Jan. 19 CONNECTICUT----impending execution Residents Agree With Rell: Let Ross Die Gov. M. Jodi Rell's refusal to stop the execution of serial killer Michael Ross has the approval of 81 percent of state residents, according to a University of Connecticut poll released Tuesday. In a related development, House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said his own continuing poll of House Democrats is finding no significant appetite for a death penalty debate before the scheduled execution of Ross on Jan. 26. Amann said he has spoken privately with 37 of the 98 members of the Democratic majority and found that opinion is running 3-1 against holding a floor debate in the remaining days over repealing capital punishment. Many opponents of capital punishment, he said, told him that a repeal effort tied to the Ross execution is doomed to fail - an opinion supported by a new UConn poll conducted for The Courant. The UConn poll found that 58 % of residents favor the death penalty and 33 % oppose it, which is generally consistent with past polls in Connecticut and nationally. The difference in the new poll is that support for the death penalty has intensified - more people strongly support it - as Connecticut nears its 1st execution in nearly 45 years. In a UConn poll in July 2003, the same percentage of respondents expressed support for the death penalty as did so in the new poll. But in 2003, 25 % said they strongly supported the death penalty, while 33 % said they somewhat supported it. Those percentages have flip-flopped: 34 %now strongly support the death penalty, and 24 % somewhat support it. "If the focus on the Ross case has done anything, it has intensified people's opinion about the death penalty," said Kenneth Dautrich, director of the UConn poll. The new poll also found the same contradictions evident in previous polls. The support for the death penalty seems to waver when alternatives are offered. Only 32 % of residents said they supported the death penalty when asked if the punishment for 1st-degree murder should be death, life in prison or life in prison without possibility of parole. 58 % said they would prefer one of the 2 life-sentence options. Yet 76 % said they favored the execution of Ross, who has admitted his guilt and dropped his appeals. "Thinking about the specifics of this case, they overwhelmingly think death is appropriate," Dautrich said. He said he believes the findings show that a specific case will tend to tilt people toward support of the death penalty. Rell cannot commute a sentence of death, but she has the authority to delay an execution. Last month, she announced that she would not halt the Ross execution, and she promised to veto any bill repealing the death penalty. Amann said he would support a House debate on the issue if he believed one was supported by his caucus. Many opponents of the death penalty say repealing the law, which always was a long shot, is an impossibility as long as the public equates capital punishment with the Ross case. That did not stop protesters Tuesday. More than 30 opponents of capital punishment wandered the Capitol, urging their local representatives to support abolition. They wore stickers that said, "Don't kill in my name." Complete poll results are available at www.ctnow.com. ******************* Legal Wrangling Over Ross Continues Attorney James Wade and the Missionary Society of Connecticut took a different legal tack Tuesday to halt the execution of serial killer Michael Ross scheduled one week from today, arguing the lack of written regulations to commute a death sentence makes it impossible for the Board of Pardons and Paroles to undertake a meaningful review. "You can't kill Mr. Ross yet because you haven't got the regulations together to do that properly," Wade argued to Superior Court Judge Robert Beach Jr. in Hartford. "What's the rush?" But the Missionary Society faces the same legal obstacle as the state's public defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut and Ross' father, Dan Ross, in their efforts to stop the execution. Michael Ross has been deemed mentally competent to forgo further appeals and opt for death, and he does not want anyone intervening on his behalf. Ross also is represented by private counsel, attorney T.R. Paulding, who has guaranteed a legion of judges in recent weeks that he will immediately notify the courts if Ross changes his mind. The Missionary Society, a division of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, earlier this month formally requested a commutation hearing in the Ross case, which was promptly denied. Gregory Everett, chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, told the society the board would consider applications only from the condemned inmate or his lawyer. "The Missionary Society of Connecticut does not represent Mr. Ross and has no standing to make such arguments on his behalf," Everett wrote. Wade said the Missionary Society was not representing Ross, but the interests of society as a whole. "Because they are killing him in our name - in the name of everyone in the state of Connecticut. ... We are here asking to advocate a matter that protects the public's interests as a whole." Wade noted there are provisions in state law for citizens to act as a "special attorney general" to litigate public interest matters in the absence of interest or action by public officials. The status has been invoked primarily in environmental cases. "Everything should come to a halt until they do their duty and adopt regulations," Wade argued. Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom, representing the board, said there is no requirement that its members adopt regulations. Strom said the board does have a policy - to entertain commutation requests from the convict facing execution or his lawyer, and no one else. The legislature last year combined the separate Board of Pardons and Board of Parole into a single entity, effective last Oct. 1. "In the past they had pretty much unfettered discretion to do whatever they wanted to do," Beach noted. "They still do," Strom asserted. Strom also argued that Beach should dismiss the Missionary Society's appeal under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, because the organization did not exhaust its administrative remedies. "If Attorney Wade was that concerned about the lack of regulations, he could have petitioned the board back in October to adopt regulations," Strom said. Wade said during the arguments that a clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court had contacted him about the suit. "They're interested in the case," Wade told Beach. "If I'm right, a delay is just a delay, whereas failing to grant something is forever." The U.S. Supreme Court routinely monitors state litigation in capital cases in which an execution date is imminent, and has a specific clerk assigned to the task. It is not clear whether the inquiry to Wade signals any special interest the court has in the issues he has raised. Strom insisted the Missionary Society's complaint doesn't raise any issues of federal law. "There is no federal constitutional right to a pardon or to a commutation," Strom said. Paulding told Beach that Ross signed an affidavit Jan. 9 stating that he does not want to ask the board to commute his death sentence to life in prison. "Whether there were or are regulations really is not relevant to him," Paulding said. Beach said he will rule today on whether the Missionary Society is an aggrieved party with legal standing to challenge the lack of regulations. In other developments on the legal front Tuesday: The Office of the Chief Public Defender and the Office of the Chief State's Attorney filed briefs with the state Supreme Court on whether the high court should dismiss the public defenders' 2nd petition challenging the Dec. 28 ruling that Ross is mentally competent to proceed to his execution. The Supreme Court last Friday denied a related challenge by the public defenders, who had represented Ross for 17 years. The public defenders were barred by Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford in New London from participating in the competency hearing because they no longer represent Ross and Paulding does. The public defenders also renewed their motion that the state Supreme Court stay the execution. Superior Court Judge Stanley T. Fuger Jr. in Rockville denied requests by the public defenders and attorney Jon Schoenhorn, representing Dan Ross, to reconsider his Jan. 3 ruling that they could not intervene and file a habeas petition on Michael Ross' behalf. Fuger told Ross on Jan. 3 that he had until 2 a.m. Jan. 26 - a minute before his scheduled execution - to file a habeas petition. Fuger assured Ross he would grant a stay of execution immediately. If Beach rules the Missionary Society has no legal authority to challenge the lack of regulations for commuting a death sentence, Wade has said he will ask the state Supreme Court for an immediate review. The last execution in Connecticut - and in New England, for that matter - was that of Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky on May 17, 1960. Ross, 45, would become the 1st in the state to be executed by lethal injection. He was sentenced to death for the kidnap-murders of 4 young eastern Connecticut women. He has admitted to strangling 8 women in all, after raping most of them. (source for both: Hartford Courant) ********************* Settlement Reached In Lawsuit Over Access To Ross Execution Site The state Department of Correction and several anti-death penalty organizations have settled a federal lawsuit over where people can gather to protest the Jan. 26 execution of condemned serial killer Michael Ross. Both the DOC and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, which represented the groups, confirmed Wednesday that the settlement had been reached. However, they would not release details of the agreement until a federal judge signed off on the deal. The judge was expected to sign the agreement Wednesday afternoon. But Brian Garnett, a DOC spokesman, said protesters will have "greater access" to the execution site. "This is a continuation of the efforts that the Department of Correction has undertaken to reach out to and compromise with potential demonstrators to ensure they can exercise their constitutional rights within the bounds of safety and security," he said. The groups, including the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, claimed that the DOC's original plan to establish "protest zones" in fields about 1.5 miles from the execution site violated their constitutional right to free speech. They filed a lawsuit in the New Haven U.S. District Court seeking to gain access to the public roads leading to Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, where Ross is scheduled to die by lethal injection just after 2 a.m. on Jan. 26. "Our purpose is to be heard, not to stand in a field," Robert Nave, executive director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, said last week. He has accused the state of trying to "sanitize" the execution - the first in Connecticut since 1960. Nave was expected to comment on the new arrangements Wednesday afternoon. Ross, 45, has admitted killing 8 women in Connecticut and New York, and is on death row for the murders of 4 young women in eastern Connecticut in the 1980s. He also raped most of the women. (source: Associated Press) CALIFORNIA: Defense wants probe into DA leaks Defense attorneys want to question current and past employees of the District Attorney's Office under oath to find out whether they leaked confidential information to the media about an upcoming death-penalty trial. Lawyers for triple-murder suspect Jimmy Dale Kelley want county prosecutors thrown off the case, claiming the leaks may be part of an unethical campaign to harm Kelley's defense efforts. Among those the defense wants to question is former Deputy District Attorney Grover D. Merritt, who was fired in October ostensibly over allegations that he was the source of the leak. Also on the list is Rebecca Rinkes, a secretary in the District Attorney's Office who was involved in a 1986 car crash with Kelley that killed one of her passengers and injured another. Merritt, Rinkes and other employees of the District Attorney's Office could be called to testify at a hearing for Kelley on Jan. 27 in San Bernardino Superior Court. Deputy Public Defender Joe Canty declined to comment on behalf of Kelley on Tuesday. Prosecutors said the defense would find no evidence of a campaign of bias because there is none. "They had to bring this out of an abundance of caution,' Deputy District Attorney Michael McDowell said. "I just don't think it's going to fly.' Prosecutors say Kelley, 36, and Kimberly Jayne Michaud, 29, shot and killed Patty Crevoisier, 49, William Landers, 43, and Ward Phillips, 37, on Jan. 25 at Crevoisier's home on Joshua View Drive in Yucca Valley. Authorities suspect the two knew Crevoisier and went to her Yucca Valley home intent on robbing her. Kelley's lawyers claim he has not been treated the same as other defendants. They say the District Attorney's Office rushed to announce it would seek the death penalty. The defense is also concerned about the sources of several newspaper articles published about the case in the spring. One, published by Valley Wide Newspapers a chain of small papers in the High Desert cited a confidential internal memo from the District Attorney's Office quoting the rationale for seeking the death penalty. Such documents are not public record. Kelley's attorneys say in their filings that they want to call Merritt and Rinkes to the witness stand, as well as Deputy District Attorney Julie Peterson, who is prosecuting the case, and Supervising Deputy District Attorney Linda Root, who oversaw the filing of charges. Merritt's firing in October shocked the local legal community. He was highly regarded for his work ethic and keen legal mind. He confirmed on Tuesday that he received a subpoena but declined to comment further. He has denied being the source of the leak and has requested a public hearing to appeal his firing. Valley Wide Newspapers has also denied Grover was their source, hinting that they obtained their information via a backdoor in the district attorney's computer system. Rinkes apparently was the driver of a car in 1986 that was hit by Kelley. The woman's nephew was killed in the crash and her son was injured, according to court records. Kelley was later convicted of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence for the crash. Rinkes was not reached for comment Tuesday. (source: San Bernardino County Sun) **************** Death penalty sought for suspect in Ruiz murders<>P> Prosecutors said Tuesday they plan to seek the death penalty against a South Whittier man accused of murdering a neighbor and 3 members of the neighbor's family more than 2 years ago. Family and friends of the victims and defendant Alfonso Ignacio Morales, 26, came to Norwalk Court on Tuesday expecting to see the start of jury selection or witness the judge make decisions about the evidence that will be introduced at the trial. Neither of those things happened. Instead, Judge Michael A. Cowell granted a defense attorney's request for additional time to file motions. Morales' trial is now set to start with jury selection Feb. 22, court officials said. Morales is accused of killing Miguel "Mike' Ruiz Jr., 37, and Ruiz's wife, grandmother and 8- year-old daughter at their Gunn Avenue home in July 2002. The case has taken more than 2 1/2 years to prepare because of the extent of the evidence, the fact that there were multiple slayings and the possibility of the death penalty, said Deputy District Attorney Alva Lin, who is prosecuting the case with Deputy District Attorney Phil Glaviano. In court Tuesday, Deputy Public Defender Jerry Weil said he had just received a stack of evidence documents from the prosecution team. He anticipated filing more motions, depending on the information. Cowell gave him until Feb. 2 to do so. Lin said the documents included duplicates of reports already handed