Jan. 11 NORTH CAROLINA: Police trickery taints confession In Hillsborough, a judge on Monday threw out Andrew Douglas Dalzell's confession that he strangled Deborah Leigh Key to death in 1997, deciding it could not be used in court because of the tricks and other methods Carrboro police used to obtain it. Members of Key's family sobbed as Superior Court Judge Wade Barber announced his ruling. "The [police] committed these violations believing that the ends justified the means," Barber said. "For this reason ... this court is compelled that the evidence be suppressed." Without the confession, sources familiar with the case say there is not enough other evidence to go to trial. In fact, in the nearly 7 years since Key's disappearance, police never developed enough evidence to arrest Dalzell for Key's murder. Orange-Chatham District Attorney Carl Fox said he may appeal Barber's ruling and, if he does, there would be no trial until after the appeal is heard and decided. Meanwhile, Dalzell remains charged with the 2nd-degree murder of Key and is in custody on the murder charge and for other, lesser charges. Dalzell, 28, confessed he strangled Key to death in the parking lot near a bar on Main Street in Carrboro on Dec. 1, 1997, according to Carrboro police. He told officers he took her body to Wilmington and put it in a Dumpster. Key has not been seen since that night, and her body has not been located. Dalzell confessed after Carrboro police tricked him into thinking he was being arrested for murdering Key -- instead of for larceny. Police also showed him a letter purported to be from the district attorney stating Fox would seek the death penalty against him unless he immediately told detectives where her body was. But after hearing arguments from Fox and Orange-Chatham Public Defender James Williams, Barber ruled to suppress Dalzell's confession for several reasons, including the violation of Dalzell's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He also ruled the police deviated from North Carolina criminal procedure laws. "The deviation was not only willful, it was planned," Barber said. "It was endorsed by the chief of the department." The arrest of Dalzell for murder in September came after police obtained warrants against him for stealing property and a credit card number from a Chapel Hill hobby store where he once worked. Dalzell, who had long been a suspect in the Key case, had just moved to Gaston County, and Lt. John Lau came up with a plan to trick him into thinking he was being arrested for the murder. When the officers went to arrest Dalzell in Stanley, about 140 miles from Carrboro, they showed him a fake arrest warrant that said he was being charged with 1st-degree murder, and the fake threatening letter. When they arrived at the Carrboro Police Department, Cpl. Seth Everett, who had shown some concern and kindness for Dalzell on the ride back, was allowed to go into an interview room and try to elicit a confession. Dalzell then made a statement about taking Key's body to Wilmington. After Dalzell made the initial statement, the officer left the room, and Lau came in and read Dalzell his Miranda rights and obtained a full confession. Using the fake warrant and letter was a threat to Dalzell that he would die if he did not confess, Williams argued before the judge made his ruling. Fox was complicit because he had provided the stationery for the letter, Williams said. "This letter, I would contend, was just as coercive as holding a gun to his head and saying, 'If you want to live, you'd better tell me what you know,' " Williams argued. "This letter is like a gun. This gun was provided by the district attorney. He provided the weapon, and it was loaded by Lau when he drafted that letter, and he put it to Andrew's head, and that was cheered on by [Carrboro Police Chief Carolyn Hutchison] when she said this was a brilliant idea." When the officers set out to elicit information from Dalzell in the way that they did, it was the same as questioning him, and if they wanted to question him, they were required to give him his Miranda rights, Barber said. The statement Dalzell made before he was given his Miranda rights was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights of self-incrimination, the judge ruled. The initial confession was not voluntary, and it was made under a threat of death and a promise of leniency, Barber said as he announced his ruling. The judge then ruled that the full confession he made after he was given his Miranda rights also would not be admitted in the trial. The officers did not properly advise Dalzell why he was being arrested in Stanley, and they did not take him to the magistrate without delay, as they are required to do under North Carolina law, Barber said. The officers did not allow Dalzell to call anyone and did not give him food until after he completed writing and typing out his confessions, which was about midnight, Barber said. "They were holding him for almost 9 hours while they coerced him to the point where they thought he would be sick," Barber said. After the judge made his ruling, Key's sister and mother seemed stunned as their friends and family members gathered around to try to console them. The Key family did not make a statement