Nov. 13
KENTUCKY:
Fletcher remains silent
Gov. Ernie Fletcher's decision to sign a death warrant puts him in
conflict with the oaths he took when becoming a medical doctor, opponents
of the death penalty say.
His refusal to publicly answer questions about the planned execution of
Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr. on Nov. 30 puts him in conflict with standards of
accountability all public officials should be held to.
In a statement released Monday, Fletcher announced his intentions to
remain silent on Bowling, who in 1990 was convicted by a 12-person jury in
Fayette County for the murders of Edward and Tina Earley and also guilty
of fourth-degree assault for shooting their 2-year-old son in the foot.
"I hope the press will honor my decision not to take any further questions
regarding this decision," the statement read.
He held fast to this pronouncement at his Friday news conference -- the
only media availability in a week that also saw significant changes to the
upper echelon of his administration -- taking only 4 questions before
scuttling out a secret door that shoots him into an area not accessible to
the public or media.
Fletcher, who turned 52 yesterday, appeared jovial at the news event. The
roughly 45-minute propaganda-filled proceeding covered issues of seemingly
high regard to the administration, such as knocking off another choice for
Kentucky's new brand and introducing the new state Christmas tree
ornament.
The governor was all smiles as he joked with children from Silver Grove
Independent School about the branding process urging them to vote again
for next week's elimination. ("Kentucky -- Make History" got the boot this
time.) He then smiled with First Lady Glenna Fletcher as they hoisted the
tiny ornament Kentucky's selling with the hopes that its $20 price tag
will benefit a restoration fund for the state capitol.
Unanswered were additional questions pertaining to the significant cabinet
level changes issued earlier this week by way of news releases. Three
ranking officials -- Chief of Staff Daniel Groves, Secretary of the
Executive Cabinet Dr. Allyson Handley and Personnel Cabinet Secretary Bob
Ramsey -- all got different jobs this week but maintained their annual
salaries of $125,000.
Unasked -- because the news conference ended abruptly -- were requests for
a response from the governor to concerns that he's violated the ethics of
the medical profession by signing a death warrant -- the official document
that executes an individual's death sentence.
The Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty believes he has.
They've asked the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure to issue an opinion
on whether or not Fletcher's actions violate the code of the American
Medical Association. The AMA code, which was created in 1980, says
physicians should not be participants in executions and defines
participation to include "an action that would assist, supervise or
contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the
death of the condemned and an action which could automatically cause an
execution to be carried out on a condemned prisoner."
Michael Goldrich, chair of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs, said in a statement that the code does not "speak to individuals
with a medical degree who no longer maintain any involvement with medicine
and are engaged in activities that are outside the sphere of the medical
profession."
Fletcher, though not practicing at this time, is registered as a physician
with the state board until March 2005. Through his spokesman Doug Hogan,
Fletcher said Friday: "I acted in a manner that reflects my responsibility
as governor. In no way does this conflict with the ethics of my private
profession."
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center
in Washington, D.C., said this is the first time he's heard of a
doctor/governor scenario such as this. The DPIC provides information on
capital punishment.
Dieter said it's his opinion that "the person who starts the process with
the death warrant is participating as much as the warden or those who
inject the chemicals or strap the inmate down."
But getting Fletcher to respond on his own to such a claim is not likely.
And refusing to publicly answer questions about such a grave subject is,
at best, dismissive, and, at worst, disrespectful to the people who
elected him to serve in this dignified office.
(source: Kentucky Post)
CALIFORNIA:
Sentencing Hearing Next for Scott Peterson
Scott Peterson's lawyers failed to persuade the jury that someone else
killed his pregnant wife. Now, they'll try to persuade the same 12 people
to spare him from the death penalty.
But Peterson himself is unlikely to take the stand and beg for mercy --
doing that would require him to admit to the murders, and throw away any
chance of overturning the convictions on appeal.