over to the defense and additional notes made by fingerprint technicians and other crime lab personnel. Cowell said at the next court appearance he will listen to arguments about evidence and issue rulings on any outstanding motions. On July 13, 2002, a relative discovered the bodies of Mike Ruiz Jr., his wife, Maritza Trejo, 41, his grandmother, Ana Louisa Martinez, 79, and the couple's daughter Jasmine. A medical examiner said the little girl had been sexually assaulted and asphyxiated. The adults were stabbed to death. Homicide detectives have said Morales and Mike Ruiz had been friends. Ruiz was teaching Morales how to repair computers in his spare time. Witnesses told investigators that the two had an argument over money and, about 2 weeks before the killings, Ruiz banned Morales from the Ruiz family home, detectives said. (source: Whittier Daily News) MONTANA: Judge rejects death-row inmate's appeal In helena, a federal judge has rejected death-row inmate William Gollehon's recent attempt to overturn one of his murder convictions. His attorney, Michael Donahoe, said U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell's ruling will be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a ruling released Tuesday, Lovell concluded that none of the many arguments raised by Donahoe about the 1991 murder trial were enough to overturn Gollehon's conviction in the baseball bat beating death of fellow inmate Gerald Pileggi. Gollehon is 1 of 4 inmates on Montana's death row. He has been convicted of 7 murders -- including that of a Billings woman in 1985 and 5 men who were killed during the 1991 Montana State Prison riot. In an October hearing, Donahoe argued that Gollehon's constitutional rights were violated during the Pileggi trial. The alleged violations include allowing potential jurors to be dismissed based on their feelings about the death penalty; double jeopardy, because the jury had to acquit Gollehon of murder before they could find him guilty of murder by accountability; and not being able to delve into the criminal background of the two inmates who testified against Gollehon. In his 48-page ruling, Lovell wrote that the previous judge, jury and prosecutors had all followed the law. Lovell said state law allow prospective jurors to be excluded from sitting on a jury if they couldn't convict a person, regardless of the evidence in the case, because they oppose the death penalty. Lovell said a juror was dismissed because she could not "assure the court that she (would) obey the court's instructions and follow the law." Lovell also rejected the double jeopardy argument. "The Montana Supreme Court ruled that "Deliberate Homicide by Accountability" is not a separate crime from "Deliberate Homicide," but is merely a factual variation that can be used to prove the offense," Lovell wrote. "It is unfortunate that the verdict form required the jurors to mark the "not guilty" box for Count I if they desired to mark the "guilty" box for Count II, but if this is an error, it is one merely of form and not at all of substance." Gollehon also argued that if he might not have been found guilty of murder if he had been allowed to argue that the prison housed one of the inmates testifying against him in the Powell County Jail for his protection. Lovell rejected that theory, stating that "providing housing in the local jail to J.D. Armstrong was probably the only way to guarantee safety to J.D. Armstrong, given the conduct of (Gollehon) during the prison riot just days before Pileggi trial," Lovell wrote. He also noted that Armstrong testified that he had been promised safety in exchange for his testimony. Lovell also threw out a claim that Gollehon didn't get a fair trial because he wasn't able to bring up one of the witnesses' criminal background. Lovell said the jury knew the pertinent information about the witness' past, and his convictions for burglary and theft weren't relevant to the trial issues. (source: Associated Press) PENNSYLVANIA: To Die For?----Dying for the lack of a good lawyer. In January 1988, Ronald Rompilla entered the Cozy Corner Caf in Allentown, Penn., stabbed the proprietor, James Scanlon, then set him on fire. Rompilla was tried for murder before a jury, and at the penalty phase the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence of Rompilla's prior violent felony conviction for the rape and stabbing of another bar owner as an aggravating factor that would lead to imposition of the death penalty. In his closing arguments, the prosecutor scared the pants off the jurors: But isn't it frightening, the similarity between that case and this case ... he slashes [the woman] in the breast with a knife. He uses a knife on Jimmy Scanlon. It's absolutely frightening to think of the similarities in those two crimes. But there is one difference, one major difference, [the woman] lived through her experience. Jimmy Scanlon didn't. ... Rompilla had learned a lesson ... don't leave anybody behind that can testify against you. As it began its deliberations, the jury sent out a series of questions to the judge, including one asking whether there was any chance of Rompilla ever being paroled. Even though Pennsylvania law required a life sentence without a chance of parole, the judge refused to answer the jury's inquiries, and the jury ultimately voted for the death penalty. One of the questions the court needs