Jan. 18
TEXAS:
No verdict in Vela trial; jury to reconvene today
After about 5 hours of deliberating on the fate of capital murder
defendant Juan "Joey" Vela, jurors on Monday were sent home and will
continue deliberations today, KRIS 6 News reported.
Vela, 24, is accused of killing his cousin, 18-year-old Isaac Maldonado,
and 19-year-old Jenna Patek last January. The victims were found dead in
an upstairs bedroom at the home of Maldonado's mother. Prosecutors claim
Vela confessed to a fellow jail inmate that he committed the murders and
they area seeking the death penalty. Defense attorneys say the witness is
lying in an effort to get his own sentence reduced.
(source: Corpus Christi Caller-Times)
******************
Potential jurors questioned
The 1st set of potential jurors answered questions Monday in Andre Thomas'
capital murder trial.
Thomas faces capital murder charges in the stabbing deaths of his wife
Laura Christine (Boren) Thomas, their son Andre Lee Boren, and Mrs.
Thomas' daughter, Leyha Marie Hughes.
Grayson County District Attorney Joe Brown, his first assistant Kerye
Ashmore, and defense attorneys Bobbie Peterson and R. J. Hagood were
expected to question seven potential jurors Monday.
The 1st juror was on the stand for just over two hours and was not
selected to sit on the jury.
The day started out with Ashmore giving the woman a brief but thorough
explanation of death penalty litigation in Texas. He explained to her the
fact that the trial will be split into 2 sections with the first being the
part in which the jurors will have to decide if Thomas is guilty of the
charges he faces. If the jury progresses past that point by finding Thomas
guilty, jurors will then consider whether Thomas should spend the rest of
his life in prison or die for the crimes.
Ashmore displayed his explanations on a huge screen while he discussed
legal concepts like burden of proof, insanity, competency, and mitigating
circumstances.
Because state law prohibits the attorneys from discussing the Thomas case
directly, the attorneys used hypothetical situations to illustrate their
explanations of the law in the case.
Ashmore told the woman that under Texas law, all persons charged with a
crime are presumed innocent and sane. It is the state's responsibility to
prove that a person committed a crime, but it is the defense attorney's
responsibility to prove that the person is insane.
"A person can have a severe mental illness and still not be legally
insane," Ashmore explained. He said, in order for a defendant to be found
not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the jury must find that
the person didn't know that the conduct in question was wrong at the time
it was committed.
Ashmore also explained that one could be legally sane at the time a crime
is committed but later be found incompetent to stand trial. He said
competency deals with whether a person is able to communicate sufficiently
with defense attorneys to aid in his own defense and not with the state of
mind one possessed at the time of the crime.
At several points during those explanations, Ashmore stopped and asked the
woman if she understood the concepts being presented. The woman said she
thought she understood the explanations, but noted that it was a lot to
take in at one time.
When Hagood took over the questioning, he introduced Thomas to the woman.
Thomas appeared to have gained weight since his return from a state
hospital several months ago. He dressed in casual slacks and a jacket for
the 1st day of individual jury selection.
When Hagood asked the woman what she had heard about what his client is
accused of having done, the woman said she had heard that he "mutilated"
the 2 children. The woman said the news reports were disgusting and that
the whole thing sickened her. She said she didn't hear or read any media
reports about Thomas' competency hearings. She then said that she works
around people who suffer from mental illnesses and that she thinks those
with mental illness should be held accountable for their actions just the
same as anyone else in society. The woman also agreed that suffering from
a mental illness "is not a matter of choice" and that some people can be
vastly different from day to day.
The woman and Hagood then spent a good deal of time going over the level
of proof the defense would be required to show to prove that Thomas
suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime. By law,
Hagood said, the defense only has to prove Thomas' mental condition by a
preponderance of evidence which is a significantly lower threshold of
proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold that the prosecution
must meet when trying to prove Thomas guilty.