6 men and 6 women convicted Peterson Friday of the 1st-degree murder of
his wife, Laci, and the 2nd-degree murder of the fetus she was carrying.
The couple had planned to name their son Conner. The jury also agreed on a
"special circumstance" that calls for capital punishment -- namely that he
killed another person -- the fetus -- while committing a felony -- the
intentional and premeditated killing of his wife.
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi sent them home until Nov. 22, and urged them to
avoid news coverage of the case until the penalty phase begins. During
this next stage, the defense and prosecution will present exacerbating and
mitigating factors in hopes of swaying the jury's decision. The jury will
begin deliberating the former fertilizer salesman's fate on Nov. 30, and
be sequestered again until they reach a decision.
The verdicts provided a made-for-cable-TV conclusion to a case that has
captivated the nation since Laci Peterson disappeared 23 months ago.
Prosecutors portrayed the murders as a restless husband's cold-blooded
attempt to escape marriage and fatherhood for the pleasures of the
bachelor life.
Scott Peterson, 32, stared straight ahead, then looked at each of the
jurors as they were polled to confirm their decisions. Serious and
unsmiling, none appeared to return his gaze.
Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, sobbed. Laci's friends in the
gallery cried, and loud sighs could be heard across the courtroom. As the
courtroom emptied, throngs of well-wishers clapped and cheered. Gwendolyn
Kemple, a distant relative of Rocha, was crying and shaking, saying "We're
just elated."
Outside the courthouse, it was pandemonium -- roars went up from the crowd
of about 1,000 with each verdict. In Modesto, drivers honked their horns
and others shouted with satisfaction when the news broke on television.
Well-wishers descended on Laci's home, leaving notes and flowers.
Laci Peterson's family avoided the throngs by leaving through an
underground parking garage, but Scott Peterson's family faced the crowds
outside the front door of the courthouse. As police rushed them away,
someone in the crowd booed Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother. Someone else
shouted "SHE didn't kill her!"
The families, lawyers and others directly involved in the case remain
under a gag order until Peterson's sentence is determined. Defense
attorney Mark Geragos, who was in Los Angeles when the verdict was
announced, did not disclose whether his client plans to appeal.
The verdicts came after a little more than 7 hours of deliberation by the
final 12 jurors, following a 5-month trial and a chaotic final week. The
judge removed 2 jurors for reasons that have not been publicly disclosed.
Prosecutors said Scott Peterson killed his 27-year-old wife in their
Modesto home on Dec. 23 or Dec. 24, 2002, and then drove his boat and her
body 90 miles west and dumped it in San Francisco Bay. The substitute
teacher was 8 months pregnant when she vanished. 4 months later, her
remains and those of her fetus washed up just north of the marina where
Peterson launched his fishing boat the day of her disappearance.
Annette Anderson, who lives across the street from the Peterson home, said
she was happy for the Rocha family and relieved to know Scott Peterson
would not be returning to the neighborhood.
"If he were to come back here, then I would be afraid, I'd up and move,"
she said.
The case became a reliable cover story for tabloids and cable networks.
The details -- a radiant, 28-year-old woman awaiting the birth of her 1st
child, a cheating husband, and a slaying for which prosecutors had no
eyewitnesses, no weapon, not even a cause of death -- drew devoted
followers who debated every development with endless fascination.
As word of the verdict spread, about 1,000 people gathered outside the
courthouse, huddling over portable radios, cell phones and TV news tents.
"He's a sicko. He needs to fry," said Bob Johnston, 42, of San Jose. "I
wanted to see that justice was served."
Police never were able to establish exactly when, how or where Laci died,
but the circumstantial evidence proved persuasive. Prosecutors presented
174 witnesses and hundreds of pieces of evidence, from wiretapped phone
calls to videotaped police interrogations, depicting Peterson as liar and
a philanderer who sweet-talked his massage therapist girlfriend, Amber
Frey, while publicly pining for his missing wife.