after the ruling. Hutchison, along with Lau and Everett and other officers, stood outside the courtroom and defended their investigation and actions and said they disagreed with the judge's ruling. "I don't believe we violated anybody's rights," Lau said. "We did our job. I think we were within the bounds of the law in everything we did." The case is not closed, but the police are back to where they were before Dalzell confessed, Lau acknowledged. "If we get a lead, we'll follow up on it," he said. The ruling was not surprising, Fox said, because as he prepared to make his arguments, he read the case law on similar issues and it was not promising. "I knew it was a 50-50 chance that the judge might rule against [the confession] in this case," he said. Fox will speak with appellate attorneys at the N.C. Attorney General's office this week to determine whether the case will be appealed, he said. "I'll confer with the AG's office about what they think the chances are on appeal," Fox said. "There's no reason to appeal the ruling if you think the courts are going to rule the same way on that issue." When asked what he thought the ruling meant, Fox replied, "What it says is that the court says you can not make end runs around Miranda. They will not tolerate it." Dalzell remains in custody, but Williams could file a motion to reduce his bond, and the judge would likely look on the motion favorably because of the lack of admissible evidence against him, Fox said. In addition to the murder charge and the charges for stealing the property from the hobby store, Dalzell also faces six charges of 3rd degree sexual exploitation of a minor, which is the equivalent of possession of child pornography. Those charges were brought on Sept. 21, after police found the material on his computer, which they seized from the residence in Stanley. Fox said he expects Williams will file motions challenging the search warrant that was used to seize the computer. (source: The Durham Herald Sun) VIRGINIA: Moussaoui takes appeal to Supreme Court Lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging the government's right to put the terrorism suspect on trial while the defense had no access to potentially favorable al-Qaida witnesses. The written brief questioned whether Moussaoui's constitutional rights would be violated if the defense was forced to rely on government-prepared summaries of interrogation statements from three al-Qaida captives. A federal appeals court has approved use of the summaries after the government argued that more direct access to al-Qaida leaders - or even their classified interrogation statements - would jeopardize national security. The lawyers said it was unconstitutional to force Moussaoui to rely on "summaries of classified documents containing information from unnamed, unsworn government agents purporting to report unsworn, incomplete, non-verbatim accounts" of witness statements. Moussaoui, a French citizen, was indicted in December 2001, and remains the only U.S. defendant charged in an al-Qaida conspiracy that includes the Sept. 11 attacks. The defendant has acknowledged his loyalty to Osama bin Laden but denies he was to have any role in the 2001 airplane hijackings. The lawyers appealed a ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would allow Moussaoui access to the summaries but still refuse direct access to the al-Qaida witnesses. The ruling also allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Most of the written brief was not immediately made public because it includes classified information. However, an unclassified portion of the brief - obtained by The Associated Press - raised questions of whether Moussaoui would be denied his right to a fair trial under 3 sections of the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said an unclassified version of the brief would be available in about a week. The lawyers said Moussaoui was denied rights under the Sixth Amendment, which allows defendants to compel testimony in their favor; the Fifth Amendment guarantee that defendants should not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; and the Eighth Amendment, banning cruel and unusual punishment. The lawyers posed these questions: - Whether the Sixth Amendment permits a death penalty case to go forward when direct testimony is replaced by the government-prepared, written summaries. - Whether the death penalty can be pursued when a defendant is denied, under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, access to information in the government's possession that could exonerate him or spare him from execution. The trial judge, Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., disagreed with the government's position that national security concerns prevented direct access to the witnesses or their statements. She penalized the prosecution for defying her orders to grant Moussaoui access to the witnesses - eliminating both the death penalty and any evidence related to the Sept. 11 attacks. To reach that conclusion, Brinkema found that the 3 al-Qaida witnesses had made statements that backed Moussaoui's contention that he was to have no role in the Sept. 11 attacks. The appellate court dismissed those penalties, but upheld Moussaoui's legal arguments. The