to address this morning is whether the prosecution's words to the jury constituted a warning about his "future dangerousness." If it did, Rompilla argues that under a 1994 case, Simmons v. South Carolina, the jury needed to be instructed that life without parole was a sure thing. But that's not all. Rompilla also has a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. His trial lawyers failed to investigate or present to the jury a set of prior criminal records, detailing a slew of mitigating factors, including his alcoholism, mental retardation, and traumatic childhood. The jurors sentenced him to death after finding several aggravating factors and without hearing about consequential mitigating ones. Rompilla lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court twice before filing a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. He lost there on the issue of jury instructions but won his claim of ineffective counsel. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, reinstating the death penalty and finding that trial counsel's performance was adequate and that the prosecutor's words at closing did not constitute an argument about future dangerousness. Which brings us all back to the Supreme Court, where Rompilla faces either execution or a lifetime in prison. Billy H. Nolas is an assistant federal defender, and he opens with the ineffective counsel claim. Rompilla must show that his lawyers didn't just make tactical errors, but that their representation was inadequate. Nolas argues that the trial lawyers "didn't secure a single piece of paper" to investigate possible mitigating factors. Justice Anthony Kennedy stops him: "Are you asking for a constitutional rule that counsel has to get paper records?" He adds that the defense put on three forensic mental-health experts who didn't think they needed to look at those prior records either. Nolas replies that those 3 experts were not asked to develop evidence of mitigating evidence - they were supposed to evaluate whether Rompilla was mentally fit to stand trial. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor points out that counsel also "made use of 4 relatives of the defendant ... wouldn't a reasonable person think that was enough?" Nolas replies that those relatives couldn't illuminate Rompilla's terrible past because, among other things, members of dysfunctional families "don't want to talk about it." Justice David Souter notes that one of the three mental-health experts had suggested following up on Rompilla's alcoholism. "Was anything done about that?" (No). Then Ginsburg adds that the relevant file with all the un-pursued mitigating evidence was "in the very same courthouse" Rompilla was tried in. Nolas enthusiastically adds that the file would have revealed Rompilla's dismal test scores, diagnoses of schizophrenia and paranoia, and the fact that he was raised in a slum by a neglectful mother. Justice John Paul Stevenswho has taken to lobbing a lot of softballs of late-adds, "You're telling us that all this information would have been in that file and his lawyers didn't even look at that file?" Nolas turns to the jury instruction issue, and O'Connor points out that the prosecutor never "expressly" warned the jurors of Rompilla's future dangerousness. Neither Kennedy nor Justice Antonin Scalia believes that the prosecution comments were even implicit warnings of future dangerousness. The language about his past killings and how he learned to leave no witnesses show only "depravity" according to Scalia. "Of course jurors will be scared of him." Nolas points out that it was clear from the jury questions about the possibility of parole that "they got the message of future dangerousness." Amy Zapp is the Chief Deputy Attorney General from Harrisonburg, Penn., and Souter corners her for a lengthy back-and-forth about whether prosecutors need to actually use the "talismanic wordsfuture dangerousness" in order to give jurors the message that someone needs to be locked up for life or executed. "This isn't about generalized badness," he says. It's a warning of "criminal recidivism. It's closer to the explicit argument that he'll do it again." Replies Zapp, "We're only talking about 2 episodes. ..." Stevens wants to get back to the ineffectiveness of counsel argument. "I am sympathetic," he says, "to busy lawyers preparing for a case. But when the prosecutor said he would use these files to show aggravating factors, and if defense counsel had examined those files they'd find a wealth of mitigating evidence. ... " "But not all records are equal," says Zapp. "They thought they knew everything in it." The oddity of these ineffective counsel cases lies in watching the opposing side argue so zealously that defense counsel were glittering legal stars at trial. Breyer re-asks Stevens' question for him, but at great length, and using the words "horrendous" several times. It's clear that he, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter think these were some seriously crap lawyers. Zapp's response is that counsel had interviewed Rompilla and they thought that was enough. Kennedy observes that this is an "argument for serendipity. If you don't look at the record for one reason, it's ok not to look at it for another." Traci I. Lovitt is given 10 minutes to represent the Justice Department, and she chooses to wear the SG office's full gray frock