., a former partner in the drug ring and Clarke's boyfriend. B.J. had seen an earlier attempt by Russell Peeler to shoot Snead and was expected to be a key witness at that trial. Days before that trial's start, the boy and his mother were found shot to death in their Bridgeport duplex. Josephine Lee, who lived across the street from Clarke, testified that she agreed to spy on the victims' home in exchange for crack cocaine. On the evening of the murders, Lee said she went with Adrian Peeler to the victims' door. When Clarke opened the door for her, Lee said Adrian Peeler rushed in and killed the boy and his mother. The defense challenged the trial court's refusal to permit the disclosure of Lee's psychiatric records to the jury. Those records would have showed her condition affected her ability to recall what happened, the defense contended. The high court agreed with the defense that the trial court should have admitted testimony on Lee's mental health records, but said the mistake was harmless. "The state produced substantial evidence that the crimes had been perpetrated as the defendant had planned, physical evidence reasonably corroborated Lee's testimony, and the defendant was able to undermine Lee's credibility extensively without the use of the mental health records," the court wrote. (source for all: Hartford Courant) ************************** Ross headed to court for new execution date Death row inmate Michael Ross is slated to return to New London Superior Court Wednesday to have a new execution date scheduled. His appearance comes four months after the former insurance salesman from Jewett City lost his most recent appeal to the state Supreme Court. On May 24 the court upheld Ross' death sentence and rejected, among other arguments, the notion that Ross suffered from mental illness. Last month, the state Supreme Court denied a motion for reconsideration. Ross, 45, admitted to killing 8 women in the early 1980s, 6 from Eastern Connecticut and 2 from New York. He is serving life sentences for the murder of 2 Windham County women and sentenced to death in 1987 for the murder of 4 women from New London County. He is being held at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers. The death penalty ruling was first overturned in 1994 after an argument that found a judge had excluded portions of a psychiatric report. A jury in 2000 sentenced him again to die, but the execution date was stayed because of an appeal of the ruling. Ross' court appearance Wednesday before Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford is being held pursuant to state rules regarding the appeals process, New London state's attorney Kevin Kane said. Born on a farm in Brooklyn, Ross is a 1977 Cornell University graduate and the 1st person to be sentenced to death since the state reinstated the death penalty in 1973. The state has not executed anyone since 1960. (source: Norwich Bulletin) CALFORNIA: Prosecutors Set to Wrap Up Peterson Case As they prepare to wrap up their murder case against Scott Peterson in the death of his pregnant wife Laci, even prosecutors have acknowledged their case has at times left jurors scratching their heads. More than 160 witnesses have been called in 4 months of testimony to discuss everything from tide tables to the chemical composition of cement. What they haven't come up with is a murder weapon, a bloody crime scene, or even a cause of death. Lead prosecutor Rick Distaso acknowledged confusion in the case when he sought to bring in an out-of-order witness, interrupting DNA testimony. "Don't you think that will confuse the jury?" Judge Alfred A. Delucchi asked. "Your honor, they're already confused," Distaso replied. But legal experts said prosecutors' luck appeared to change when a Modesto detective took the stand recently, providing the 1st detailed narrative that stitched together the many circumstances that cast suspicion on Peterson. Then came aerial video footage detailing exactly how close the bodies were found to where Peterson says he was fishing on Dec. 24, 2002, around the time Laci disappeared. The footage was "haunting and effective," said former prosecutor and trial observer Jim Hammer. "It feels like murder is in the house now." The prosecution expects to present its final witnesses this week to try to prove that Peterson killed his 8-month pregnant wife in their Modesto home, then dumped her weighted body into San Francisco Bay. Her remains -- and that of the fetus -- washed up in April 2003, not far from the Berkeley Marina where Peterson launched his boat for what he claims was a solo fishing trip. Jurors have heard Peterson lie repeatedly in wiretapped phone calls with his mistress, Amber Frey, and in television interviews when asked about the affair. He also lied to friends and family, telling some he was in Southern California when he was actually driving around the San Francisco Bay area where authorities were searching for the bodies. But until Detective Craig Grogan hit the stand, some experts questioned whether prosecutors had proven only that Peterson was a cheating husband who mooned after his mistress while pretending to mourn for his pregnant wife. Grogan, the lead investigator, spent more than a week on the witness stand, explaining why police were so sure Peterson killed his wife. Some of the details: -- Police dogs picked up Laci's scent at the marina. -- Peterson's own alibi put him exactly where the bodies were found. -- Fishing tackle found on his boat was meant for freshwater