court found there is no national security exception to a defendant's right to exculpatory information, and said the government's refusal to produce the witnesses in defiance of Brinkema's order would normally lead to dismissal. Nonetheless, the appeals court kept the case alive and ordered a compromise - allowing use of the government-prepared summaries. (source: Associated Press) INDIANA: It's time to review death penalty issues Our position is: Outgoing Gov. Joe Kernan has raised important questions about the death penalty in Indiana. Joe Kernan, in one of his last acts as Indiana's governor, raised serious questions about the fairness of rules regarding evidence in death penalty cases. New Gov. Mitch Daniels should make it a priority to find answers. Kernan on Friday commuted the sentence of death row inmate Michael W. Daniels, who was convicted of the 1978 murder of Allan Streett, a local minister. Michael Daniels will now serve life in prison without the possibility of parole. Kernan's decision marked the second time in 6 months that he had commuted a death sentence based partly on the court's inability to consider new evidence. He also granted a reprieve to inmate Darnell Williams in July. Kernan's concerns go directly to the quality of the legal process in the state's capital punishment system. As in Williams' case, Kernan questioned whether Daniels deserved to be executed when his co-defendants, Don Cox and Kevin Edmonds, received less severe punishments. Kernan was persuaded to grant Daniels clemency because his IQ was measured at 77, slightly above the level to be considered mentally retarded. Indiana reserves the death penalty for only the most heinous murder cases. But the fact that the courts were unable or unwilling to address flaws in two capital punishment cases suggests the system is still flawed. Kernan was courageous in pointing that out. Gov. Daniels should heed his advice. (source: Indianapolis Star) CONNECTICUT: Federal judge says Ross' father can't intervene The father of serial killer Michael Ross has lost a bid to enter the legal fray surrounding his son's death sentence. US District Court Judge Christopher Droney ruled today that Dan Ross does not have legal standing to challenge the lethal injection method of execution. The judge says Michael Ross -- and not his father -- is the one who should challenge the sentence. Michael Ross has decided to forgo all appeals available to him and face the death penalty on January 26th. He would be the 1st person executed in New England since 1960. Dan Ross and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union tried to get the federal court to hear their argument that execution by lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Droney says Ross' father failed to prove that his son is unable to file a lawsuit on his own. He also failed to prove that his son is incompetent and incapacitated. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court today refused to allow Ross' former public defenders to file an appeal on his behalf. The nation's highest court says the papers did not have Ross' signature and are not valid. (source: Associated Press, Jan. 10) ***************** Catholics Urged To Oppose Death Penalty----Norwich Diocese Seeks Signatures For Petition To Be Sent To Lawmakers Opponents of the death penalty cite many reasons to abolish it: It does not deter murderers, it is racially biased, innocents die. But for the Catholic Church, there is a single, doctrinal reason: "Human life is a gift from God that must be respected from conception to natural death." So wrote Norwich Bishop Michael R. Cote in a letter read to most of the 227,000 parishioners of the diocese's 78 parishes Sunday. Cote's letter accompanied a petition drawn up by the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, which is being circulated in churches across the state and will be collected Sunday to be sent to the General Assembly. With just 14 days remaining until the scheduled execution of serial killer Michael Bruce Ross, those behind the petition drive acknowledge that any act by the legislature may come too late. "It's a bigger issue than Michael Ross; it's the death penalty itself," said David W. Reynolds, the legislative liaison for the conference. "It's not about Michael Ross." Robert Nave, the executive director of the Connecticut Network, concurred. "First and foremost, we have to be very clear that our purpose is not necessarily to stop the execution of Michael Ross," Nave said. "Our purpose is to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut. Michael Ross may lose his life in this, but he is volunteering. Our purpose is not to save Michael Ross." Nave said he believes that some discussion of the death penalty will take place in the legislature before Jan. 26, Ross' execution date, but he is uncertain as to how far that discussion might go. While House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, has called for Ross' execution to go forward, lawmakers opposing capital punishment have promised a debate on the matter this year. Rep. Peter Tercyak, D-New Britain, has already introduced a bill calling for the repeal of the death penalty. But one of the likely leaders of that