Jan. 1 CONNECTICUT: Series of obstacles in path of Ross execution Death row inmate Michael Ross has rejected any more appeals, but his father, public defenders and other prisoners facing the same fate are trying to stop the first execution in New England in decades. A series of challenges to the execution will be heard next week in state and federal court. For the first time, Ross' father Dan is joining the legal battle to stop his son's execution, arguing that his son is not mentally competent. The state has set a Jan. 26 execution date for Ross. "Within 20-odd days, someone is going to kill his son," said Jon Schoenhorn, attorney for Dan Ross. "Nobody who apparently has standing is raising any questions about it." Ross, 45, has admitted killing 8 women in Connecticut and New York and raping many of them. He is on death row for killing 4 young women in eastern Connecticut in the 1980s. The execution would be the 1st in Connecticut in more than 40 years. Ross recently fired the public defenders who represented him for 17 of the 20 years he has been in prison. He has retained private attorney T.R. Paulding Jr. to help him move forward with his execution, saying he does not want to pursue any more appeals. Paulding said Friday that Ross is upset by all the appeals. "Their supposed intent is for the benefit of Michael Ross and their actual effect is to harm him emotionally at this point," Paulding said. "He would like to just spend his last few days on earth getting prepared for that." A Rockville Superior Court judge will decide Monday whether Dan Ross or the public defenders have any standing to force Michael Ross to appeal his conviction. Dan Ross also contends his son received ineffective counsel and that he was mentally ill when he committed the murders. On Wednesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court will hear an appeal by the state public defender's office. At issue is whether New London Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Clifford erred when he refused to allow the public defenders to represent Ross. Clifford ruled last week that Ross was competent in making his decision to forgo any future appeals. The public defenders' office is arguing that Ross is incompetent and is trying to commit "judicial, state-assisted suicide." Ross has tried to kill himself in prison 3 times, officials said. In their latest move, the public defenders are seeking a 1-week extension to file legal arguments for the hearing. "The defendant's life is at stake," the public defenders argue in a legal brief filed Thursday. "The issues before this court are of the utmost moral and legal significance, and indisputably deserve the court's most careful and deliberate attention." But state prosecutors and Ross objected to any delay. The state has repeatedly argued that the public defender's office should not be appointed because Ross already has legal representation. Last Wednesday, four other death row inmates in Connecticut sought to support the public defenders by arguing that the death penalty is racially discriminatory. But the high court rejected their request to intervene, saying the issues they wanted to raise were not within the scope of the hearing. This coming Thursday, a federal judge in Hartford will hear another challenge by Dan Ross and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. They are challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment. Edwin Shelley, whose 14-year-old daughter Leslie was killed by Ross, said he was not surprised by the appeals. But the wait never gets easier, he said. "It's nerve-racking," Shelley said. "This goes on everyday for 21 years. We feel the same today as the day they came to us and told us they found her remains." (source: Associated Press) NEVADA: Death sentence in Reno killing upheld The Nevada Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the death sentence for a man who fatally shot a Reno man who was dating the killer's ex-girlfriend. After shooting Brian Pierce 10 times and stabbing him 3 times, Robert L. McConnell called the victim's mother and left a message on her answering machine, saying: "Your son died like a coward." In his appeal, McConnell raises a series of issues including the constitutionality of the Nevada death penalty law, the admission of character witnesses during the penalty hearing, claims of misconduct by the prosecutor and improper jury instructions. The court denied all of the claims of error and said, "McConnell committed this murder with a shocking degree of deliberation and premeditation and without any comprehensible provocation." McConnell, now 32, broke up with April Robinson in the spring of 2001, and Pierce, who was 26, started dating her. They planned to be married. McConnell staked out their house for 2 days and then broke into the home in August 2002. When Pierce came home, McConnell shot him 10 times, stabbed him 3 times and cut out one of the bullets from the body. When Robinson came home, McConnell tied her up, sexually assaulted her and then forced her into a car. He drove her to California where Robinson escaped. McConnell was later arrested in San Francisco and extradited to Reno. McConnell pleaded guilty to felony murder but told the jury he was sorry for what he did. (source: Las Vegas Sun, Dec. 30) TEXAS: Lawmakers studying state's insanity defense----Senate panel recommends improving data collection, setting new standards for expert testimony. Recent crimes involving horrible facts and fatal results - including the drowning of five children, the fatal beating of 2 with rocks and the discovery of a 