The woman repeatedly told Hagood that she would hold the defense to
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas suffered from a mental
disease or defect at the time of the deaths.
When the questioning ended, prosecutors voted to accept the juror and
Hagood objected to her based on her answers about the level of proof he
would be required to show with regard to the mental health issues. Judge
James Fry overruled Hagood's objection. Hagood then used one of his team's
17 pre-emptory challenges or challenges without a specific reason to keep
the woman off the jury.
The set of questions the woman faced Monday morning will be repeated over
and over again as prosecutors and defense attorneys work their way through
the jury panel.
(source: The Herald Democrat)
******************
Attorney supports Schlosser, system----Lawyer aims to change views on
mental illness
The day before Thanksgiving, a judge called David Haynes with a request
that thrust him into a case that drew the world's attention.
Would he defend a Plano woman accused of cutting off her 10-month-old
daughter's arms - of killing her own child?
State District Judge Nathan White's question might bring hesitation from
some lawyers, but Mr. Haynes did not struggle for an answer.
"I said I would because he asked me," he said at his office, across the
street from the Collin County courthouse.
Mr. Haynes said he was simply next on the list of court-appointed lawyers.
It was his turn to take a capital murder case.
With that, Mr. Haynes embarked on a defense that has questioned the legal
system's handling of the mentally ill and placed his name in newspapers
across the country and as far away as Australia.
"I've been given the job of representing this woman, and I'll do the best
I can," he said not long after trading phone calls with the prosecutor in
the case, Curtis Howard.
Unlike attorneys for Texas mothers Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney, who
faced similar charges, Mr. Haynes was not well known outside his home base
before he was appointed to represent Dena Schlosser.
Ms. Yates was convicted of killing three of her children in 2001, but the
conviction was overturned this month. Ms. Laney was found not guilty by
reason of insanity in the 2003 stoning deaths of her 2 sons.
Ms. Schlosser is being evaluated to determine whether she is emotionally
fit to stand trial. Medical records show she was diagnosed with postpartum
psychosis last year. Emergency crews found her in her apartment Nov. 22
still holding a knife, with religious hymns playing. They rushed the baby
to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Used to the spotlight
Mr. Haynes - a former Boy Scout who teaches Sunday school has had his
share of local high-profile cases during his nearly 30-year legal career:
A man who shot and killed his wife outside a day care center. A client
convicted of murder whose death sentence was thrown out after testimony
revealed racism fueled his punishment.
Mr. Haynes also represented Robert Excell White, who spent nearly a
quarter-century on death row and was tried twice before he was executed in
1999 for the murder of a 73-year-old gas-station attendant.
But none of those cases caught as much international attention as Mrs.
Schlosser's. She was charged with capital murder in the death of her
daughter, Margaret.
Mr. Haynes is appointed to about four criminal cases a month. His practice
is a mix of family and criminal law. His wife of 23 years, Donna
Blackwell, works as his legal assistant. Their son Jonathan Haynes, 17,
works in the office during school vacations to earn extra cash.
Mr. Haynes, who turns 51 this month, sits behind a desk that is a mess of
papers and notes about phone messages. A box for a model plane and the
Texas penal code book sit among the clutter. Everything else in the office
is in perfect order. The model is one of thousands of planes and ships
that fill his home, his office bookshelves and a storage shed.
Mr. Haynes was born in Tulsa, Okla., and his family lived in New Jersey,
California and Oklahoma for his father's job as an aeronautical engineer
with American Airlines. Mr. Haynes decided to become a lawyer as a senior
in high school when his father was laid off from the airline.
"The lesson I derived from that was, don't work for a company. If you work
for a company, you're not safe," Mr. Haynes said, adding that his
achievements in history and English and struggles in math and science
aided his choice.
His love of history - especially regarding the military - is well known in
Collin County legal circles.
"He knows more about Napoleon's army than Napoleon does," said Bill
Schultz, the county's former first assistant district attorney.