angling, not the saltwater sturgeon Peterson told authorities he was seeking. -- Peterson initially told some witnesses on the night Laci vanished he had been golfing all morning, leading police to believe he had not settled on an alibi. -- Peterson had recently researched deep water currents in the bay. Also important was expert testimony that Laci's fetus died around the same time she vanished. The defense had claimed that the baby was born at full term after Laci was abducted, which would mean it died at a time when Scott Peterson was being watched by police. Experts said the testimony about the time of death was crucial to countering the defense theory. "It was the single fact they absolutely had to prove to stay in the game," trial watcher and former prosecutor Dean Johnson said. The judge assured jurors last week that the prosecution will rest its case after presenting a few more witnesses, including an expert about tides who could explain how the bodies floated to where they were found. The defense has attacked the entire investigation as conjecture. The case still relies on inconclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean jurors won't convict, said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson. "Almost every case is a circumstantial evidence case because the victim is not there to testify, and you don't typically have a confession or videotape of the murder," Levenson said. "It's just a matter of using your common sense and putting together the motive and opportunity and conduct of the defendant to surmise who committed the crime." (source: Associated Press) ******************* Candidates vow fight over plan for death row Both candidates for the District 6 Assembly seat yesterday pledged to do all they can to halt a $220 million expansion of death row at San Quentin State Prison - while acknowledging the difficulties of succeeding. Incumbent Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, called on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to use his political muscle to stop the project. "I think it can be stopped," said Nation, who is seeking his 3rd and final term allowed under term limits. "It depends to a great extent on whether the governor is willing to weigh in on this." Nation's opponent - Republican candidate Carolyn Patrick, a Sausalito biotech consultant - said, "I certainly want to stop it. I think Joe and I are in agreement on that." The candidates made their comments during the taping of a debate to be broadcast on public access Channel 26 later this month. The San Quentin expansion, long in the works, gained renewed attention this week when the California Department of Corrections sent copies of its draft environmental impact report to interested parties for comment. The report noted that the Legislature has authorized the issuance of $220 million in bonds to build the prison and said construction is expected to begin a year from now. "I think this is a wake up call for the community, which has not been aware of what's been going on, or the speed with which it's moving," Patrick said. Contacted Wednesday, Nation said he believed the bonds necessary to begin construction wouldn't be sold until 2007. But yesterday Nation said he has learned differently. "The bottom line is the Department of Finance can move forward with the construction prior to the bonds being sold," Nation said. Nation said that he has been fighting hard to stop the death row expansion for some time now. Local housing and transportation advocates - led by Nation and Supervisor Steve Kinsey - have argued that the prison should be shut down to make room for new housing, commercial development and a ferry terminal. Nation said that a year ago he conditioned his support of the state budget on Gov. Gray Davis' promise that the state auditor would evaluate the Department of Correction's plan for the new death row. Nation said the audit revealed that building the death row at San Quentin would boost the cost by 10 percent; that it costs the state $2.3 million annually in housing stipends to operate the prison; that it costs $7 million a year to recruit and retain the people who work there; and that overtime costs at the prison are 57 percent higher than at comparable California prisons. "Given that sort of information," Nation said, "I think the governor has an obligation to put a stop to this project so the Department of Corrections and Finance can look at alternatives." Patrick said the biggest problem facing opponents of the death row expansion is that the alternatives "are difficult and not really well defined at this point." (source: Marin Independent Journal) ALABAMA: Bui jury to decide fate Montgomery County District Attorney Ellen Brooks waved a picture of Quang Bui's murdered and blood-soaked children in front of the jury during the final day of the sentencing phase for the convicted murderer. That same jury convicted Bui Wednesday of slitting his children's throats and will begin deliberating Monday whether to sentence him to death or life in prison. "Evil did that," Brooks said. "Not depression, not (post traumatic stress disorder), not being poor, not coming to this great country. Evil did that." Closing arguments from Bui's attorneys and from prosecutors brought to a close the sentencing portion of Bui's trial for the murders. Earlier in the day, the jury heard the videotaped testimony of his family in Vietnam. In the videotape, Khanh Bui spoke about his younger brother from his small home in the jungle of