debate, Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the matter might not be addressed in his committee until after Jan. 26. "Whatever happens will be after the 26th, I'm pretty sure," Lawlor said Monday. "I still think it's possible it (the execution) could be postponed in other ways. (But) We'll do whatever we do on it after the 26th." In addition to the repeal bill, Lawlor said he expected a number of other "tinkering" measures to be raised, and added that having Ross out of the way could help lawmakers focus on the merits of execution, as opposed to the specifics of Ross' case. "If you wait until after the 26th, then you can have a debate about the death penalty, not Michael Ross," he said. Ideally, Reynolds said, the legislature would act before Ross' execution, "but given the time limits, I'm not sure that's going to happen." Also unclear is how many Catholics will sign the petition, doctrine notwithstanding. Nave, a Catholic, said that when he attended church on Sunday, there were people who did not sign the petition "either because they opposed it or were apathetic." On the other hand, he said, "I did hear many people say their minds were changed by this when they were reminded pastorally of the teachings of Christ, and that there is no place for the death penalty in those teachings." "I think it is a touchy issue, and there are Catholics on both sides of the issue," Reynolds said. He added that his office had not received any complaints from Catholics about the petition, but "they may directly complain to their pastors or to the bishop's office." Perhaps the Catholic community where the issue might be most controversial is that of the Norwich Diocese, which covers eastern Connecticut, where Ross raped and murdered 5 girls and women and murdered a 6th more than 20 years ago. Ross, who is serving two life sentences for 2 of those murders and faces death for the other four, is himself a Roman Catholic. Jacqueline Keller, spokeswoman for the Norwich Diocese, said Monday that she was unaware of any calls to the diocese about the bishop's letter. Pope John Paul II has said, "respect for human life must be profoundly consistent,'" Cote's letter reminds parishioners. "Specifically in regard to capital punishment, we note increasing reliance on the death penalty, which diminishes each of us," Cote writes. "The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life." Reynolds said he hoped Catholics would take the opportunity to reflect on the issue this week. "We're sympathetic to the families of the victims," he said. "But we don't feel the death penalty really services them. It doesn't deter crime; it doesn't prevent criminals from carrying out heinous crimes, and since 1976, about 117 people have been released from death row who were found to be innocent." But beyond all those arguments, he said, "To the church, it's the sanctity of human life. I think it's a mistake where you're killing somebody to show that killing is wrong." (source: The Day) ********************** 2 Fewer Obstacles To Execution----U.S. High Court, Federal Judge Reject Motions Made On Behalf Of Ross The U.S. Supreme Court and a federal judge in Connecticut Monday removed two potentially significant legal obstacles to serial killer Michael Ross' quest to be executed. The highest court in the nation rejected petitions filed on behalf of Ross by his former public defenders, who sought to appeal the state Supreme Court's ruling last summer affirming Ross' death sentences. And U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney refused to allow Ross' father, Dan - aided by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut - to intervene against his son's wishes, challenging the lethal injection process as cruel and unusual punishment. Droney, who heard arguments from lawyers and Michael Ross last Friday, deemed Ross competent to make the decisions he has made. Droney is now the second judge in two weeks to rule that Ross is mentally competent to proceed to his execution, raising the bar for Ross' former public defenders to argue they should be allowed to intervene because he is incompetent. New London Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford on Dec. 28 ruled that Ross was mentally competent and was acting knowingly and willingly. "Whatever the wisdom of Michael Ross' decision to forgo additional appeals, that decision alone does not suffice to establish his incompetence," Droney wrote. Droney dismissed the complaint, saying Dan Ross has no legal authority to act on his son's behalf. Despite those pivotal federal rulings, the legal landscape surrounding Ross' scheduled Jan. 26 execution continues to roil. The office of the chief public defender filed about 150 pages of documents in response to the state Supreme Court's order to detail why Ross' former lawyers think he is mentally incompetent to pursue this course of action. Chief Justice William J. Sullivan ordered the documents sealed temporarily, after attorney T.R. Paulding, who represents Ross, filed a motion saying the documents may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. Included among the documents are letters Ross wrote to his former lawyers, Paulding said. "Additionally, it appears [the public defenders] seek to introduce sensitive information for