Jan. 7 TEXAS----stay of impending execution Retardation issue blocks another execution A Texas death row inmate has won a federal appeals court order blocking his execution scheduled for this month. Lawyers for convicted killer Jose Briseno argued he is mentally retarded and that a jury hasn't been allowed to make that determination. The U.S. Supreme Court has barred execution of mentally retarded people. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower courts for additional review. The ruling Thursday keeps Briseno from receiving lethal injection that had been set for Jan. 20. Briseno, 47, was sentenced to die for the 1991 robbery and murder of Dimmitt County Sheriff Ben Murray. He was on parole for forgery when he was convicted of capital murder for the slaying of Murray, who had been sheriff of the far Southwest Texas county for almost 20 years. Murray, 68, had arrested Briseno in the past. A few weeks before his death, Murray had sought the parolee's help in a burglary investigation. The sheriff's body was found at his Carizzo Springs home. He had been shot with his own gun, and a butcher knife was buried in his chest. 2 of his pistols and about $500 were missing. Blood samples taken from the carpet at the sheriff's house matched Briseno's blood, and the sheriff's blood was found on Briseno's clothing. After his arrest, Briseno and 2 other inmates broke out of the Zavala County Jail in Crystal City and remained at large for a couple of days. At the time of the killing, Briseno had been on parole almost a year after serving about 6 1/2 years of a 15-year sentence for forgery. He had a pair of earlier convictions for burglary plus a parole violation that had returned him to prison. In 2002 he won a reprieve less than 4 hours before he could have been put to death. His latest reprieve leaves at least 7 Texas inmates with execution dates, including 2 others this month. On Tuesday, James Porter became the 1st Texas prisoner executed this year when he voluntarily went to his death for fatally beating a fellow inmate. 23 convicted killers were executed last year. (source: Associated Press) USA: Supreme Court expands its death penalty docket The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would review victories by death row inmates in Ohio and Tennessee, adding to an already busy year for capital punishment cases. While neither appeal involves blockbuster issues, they demonstrate the court's continuing interest in the death penalty and how it is imposed. Other cases the court is dealing with this term involve the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers, the rights of foreign nationals facing capital charges, and the practice of shackling death row defendants in front of the jury. The Ohio case gives the court a chance to clarify murder defendants' rights when they plead guilty. An appeals court had set aside John Stumpf's conviction in the 1984 slaying of a woman, on grounds that he was not fully informed about the details of the charge when he pleaded guilty. Ohio argued in its appeal that the decision could unsettle thousands of guilty pleas, in all types of criminal cases. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also found that Stumpf's rights were violated because the state argued that Stumpf shot the victim, Mary Jane Stout, but in a separate prosecution maintained that his companion, Clyde Wesley, was the shooter during the robbery. In the Tennessee appeal, justices will decide if the same appeals court was wrong to order more study of Gregory Thompson's case. Tennessee lawyers argued that the appeal was wrongly reopened by the lower court as Thompson's execution neared. Thompson was convicted of abducting Brenda Lane from a Wal-Mart parking lot on New Year's Day 1985, driving her to a rural area and stabbing her to death. The cases were among 9 that justices announced Friday they would hear this spring. The court had been running out of time to fill the April argument schedule, but Friday's additions put it back on track. The court also agreed to revisit a California murder case that challenges bias in jury selection. Last year the court dismissed Jay Shawn Johnson's case because lower courts were not finished deciding some issues. Johnson, who is black, was convicted of killing his white girlfriend's baby. The cases are Bell v. Thompson, 04-514; Mitchell v. Stumpf, 04-637; and Johnson v. California, 04-6964. ON THE NET ---- Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ (source: Associated Press) MASSACHUSETTS: Death penalty at issue in 4 cases----US weighs stakes in gang slayings A federal judge in Boston has given the government 3 weeks to decide whether it will seek the death penalty against 4 men charged with murdering rival gang members in a case slated for trial this spring. US District Judge Patti B. Saris ordered federal prosecutors this week to notify defense lawyers for the four -- Brima Wurie, Amando Monteiro, Angelo Brandao, and Louis Rodrigues -- by Jan. 27 whether they will push to have the men put to death if they are convicted. Monteiro, Brandao, and Rodrigues are charged with killing Dinho Fernandes on March 17, 1999, in Brockton; Wurie is charged with killing Luis Carvalho in Boston on Feb. 17, 2000. All four are accused of being members of Dorchester's Stonehurst Street gang, which operated in Brockton, Randolph, and Providence and also participated in numerous shootings and drug trafficking. The case would be only the 4th in the state in which federal prosecutors have sought the death penalty; Massachusetts does not have the state death penalty. Saris set the deadline, the first time a judge has done so in Massachusetts, at the request of defense lawyers, who argued that prosecutors have had more than enough time to make up their minds. The 4 were initially indicted 15 months ago. In the meantime, defense lawyers say they have been limited in how much they've been able to prepare for the April trial. "We've been waiting a long time," said Norman Zalkind, a Boston lawyer who represents Wurie, adding that the uncertainty has "left everybody in limbo." US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan makes a recommendation on whether to seek the death penalty, but the ultimate decision is made by the US attorney general. Sullivan declined to disclose his recommendation, saying he didn't want to try to influence the decision by outgoing Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. "We should give the [Justice] Department as much time as it needs," Sullivan said. "We shouldn't be forced to make a quick decision which we would end up regretting." Ashcroft is preparing to step down as attorney general, but Sullivan said he expects Ashcroft to make a decision in the case before he leaves. Wurie was notified at the time of his October 2003 indictment that the charges against him made him eligible for the federal death penalty. Monteiro, Brandao, and Rodrigues didn't become eligible for the death penalty until new charges were added against them in September. Monteiro and Rodrigues, however, were warned months before that the death penalty was a possibility. 9 codefendants in the case face numerous charges, but are not eligible for the federal death penalty. Zalkind said very few lawyers in Massachusetts are experienced at trying such cases. Under the law, judges are required to get lawyers from other states who are adept at trying such cases to serve as so-called learned counsel. There has been much controversy surrounding use of the federal death penalty in Massachusetts. The only defendant in the state sentenced under the federal death penalty was Gary Lee Sampson, a drifter who was convicted in December 2003 of killing two men during a series of carjackings. The only other federal death penalty case to go to trial here was that of Kristen Gilbert, a nurse who was convicted in 2001 of killing 4 patients at a veterans hospital in Northampton. The jury in that case rejected death. 2 men in another Boston gang case, Darryl Green and Branden Morris, face the federal death penalty when they go on trial this year in the slaying of a gang rival, 23-year-old Terrell Gethers, at Boston's Caribbean Carnival in August 2001. The decision by US prosecutors to seek the death penalty in gang cases has been criticized by Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, who believes that it hampers crime-fighting efforts by undermining partnerships between law enforcement and local ministers who have helped combat urban violence but oppose capital punishment. Conley wrote a letter to Ashcroft last year, urging him not to seek the federal death penalty in gang cases. Sullivan said he disagrees with Conley and supports the federal death penalty as "a tool that Congress has given prosecutors and that should be used sparingly," in the most horrific cases. In this case, E. Peter Parker, a Boston lawyer who represents Monteiro, acknowledges that without knowing why they were taking so long, it's difficult to fault the government for not making a decision. "If they really are doing an invidualized analysis, I can't fault them for that," he said. "However, if it's just bureaucratic inertia, that's a different story." Kevin McNally, a Kentucky lawyer with the Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, said it's not uncommon for judges to issue deadlines to force the Justice Department to make a decision. "I don't know what the problem is," he said. "It's a mysterious process sometimes." (source: Boston Globe)