6-year-old's body in an oven - have Texas legislators thinking about the state's definition of insanity. Those accused, convicted or acquitted in some of the headline-grabbing crimes have used or plan to use the insanity defense, prompting a Senate committee to spend recent months reviewing the state's insanity standard and making recommendations on how to improve it. When the Legislature convenes in January, it's expected to consider the committee's recommendations, which include improving data collection and setting new standards for expert testimony. "The popularly held conception of the insanity defense has been that of constant overuse and abuse," the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence wrote in its interim report issued this month. "The public pays little attention until a mentally ill person is charged with committing a heinous crime." In Texas, defendants are presumed sane. To prove insanity, they must convince a jury that they suffered from a severe mental disease or defect and did not know their action was wrong. According to the committee's report, the insanity defense is used in 1 % of felony cases and is seldom successful. The committee said 26 % of those who claim insanity are deemed insane and acquitted. Insanity statutes were stiffened by many states and the federal government after John Hinckley's acquittal by reason of insanity for shooting and wounding President Reagan in 1981. The committee said that the nation "grew impatient" with the insanity defense and that more than 30 states, including Texas, tightened and amended their statutes. 5 states - Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada and Utah - abolished the defense, according to the report. "The idea that many people are saying they are insane and getting away with their crimes is silly," said David Haynes, a lawyer representing Dena Schlosser, charged with capital murder last month for allegedly cutting off the arms of her 10-month-old daughter in Plano. "That just doesn't happen," said Haynes. He said that he may consider an insanity defense in Schlosser's case but that there are a "lot of ifs." The Senate committee said debate about the insanity standard resurfaced because of the cases of Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney. In 2002, a Harris County jury rejected Yates' insanity defense and convicted her of 2 capital murder charges for the drowning deaths of 3 of her five children. She was sentenced to life in prison. In April, an East Texas jury acquitted Laney in the killings of her 2 young sons and injury to a 3rd by beating them in the head with rocks. The jury determined Laney was insane at the time of the incidents. She remains at a state hospital. All 5 psychiatrists in Laney's case concluded that a severe mental illness caused her to have psychotic delusions that rendered her incapable of knowing right from wrong. In Yates' case, defense and prosecution experts agreed she suffered a severe mental disease but disagreed over whether it kept her from knowing drowning the children was wrong. "The disparity in verdicts rendered for the similar crimes of Yates and Laney prompted some public confusion concerning the insanity defense," the Jurisprudence Committee, headed by Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, wrote. The committee says that the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict and the legal definition of insanity should remain intact but that the release standards for those who are acquitted should be changed. Some have suggested changing the verdict to "guilty except for mental illness," but the committee said the verdict would limit juries. Additionally, the committee wrote, those found "guilty except for mental illness" often don't get the caliber of mental health care a person found "not guilty by reason of insanity" would receive. Under current law, a person found insane in Texas must be kept in custody up to 30 days. Then, the courts determine whether to release or commit the person to a state hospital. If committed, hearings are held annually to review progress and potential for release. Jefferson County prosecutor Ed Shettle said a recommendation to tighten release standards pleases him. Shettle is handling the case of Kenneth Pierott, charged with murder in April for the death of a 6-year-old Beaumont boy whose body was found in the oven at his mother's home. Pierott's lawyers plan an insanity defense for the 28-year-old, previously found innocent by reason of insanity in the 1996 fatal beating of his sister. "The system worked as it was designed to work in Kenneth Pierott's case," Shettle said. "Nobody dropped any balls. He just slipped through the system as it was designed, and a closer scrutiny of this guy may have prevented that subsequent offense." Kevin Keating, an assistant Harris County district attorney, said the law needs to be amended to make sure those found insane stay on medication following release. "Now, as it is, when somebody gets stabilized on their medication, it is hard to hold on to them," he said. Laney's lawyer, F.R. "Buck" Files, said a defendant who claims insanity admits the conduct as part of the defense. So when monitoring someone found insane, he isn't sure "what is too intrusive and not intrusive enough." Though Haynes applauds the legislative efforts, he says lawmakers are taking on an issue with no easy answers. "There isn't any way to wave a magic wand and say: 'Now, this problem is fixed,'" he said, adding he doesn't know a way "to prevent a person who is insane from doing an insane act." (source: Associated Press)