which there may be a basis to object," Paulding wrote in his motion. Also Monday, a prominent coalition of churches put the finishing touches on a lawsuit it plans to file today, appealing the state Board of Pardons and Paroles' rejection of its request for a commutation hearing on Ross' death sentences. The Missionary Society of Connecticut - an arm of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ - alleges that the board's failure to adopt regulations and procedures for death sentence commutations violates Ross' rights to due process. Unlike other efforts to halt Ross' execution, the church group does not seek to intervene on his behalf. "We are operating on behalf of our own interests, as citizens and as a community of conscience in the state of Connecticut," said the Rev. Davida Foy Crabtree, president of both the Missionary Society and of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ. The group is represented by prominent attorney James Wade, who did not return calls seeking comment. The Missionary Society, in a letter to pardons and paroles board Chairman Gregory K. Everett dated Jan. 3, demanded an immediate hearing on commutation of Ross' death sentences. Everett, in a letter dated Jan. 6, responded by citing affidavits Ross has signed stating he does not want to pursue appeals or clemency proceedings, and that only Paulding has the authority to represent him. Everett told Crabtree the society's longstanding opposition to the death penalty "does not provide legal standing to advocate on behalf of Mr. Ross." Everett on Monday said the board is under no obligation to adopt regulations or procedures for commutation hearings. The chairman and two board members would rule on any application to commute a death sentence. They are the only authority in the state empowered to commute a death sentence to life in prison. "There are no regulations on how to do pardons hearings, but we've done pardons hearings," Everett said. The one board combining the former Board of Parole and former Board of Pardons was created effective Oct. 1, 2004. The office of the chief public defender also has filed a second writ to the state Supreme Court, asking it to reverse Clifford's finding that Ross is competent. In a way it complements the public defenders' first writ, in which they challenge Clifford's ruling barring them from intervening in the case or participating in the Dec. 28 competency hearing. The public defenders contend that the hearing was not sufficiently adversarial to produce a fair and reliable result. Although Paulding cross-examined Dr. Michael Norko, the psychiatrist who deemed Ross mentally competent, Ross' former lawyers contend that Paulding and New London State's Attorney Kevin Kane both were seeking to establish that Ross is competent. They are asking the high court to reverse Clifford's finding that Ross is competent and order a new hearing. This second writ rounds out the public defenders' challenges to Clifford's rulings - a necessary prerequisite to appealing the state Supreme Court's ultimate decision in federal court. Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth said he was disappointed by Droney's ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of his office's petition to proceed. "Both the U.S. Supreme Court petition and the ACLU lawsuit were based on the claim that Mr. Ross is incompetent," Smyth said. "It would seem to be premature [to rule] when the question is still open before the Connecticut Supreme Court." Paulding welcomed Droney's decision in particular, because Droney emphasized Ross' knowledge of the legal issues and facts of his case and noted his "amply demonstrated competence before this court and other courts." "I do think we're making some headway," said Paulding, who is working full time to respond to the various lawsuits and confer with Ross regularly, and at length. "Each time a decision is issued it sets the tone for how the court systems are going to review these actions by third parties," Paulding said. "As that tone gets set, and it's more in favor of what Mr. Ross wants, I think it lends more credence to the belief that these are really not meritorious lawsuits. "I continue to feel the best witness to his competence is Michael himself," Paulding said. "Judge Droney felt the same way, and wrote about it extensively in his decision." Ross, 45, was sentenced to death for kidnapping and strangling 4 young women from eastern Connecticut in 1983 and 1984 - Robin Stavinsky, 19, of Norwich; Wendy Baribeault, 17, of Lisbon; and best friends April Brunais and Leslie Shelley, both 14 and from Griswold. He was given life sentences in the kidnap-murders of Tammy Williams, 17, of Brooklyn, Conn., and Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold. In addition, Ross has admitted to killing 2 women in New York in 1981 and 1982, when he was a student at Cornell University. Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano said he was encouraged by Droney's ruling as well as the earlier one by Clifford "confirming our position that Mr. Ross is competent." Ross last Oct. 6 told Clifford he wanted to forgo further appeals. It was on that date that Clifford sentenced Ross to die by lethal injection on Jan. 26. (source: Hartford Courant)