Peterson never took the stand. His lawyers suggested someone else abducted
and killed Laci while she walked the dog, then framed her husband after
learning of his fishing-trip alibi. They attributed his lies as the
mutterings of a man in the midst of a breakdown over his missing wife.
(source: Associated Press)
***********************
'Lingering doubt' may save Peterson -- Penalty phase could be difficult
for both defense, prosecution
Mark Geragos' task now is to save the life of his client, a convicted
double murderer facing a possible death sentence. His problem is that the
usual defense approach to the penalty phase of a capital case -- stressing
the defendant's remorse and looking for sympathy -- doesn't fit this time
around.
When a San Mateo County jury reconvenes Nov. 22 to decide whether Scott
Peterson should be sentenced to death or life without parole for the
murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Geragos is expected to
maintain his position that his client is innocent.
Legally, the argument is known as "lingering doubt" or "residual doubt" --
an appeal to any remaining qualms in the minds of jurors who have already
found Peterson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One way to put it is: Are
you so absolutely sure of this man's guilt that you're willing to condemn
him to death?
"I think you can expect to see lingering doubt (argued) at the penalty
phase," said Dennis Riordan, a longtime San Francisco defense lawyer. "I
would be surprised if he weren't going to continue to maintain his
innocence ... unlike some cases where guilt is a foregone conclusion."
The approach isn't far-fetched in this case but has potential pitfalls,
said Rory Little, a law professor at UC's Hastings College of the Law in
San Francisco and a former federal prosecutor.
"In the penalty phase, you're asking for mercy," he said. "When you're
going to go for residual doubt, you can't admit (guilt). If (jurors are)
not doubtful, they really resent the failure to admit it and show remorse.
"It's one of the problems with the death-penalty procedure in general. If
you actually are innocent, or you don't think you should have been
convicted, but you have to argue for mercy while your appeal is not yet
filed, let alone decided, it can put you in a very difficult position."
Legal analysts have pointed to numerous potential grounds for appeal of
Peterson's convictions, starting with the effect of pretrial publicity,
which continued relentlessly even after the case was transferred from
Modesto to Redwood City. Geragos also challenged Superior Court Judge
Alfred Delucchi's refusal to let him demonstrate to jurors that a boat
carrying Laci Peterson's body would have capsized if she had been weighed
with anchors and thrown overboard, as the prosecution theorized.
Another issue could arise from Delucchi's removal of two jurors in two
days, followed quickly by the verdict. The judge has prohibited both
former jurors from speaking publicly while the trial continues, but Little
said Geragos was undoubtedly eager to talk to them to learn what evidence
might sway their fellow jurors.
In Geragos' place, "I would probably (tell) the judge, 'I need to
interview those jurors in order to prepare for the penalty phase,'" Little
said.
If Peterson is sentenced to death, his appeal would go directly to the
state Supreme Court. Convictions that lead to a life sentence are appealed
to the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
The penalty phase poses difficulties for the prosecution as well as the
defense, Little and Riordan agreed.
"I think this is a hard case for the government to get the death penalty,"
Little said. "He has no prior record. ... We don't know the mode of
death."
Still, he said, "It wouldn't surprise me if the emotional content of the
crime were enough to lead the jury to impose death."
Riordan, stressing that he was merely "reading tea leaves," said it didn't
seem like a strong case for a death sentence. He said jurors might have
signaled a willingness to compromise by convicting Peterson of 1st-degree
murder for his wife's death but of non-premeditated, 2nd-degree murder for
the fetal killing.
"Generally, you have an escalating level of badness and violence in (a
defendant's) life, and they don't have that here," Riordan said. "As death
defendants go, he looks good. He obviously has a very loyal family."
Riordan said he was virtually certain of one thing: Peterson, who didn't
testify at the guilt phase, won't take the stand at the penalty phase and
risk being cross-examined about his lies to his wife and his girlfriend.