Mr. Haynes is well respected by the judiciary and is known for his
thoroughness, integrity and attentiveness to his clients, Mr. Schultz
said. The men met in the late 1970s when both worked in the district
attorney's office. After Mr. Haynes left to become a defense lawyer, they
frequently found themselves on opposite sides of the courtroom.
"He's a good lawyer. He's committed to the practice of law," said Mr.
Schultz, who is semi-retired but has his own law practice. "He's just
consistent. He tries most cases the same way: He's prepared and thorough."
Mrs. Schlosser's parents call Mr. Haynes' legal mind extraordinary.
"I've been impressed with his strategic thinking and his commitment," said
Mick Macaulay, Mrs. Schlosser's stepfather, adding that the lawyer's
talked about the case with him, "and it makes sense."
Interests coincide
What Mr. Haynes likes best about practicing law is finding answers in the
past. Much of the law is based on precedent. It meshes well with his love
of history.
As Mrs. Schlosser's attorney, he's not sure he likes what he sees in how
the courts treat mentally ill defendants. He says the law and society
don't understand mental illness and often don't want to believe that the
person didn't know what they did was wrong.
"If we look back to the precedent of what to do with mental illness, we
used to ignore it and hang them anyway," Mr. Haynes said. "Our challenge
as a society and as individual people is how to respond to someone who is
mentally sick. ... They don't know better."
In Mrs. Schlosser's case, "Until we get her restored to competence, I
can't begin to talk to her and find out how her mind was when Maggie was
killed," he said. "If this isn't a case where she's not guilty by reason
of insanity, I'll eat my hat. ... This person is more mentally ill than
any person I've met in 27 years of practicing law."
Most people who come in contact with Mr. Haynes and Ms. Blackwell - even
their plumber - offer an opinion about Mrs. Schlosser.
"'How can you take this case?' they say," Ms. Blackwell said. "They think
she's a bad person. They don't think about the fact that she's sick."
(source: Dallas Morning News)
*****************
Advocate battling to the last
In December, Beverly George Bryan was crying. She had had it.
Her son, who once spent time in jail on a murder charge, was having
trouble with the probation office.
Her home state, Texas, had another execution scheduled. That same week,
North Carolina was also prepared to do the same to a man with
schizophrenia.
Suffering from a terminal case of pernicious anemia, she also was battling
pneumonia.
When you don't have your heath, what's a mental health advocate to do?
It's a job that has taken so much life out of Bryan, who runs the
Texas-based Advocacy & Protection for People with Mental Illness. She
coughs repeatedly, and she's seen and felt herself age, quickly. She's up
against a state that views what she does as mere folly, she says. It's a
state that believes in "cuffin'-and-stuffin'," not rehabilitation or
treatment.
But years after she successfully had her son's conviction overturned,
Bryan keeps going.
She won't stop, she says, until she gets justice for the hundreds of
people with mental illness who can't speak up for themselves.
"You don't have any idea what the shock was to my family. We were a
middle-class family," said Bryan, referring to her son's conviction and
incarceration.
"You start walking around and saying, 'This can't be happening.'"
She said her son, Aaron, is mentally disabled and socially retarded. He's
also schizo-affective and bipolar manic-depressive, and has panic attack
disorder and attention deficit disorder, a learning disability. He has
struggled with these illnesses all of his life.
On March 25, 1996, Aaron's 7-week-old son quit breathing. He shook him to
try to make him breathe, causing an aneurysm. The baby died. Aaron was
sentenced to 60 years for murder and 40 years for injury to a child.
As in so many of these cases, law and order is almost always the final
solution. But mental health advocates - typically ones like Bryan, whose
family was "wronged" by the system - work day and night to bring attention
to the plight of inmates with mental illness.
Many have failed to convince government officials that "treatment" should
not come in the form of a 5-by-8 cell - or, in a growing number of cases,
execution.
But it's a battle that advocates don't shrink from. The tougher it gets,
the more involved they become in the cases of prisoners with schizophrenia
who are condemned to life in prison, or death.
