Jan. 15 TEXAS: Gonzales' Unbelievable Argument The attorney general nominee claims he and then Texas Gov. Bush held "rolling" discussions before executions were approved. He's almost certainly not telling the truth. In 7 hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Alberto Gonzales demonstrated astute powers of evasion, obfuscation and equivocation when it came to the Bush administration's torture policy, leading one Democratic senator, Joseph Biden of Delaware, to ever so gently suggest that the attorney general nominee might be less than totally forthcoming. "So we're looking for candor, ol' buddy. We're looking for you when we ask you questions to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet. I love you, but you're not very candid so far." In the end, few senators wanted to sully the Gonzales love-in just because the sworn testimony of the soon-to-be rubber-stamped head of the nation's chief law enforcement agency was not entirely responsive. But if Gonzales was lacking in candor on the subject of torture, the main thrust of the hearing, he almost certainly crossed the line from half-truth to untruth when it came to a discussion of his role in the execution of 57 Texas death row inmates. In response to questions from Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales repeatedly stated that each of the so-called execution memos he wrote for then Texas Gov. George W. Bush was nothing more than a "summary" of what he suggested had been an elaborate, ongoing review process for each and every execution Bush approved. "It was not unusual - in fact, it was quite common that I would have numerous discussions with the governor well in advance of a scheduled execution," Gonzales told Feingold. "There would be a rolling series of discussions in connection with every execution." This explanation of how executions were reviewed is essential to Gonzales' defense of his record because the documentary evidence is so damning. What it shows is that the only reports Bush reviewed were Gonzales' 3-to-7-page summaries, which not only were heavily biased against clemency but repeatedly failed to make any mention of the most powerful claims on a defendant's behalf, including plausible claims of innocence. Rather than writing a balanced summation of arguments for and against commutation, Gonzales' work product was frequently little more than a brief for execution. Because the written summaries were so thoroughly unprofessional, Gonzales no doubt felt he had to downplay their significance in his Senate testimony. He did this by suggesting that the summaries were invariably preceded by a real meat-and-potatoes review - in-depth, scrupulous and balanced discussions of the evidence. Yet senators never asked Gonzales to substantiate this claim, which is unfortunate because Gonzales would have been hard-pressed to do so. In fact, in virtually all 57 cases for which Gonzales and his staff prepared written execution summaries (Bush signed off on 152 executions in all), there is no record of any additional work having been done for the governor. Gonzales wants senators and the rest of us to believe that in the 57 cases he chaperoned to the executioner, the most important and substantive work was done in ad hoc conversations, with no scheduled meetings and with nothing beyond his brief and one-sided memoranda committed to paper. But when did all these conversations about executions take place? Bush's appointment logs typically show one, and only one, 30-minute meeting per execution. And that meeting almost always took place on the day of the execution itself, leaving Gonzales little time to explore any issues or questions about an impending execution Bush might have raised. It was at those meetings that Gonzales presented his appallingly incomplete summaries of the cases. Gonzales told Feingold that if he "expressed concerns or questions" about an execution, "the governor would direct me to go back and find out and to be absolutely sure." Yet in not one instance did Gonzales actually write a memo or report for the governor following up, elaborating on or clarifying these life-or-death questions that both he and the governor claimed to take so seriously. Indeed, Gonzales wants senators to believe that these purported discussions, of which there is no record, were so thorough that by the time execution day rolled around and he presented his truncated written summary to Bush, there was no need to include in that document the most salient facts about a case - hence the persistent omissions. In his testimony, Gonzales could barely recall details of the notorious Carl Johnson sleeping-lawyer case or the Henry Lee Lucas serial murderer case, one of the most infamous death penalty matters to come before Bush, and 1 of only 2 Bush writes about in his autobiography. Yet Gonzales wants us to believe that he was able to keep the critical facts and details of the 57 cases he handled clear in his own mind and convey the crucial arguments in each to Bush without committing a single word - beyond the 11th-hour summaries - to paper. The written record on executions under Bush is both vast and meticulously cataloged by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, and it suggests just how implausible this claim really is. Records provided by the archives make it shockingly clear that in not one case did Gonzales send Bush a clemency petition, the one document that would have laid out the most forceful argument on behalf of an individual condemned to death. We also know from the archives' own review of the files left behind by Gonzales and his staff that for nearly every inmate executed under Bush, there was voluminous correspondence that never made it to Bush's desk - correspondence from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, district attorneys, local law enforcement officials, inmates, attorneys for the condemned, and family and friends of victims. "The letters are generally addressed to either the Governor or his General Counsel," a report prepared by the archives state, noting that "while many of the letters are directed to the Governor, they are stamped as received at the General Counsel's office and there is no indication that the Governor reviewed them" (emphasis added). The archives leave no