"If he got up on the stand, there's only one thing to say: 'Don't kill me
because I'm innocent,'" Riordan said. If Peterson wasn't prepared to say
that during the now-concluded guilt phase, Riordan said, there's no reason
to do it now.
(source: San Francisco Chronicle)
NEW YORK:
Judge Objects to Ashcroft Bid for a Mobster's Execution
A federal judge in Brooklyn said yesterday that he would order prosecutors
to ask the next attorney general to reconsider John Ashcroft's decision to
seek the death penalty for a Mafia boss, saying that he found it "deeply
troubling."
The unusual remarks from the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis, came as
prosecutors announced in federal court in Brooklyn that Mr. Ashcroft had
authorized them to seek the death penalty for Joseph C. Massino, in a case
involving a 1999 murder.
An old-style boss of the Bonanno crime family, Mr. Massino was convicted
in July in a separate racketeering and murder case.
"Mr. Ashcroft's choice," the judge said, "to make such a sobering and
potentially life-ending decision now, after several delays, and only after
tendering his resignation to the president and announcing to the country
that he no longer wishes to preside over the Department of Justice, is
deeply troubling to this court."
Mr. Ashcroft said Tuesday that he would resign. Judge Garaufis
acknowledged that Mr. Ashcroft had the authority to seek Mr. Massino's
execution in the current case. But he said that Mr. Massino already faced
a life term for the July conviction, which included a verdict that Mr.
Massino, 61, took part in seven other murders.
A Justice Department statement issued yesterday said that the process of
reviewing potential capital cases was aimed at "ensuring consistency
across the country" and the fair implementation of the death penalty.
"The department," the statement said, "is confident that this process
works." The prosecution of Mr. Massino is being handled by the office of
Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the United States attorney in Brooklyn. But the
attorney general makes the final decision about the penalty to seek in
potential capital cases. In court yesterday the prosecutors, Greg D.
Andres and Nicolas Bourtin, said they had recently been notified of Mr.
Ashcroft's decision.
Judge Garaufis, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said he would
proceed with the death penalty trial, next fall or later. But in his
remarks, the judge said he would direct prosecutors to ask the new
attorney general to reconsider the decision to seek execution.
He did not further explain why he was troubled by the decision. But he
said he hoped the new attorney general would "reach an independent
assessment."
Since his appointment in 2000 to the Brooklyn federal court, Judge
Garaufis, 56, has developed a reputation as an outspoken judge. He was
once the legal adviser to the former Queens borough president, Claire
Shulman, a Democrat. During the Clinton administration he was chief
counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington.
Mr. Massino's lawyer, David Breitbart, said the defense appreciated the
judge's remarks, adding that Mr. Ashcroft's death penalty decision was an
example of "the conservatism that was manifested by this attorney
general."
But some death penalty lawyers yesterday praised Mr. Ashcroft's decision
as an indication that law enforcement officials will treat Mafia bosses as
sternly as they treat other violent gangsters.
Robert Blecker, a New York Law School professor who favors the death
penalty but argues it should be reserved for the most heinous criminals,
called the decision "refreshing." He said Judge Garaufis's remarks were
improper. "It's not for the judicial branch to make that decision,"
Professor Blecker said.
Mr. Ashcroft's tenure has included efforts to foster what officials say is
a more evenhanded use of the death penalty. Critics have said that meant
that black and Hispanic gangsters faced the death penalty in
disproportionate numbers. Some critics observed that the department had
not sought the execution of a white top Cosa Nostra leader in decades.
Because of that criticism, Mr. Massino became an unlikely symbol in the
death penalty debate.
Opponents of Mr. Ashcroft's death penalty policies were in the awkward
position of acknowledging that a capital case against a top Mafia leader
might be overdue, while at the same time asserting that it could be unfair
to use Mr. Massino's case to try to blunt arguments that the death penalty
law has been unfairly applied.
(source: New York Times)