With the effectiveness of the death penalty under scrutiny, they've
rallied to protest - and some cases, even stop - public officials from
carrying out their plans.
Organizations such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill have
issued press releases, and they've made public pleas to stop executions of
prisoners with mental illness. They write letters to the parole boards and
the governors, and ask for leniency - or mercy.
Individual supporters of mental health causes have reached out to
dignitaries such as former President Carter and even the pope, who have
made similar pronouncements.
Their long-range goal is treatment. The short-term objective is life, and
perhaps a recognition by public officials that treatment should be an
option before the crime is committed - not later. While they're mostly
concerned about their own, personal cases, they grow attached to others
who suffer the same way.
They work hard to change a system that could easily fail them once again.
"No reasonable mind would believe otherwise," said Texas attorney Jesse
Quackenbush, who has fought to clear the name of a man with mental illness
who committed murder 2 decades ago.
They've had mixed success. But they've rejoiced in their victories.
Following his conviction for killing his in-laws, Scott Panetti's former
wife and daughter of the victims filed petitions stating that Panetti
never should have been tried for murder in Texas since he was suffering
from paranoid delusions at the time.
Panetti, who was scheduled for execution last February, was granted a stay
that allowed his lawyers to ask the state to determine whether he
understands that he is to be executed and why.
In North Carolina, advocates successfully prodded Gov. Michael Easley to
stay the execution of Charles Walker, a man who has schizophrenia, in
December. Without the help of advocates, Walker may have been put to
death.
"Our current system of justice inadequately addresses the complexity of
cases involving people with mental illnesses," said Michael M. Faenza,
president of the National Mental Health Association.
"Until more just, accurate and systematic ways of determining and
considering a defendant's mental status exist, North Carolina and other
states must suspend death penalty use."
Some argue that mental illness is merely an excuse, not a free pass that
justifies removal from the ultimate penalty.
As governor of Texas, President Bush opposed laws that would prevent the
execution of the mentally retarded, saying a jury should consider "all"
evidence when deciding whether capital punishment is appropriate.
Bryan works to reverse such perceptions.
On her son's case, she hired prominent criminal-defense lawyers and
connected to a network of mental health advocates who provided her
counsel.
She also individually took up her son's cause, constantly calling his jail
and making sure that Aaron got care that was - at best - tolerable.
Now that Aaron is out on parole, she's remained connected to her mental
health support network, and she's rallied and talked to the media about
reform. She'll keep going, she says, so long as she has a life to give.
"We cannot give up this fight for justice, not only for my son but for the
sons of all of you," Bryan said.
(source: The Record)
CONNECTICUT:
Imposing Executions Makes Us Serial Killers
Letters To The Editor:
As a teen growing up in New York City, I had an acquaintance who in the
commission of a robbery, killed the storekeeper. He was convicted and
later executed. This was a watershed event that moved me from revulsion
for the death penalty to what is now my firm conviction.
I do not intend to diminish in any way the sympathy I feel for the
families of April Brunais, Robin Stravinsky, and Wendy Baribeaut. I pray
that in the future we will remember their names and their grieving family
members as well as we will remember Michael Ross.
However, this is not about Michael Ross. It's about the collective us. Are
we to become that which we despise? When Michael Ross is executed,
Connecticut will open the door to becoming a serial killer of others on
death row. I mourn this. Why is the U.S. the only Western civilized nation
that continues to allow this? What do we gain? We have not deterred
murderers.
Our society has the ability to keep Michael Ross isolated and be assured
that he will not harm another innocent person. When life in prison without
parole becomes the highest possible punishment the justice system can mete
out, we as a society will have acknowledged the horror of the crimes and
close the door on the continued notoriety of the murderer. We will join
other civilized nations that do not punish killers by killing them.
I would not venture to state that Michael Ross will burn in hell. This is
not my concept of how a merciful God receives a repentant sinner.
Jane Engelke----Mystic
(source: The Day)