doubt whatsoever that Gonzales could have provided Bush far more detailed information about each of these executions, but instead chose not to. In the end, Bush made his decisions on each of these life-or-death cases by relying almost entirely on the summaries Gonzales himself now dismisses, acknowledging that they were, at best, incomplete. "What the Governor did review are the execution summaries prepared by the General Counsel," the archives state in an analysis accompanying its "Inventory of the General Counsel's Execution Files." The archives found no other documents that had been reviewed by Bush. Astonishingly, the archives also make clear that far more complete execution summaries than those prepared by Gonzales were in his possession but were never presented to Bush. These confidential summaries, which have not been made public, were prepared by the Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. "There is a difference between the execution summaries prepared by the governor's general counsel [Gonzales] and those done by or for the BPP," the archivist states. "The summaries by the BPP contain more information about the crime, the criminal history and the defendant's prison record than do those prepared by the governor's general counsel. Additionally, execution summaries prepared by TDCJ or BPP often contain attachments, including correspondence between the BPP and inmates with victims and inmates' families, correspondence to the BPP from its legal counsel, recommendations from trial officials, medical and psychological reports, and criminal histories." These more complete summaries, the archives report, were sent to the governor's office along with affidavits, court records and clemency petitions - none of which Gonzales saw fit to submit to Bush, in all likelihood because Gonzales knew his boss would not be interested in them and had no desire to commute the sentences of anyone on death row. During the period that Gonzales was handling clemency matters for Bush, there were sometimes as many as 2 executions per week, as many as 8 in a single month. And Bush's top legal advisor would have us believe that the way he and Bush kept track of these executions and ensured that no innocent person died - and that all of the condemned had had a full and fair review in the courts - was through a series of informal discussions. That's just not believable. In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' " "What was her answer?" I wonder. "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." (source: Salon.com) ******************** 3rd trial begins in strangulation Attorneys on Friday began jury selection in the capital murder trial of Asel Abdygapparova, a 30-year-old woman from Kazakhstan accused of participating in the 2001 slaying of Rosa Maria Rosado. Rosado, a 37-year-old single mother from the Southeast Side, was snatched from a bus stop and taken to a motel where she was raped repeatedly and strangled. Her unclothed body was found April 2001 in a shallow grave near Loop 1604 and La Cantera Parkway. Abdygapparova is the third defendant to be prosecuted in the killing. Ramon Hernandez and Santos Minjares were each convicted of capital murder. Both are on death row. The state is seeking the death penalty against her as well. Abdygapparova led police to the body. According to court documents, she detailed how 2 men abducted Rosado and sexually assaulted her at the motel. Abdygapparova told authorities that she was ordered to leave the motel room to go buy a shovel - and when she returned, the victim was dead. Bexar County First Assistant District Attorney Michael Bernard said Abdygapparova's participation in the crime was more than mere presence, though he declined to go into detail. Defense attorney Carolyn M. Wentland maintained her client had no intention of killing Rosado, and that it was her actions that led to the arrests of the two men now convicted in the slaying. "The only reason that the authorities knew about this incident is because my client went to them," Wentland said. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will be questioning potential jurors individually about various issues, including the death penalty. Jury selection is expected to take 2 to 4 weeks. Testimony likely will begin in February. ********************* Little girl's death is ruled a homicide The Bexar County medical examiner's office Thursday ruled little Clarissa Ramos' death a homicide, a result of her head injuries. Police have not arrested anyone or issued any warrants but are investigating the case as capital murder, said a spokeswoman. Clarissa was rushed to the hospital Tuesday after her mother came home from running errands and found the 1-year-old baby's limp body, her forehead covered with bruises, in her playpen. Sindy Riojas' boyfriend of eight months, Roberto Hernandez, told Riojas the baby had climbed or fallen from her playpen and hit her head. Riojas, 21, was unavailable for comment Friday, but according to her father, Roger Riojas, she has not seen Hernandez since he was released from jail Thursday. Hernandez was arrested Tuesday night on unrelated charges at University Hospital, where Clarissa was taken after medical personnel determined the girl's injuries were too serious to be treated at Christus Santa Rosa Children's emergency room. He was arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant and also was charged with resisting arrest after a scuffle with a police officer. Family members at Hernandez's East Side home said the 20-year-old man was not home. Messages left for him were unreturned Friday. Roger Riojas said his daughter was grieving her loss. A Child Protective Services caseworker had just left his house, he said, to make sure it would be a suitable place for Sindy Riojas' other daughter, 4-year-old Desiree, who is in state foster care. The decision is ultimately up to a judge, who will preside over a placement hearing in about two weeks, "but it looks good for my wife and I to take Desiree," he said. (source for both: San Antonio Express-News) LOUISIANA: Legal battles over for Rideau's one-time journalism partner Louisiana's Supreme Court on Friday denied the latest appeal of Billy Wayne Sinclair, a convicted killer and former prison journalist who, together with fellow death row alumnus Wilbert Rideau, built the state penitentiary's prison magazine into a national award winner. Without comment, the Supreme Court turned back an appeal of a lawsuit in which Sinclair claimed that he was denied release by the state Board of Parole in retaliation for legal action he took against the state. But the issue was already moot according to Sinclair's wife Jody, who said Sinclair decided months ago to drop all legal actions against the state. In an apparent coincidence, the court's ruling against Sinclair came as Rideau was making what might be a last-ditch effort for freedom in a Lake Charles courtroom. In a hard-won fourth trial for a 1961 killing, Rideau is hoping for a lesser conviction of manslaughter and his release for time served. 