Vietnam. The defense has argued that Quang Bui killed his children as a result of post traumatic stress disorder brought on by his service in the Vietnam War. His family lost touch with him during the war, and he later settled in the United States and married an American woman. His wife left him for another man before the murders. The defense argued that Quang Bui also suffered from depression, the loss of his family and from cultural isolation. In his closing arguments, Bui's attorney Richard Keith said that if not for the war, Bui still would be in Vietnam leading a normal life with his family. "He was a good man swept away by war and by mental illness," Keith told the jury. Keith argued that Bui should not be judged by the one day of his life in 1986 when he killed his children with a 14-inch butcher knife, but urged jurors to consider the totality of Bui's life before and after the murders. Keith told the jury that on death row, Bui turned to God and was a model inmate. "This is a time to punish and not a time to kill. We ask that he be allowed to die in God's time and not in man's time," Keith told the jury. Brooks countered that Keith was using Bui's early years and post-1986 life to obscure the horror of what happened to the 3 children. "There is no higher calling on this earth than to protect the innocent children. Those who fail are condemned. The defendant's responsibility has not diminished (since 1986). Neither should his punishment," Brooks argued. Monday morning, Montgomery Circuit Judge Charles Price will instruct the jury on the law of sentencing in a capital case, then the jury will begin its deliberation. 10 out of the 12 jurors are needed to impose the death penalty, while a simple majority is enough for life without parole. This is the 2nd time Quang Bui has been found guilty of capital murder. A federal judge ordered the case retried after the 1986 verdict on the grounds that jurors had been excluded because they were black. (source: Montgomery Advertiser) ********************** Appeals court orders another look at two death penalty cases 2 death row inmates got a chance Friday to overturn their sentences when an appeals court told lower courts to take another look at their punishment. In a 5-0 decision, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals left intact Gregory Knight's capital murder conviction for the stabbing death of his estranged wife, but ordered that he get a new sentencing hearing because incorrect information about his past criminal history was presented to the Baldwin County jury that recommended he die for his crime. Knight was convicted of stabbing Latisha Knight 32 times with a butcher knife on June 17, 2000, after learning that she had a child with another man while he was serving a prison sentence in Florida. At his new sentencing hearing, Knight will have a chance to argue that he should receive a sentence of life in prison without parole rather than a death sentence. In another case, the appeals court unanimously upheld the capital murder conviction of James Earl Walker in Houston County, but sent the case back to the trial judge to better explain why he sentenced Walker to death for the Jan. 5, 2000, shooting death of 87-year-old Bessie Lee Thweatt and the burglary of her home. The appeals court said that if necessary, the trial judge may reweigh the facts of the case and resentence Walker. In another capital murder case, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction and death sentence that Michael Wayne Eggers of Jasper received for the beating death of his former employer, Francis Murray of Talladega, and for stealing her purse and pickup on Dec. 30, 2000. Eggers was captured after using the victim's debit card to gamble at a riverboat casino in New Albany, Ind. (source: Tuscaloosa News) LOUISIANA: 2 men arrested in sex crime inquiries The Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office arrested a Lafayette man Friday for the aggravated rape of a 9-year-old boy. Lt. Craig Stansbury, public information officer for the Sheriff's Office, said detectives became aware of the allegations Thursday and arrested 39-year-old David Thibodeaux on Friday after obtaining an arrest warrant. The alleged incident occurred at a residence in the 200 block of French Court Drive during summer 2002. Stansbury said the boy, who is now 11, finally decided to come forth with the information. Stansbury said Thibodeaux is being held without bond at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center and if convicted could face the death penalty or life in prison. Stansbury said other charges are expected to be filed against Thibodeaux, and the investigation remains open with the possibility of more arrests in connection with the case. In an unrelated incident, the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office arrested James E. Avant, 40, of Lafayette on Wednesday on three counts of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile and 1 count of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. Stansbury said juvenile detectives within the Sheriff's Office were contacted by Child Protection Services and with their assistance uncovered evidence that led to Avant's arrest. "Sources determined that a 15-year-old female was having sex with a 40-year-old guy," he said. According to a news release issued by the Sheriff's Office, the incident occurred several months ago in Avant's residence in the 2500 block of Ambassador Caffery. (source: Lafayette Daily Advertiser)