2 members of the high court, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero and Justice Bernette Johnson, dissented from Friday's Sinclair ruling. They said in a brief note that they would have sent the case back to a district court for a hearing. But Jody Sinclair said Friday that, after losses in state and federal courts, Sinclair has given up his appeals. Almost 60 and in poor health, he is currently serving time at the C. Paul Phelps state prison in Dequincy and remains scheduled for release in April 2011. Rideau and Sinclair were both spared execution when the Supreme Court outlawed then-existing death penalty laws in 1972. They went on to become celebrated prison journalists, building the prison magazine at the state penitentiary in Angola into a national award-winner. But the two had a falling out at some point after Sinclair became embroiled in the pardon-selling scandal. Instead of paying $15,000 for freedom, he told federal investigators that pardons were for sale. The investigation brought down Pardon Board chairman Howard Marsellus. Sinclair was moved out of the state penitentiary, spent time at a north Louisiana prison and now is at Phelps. Jody Sinclair said her husband cannot open his eyes because of a so-far undiagnosed ailment that appears to be a neuromuscular disease. He also has heart problems, she said. The Louisiana Pardon Board recommended in 1991 that his sentence be cut to 75 years for the murder of a convenience store clerk, J.C. Bodden, during a 1965 robbery, but then-Gov. Buddy Roemer raised the commutation to 90 years. Under the law at the time, that made Sinclair eligible for release in 2011. Rideau won a new trial in 2000 on the charge that he killed bank teller Julia Ferguson following a 1961 robbery. He admits to the killing but is hoping this latest trial will result in no worse than a manslaughter conviction because he has already served more than the maximum sentence. A murder conviction would send him back to prison for life. (source: Associated Press) NORTH CAROLINA: Prosecutor, Police At Odds After Judge Throws Out Murder Confession Judge Says Police Violated Suspect's Rights Typically, prosecutors and law enforcement officers do not criticize each other, but with a murder case now in jeopardy, a cordial relationship has gone sour. Lies, schemes and elaborate set-ups are some of the tactics that police use to catch criminals, but a case in Orange County questioned whether law enforcement crossed the line. The fingerpointing involves the Orange County district attorney and the Carrboro police chief. Lt. John Lau, of the Carrboro Police Department, manufactured a murder warrant and formal letter, threatening Andrew Dalzell with the death penalty if he did not take officers to Deborah Key's body. He even signed District Attorney Carl Fox's name to the letter. Earlier in the week, a judge threw out the confession. Police Chief Carolyn Hutchison claims Fox knew about the plan and approved it. In the written statement, Hutchison said she never would have risked her own reputation or that of the department if she thought the plan crossed legal lines. Fox, though, insists he was not in on the deal. He said while he gave Lau some official letterhead, he did not know how he planned to use it. In court last month, Lau seemed to support Fox with his testimony. "I didn't tell him specifically what I was going to write on it," he said. Lau went on to say he thought Fox understood what he was going to do with the stationery. On Friday, Fox sent Hutchison a copy of the court transcript of Lau's testimony. (source: WRAL News) USA: Supreme Court Justices Spar Over International Law Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the "arrogance" of U.S. judges who seek to decide politically charged questions involving gay rights and the death penalty by citing international law. The conservative judge sparred Thursday with Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a rare televised debate at American University on the role of foreign judgments in deciding Supreme Court cases. Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including those decriminalizing gay sex and banning the execution of the mentally retarded. "What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Scalia said. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe? "Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he said, arguing that elected legislatures should make those decisions. Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society. "U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students ... it's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere." The debate foreshadows a divide on the Court over the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers, a ruling that could come as early this week. Four justices, including Breyer, have announced their willingness to strike it down, based in part on the overwhelming international sentiment against it. But Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, both fellow conservatives, have derided the relevance. If justices believe foreign judgments are decisive on these moral cases, they should ban abortion since most other countries do so, Scalia said. The event, which was broadcast live on C-SPAN, provided a rare televised look at the justices. Cameras are banned at the Supreme Court, and Scalia, who is no fan of the media, typically bars TV coverage and tape-recording of his public speeches. (source: Associated Press)