coat costume in which to do so. Lovitt argues that it's not obvious that looking at old court records would have been superior to what trial counsel actually did - which was hire three experts, all of whom, she claims, were charged with developing mitigating evidence and not just determining whether Rompilla was competent to stand trial. The lawyers interviewed Rompilla and some of his family, who told them nothing. They had done enough. Today's case isn't all that significant, really. For one thing, a jury instruction decision will only affect Pennsylvania. And this is just one of thousands of claims about inadequate trial lawyers that capital defendants put forward. The press gallery is virtually empty. Ineffective assistance of counsel cases are depressingly like medical malpractice cases: You can always go back and find something that could have been done better in hindsight. Overworked, stressed-out capital defense lawyers have limited time and resources. But the key difference between ineffective assistance of counsel cases and medical malpractice cases is this: If you find the physician wasn't negligent, you don't go back and kill the patient. Whereas if the court determines Rompilla's lawyers did an even minimally competent job at trial, he'll die. (source: The Slate; Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor) *************** High court appears split on Pa. death-row inmate The Supreme Court appeared split yesterday over the fate of a Pennsylvania death-row inmate, as justices considered whether his jury was given poor instructions, and whether his lawyers did a poor job defending him. For Ronald Rompilla, 56, who beat, stabbed and burned an Allentown man to death in 1988, the high court's decision could mean the difference between a new hearing and a date with the executioner. For the justices, the case, Rompilla v. Beard, is one in a long line examining how the death penalty is meted out in this country. The court has significantly transformed capital punishment in recent years, outlawing executions of mentally retarded inmates and tightening standards for defense lawyers. But during yesterday's arguments, at least one justice who has supported prior changes, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, seemed skeptical of Rompilla's case. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a swing vote in death-penalty cases, was mostly quiet. Billy Nolas, the federal public defender handling Rompilla's case, argued that his client was wronged when jurors were not told he could never be paroled from a life sentence for the crimes. Nolas also said Rompilla's lawyers failed him when they declined to look into his school and mental-health records for evidence that could have persuaded the jury to spare his life. But Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Amy Zapp said Rompilla's lawyers had done a lot of research on their client's background and made a strategic choice not to do more, thinking that nothing in his past would help his case. The federal government is backing the state on that position. Zapp also said the jury did not have to be told about the optional punishment of life without parole, because prosecutors never explicitly argued that Rompilla should be executed to prevent him from killing again. "The words in this case did not tell the jury to take future dangerousness into account," Zapp told the justices. To trigger a requirement that a jury be told that life without parole is an option, prosecutors have to contend that a defendant is likely to kill again, she said. In some ways, Rompilla's case indicates how focused the high court's death-penalty review has become. The justices already made clear in 1994 and 2002 that jurors must be informed about life without parole even when prosecutors only hint that a defendant could be dangerous in the future. And a 2003 ruling in Wiggins v. Smith said defense attorneys must conduct a "thorough investigation" of a client's background to find "all reasonably available mitigating evidence." The questions in Rompilla's case are whether the 1994 and 2002 rulings apply to the specific and peculiar circumstances of his case, and whether his lawyers - who did investigate his background but missed critical information - met the standards set by the 2003 ruling. It was clear yesterday that Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens - all leaders of the court's death-penalty reform efforts - were leaning in Rompilla's favor. Souter pressed Zapp on her insistence that prosecutors were not really arguing that Rompilla would be a future danger when they listed his prior crimes and harped on the brutality of the 1988 murder of Jim Scanlon. "This was a specific argument that says: 'He has done this twice, it's recidivism and he's getting better at it,'" Souter said. "It's not a general argument that he's a bad person." Breyer said it seemed incredible that Rompilla's lawyers had not found out about the abuse he suffered as a child, because it was referred to in documents they could have obtained from prosecutors, but didn't. "The document says, 'Ronald comes from the notorious Rompilla family,' and then it goes on to say why they were so notorious," Breyer said. Kennedy and O'Connor, who both supported the toughening of standards in the earlier court cases, expressed concerns yesterday that by overturning Rompilla's death sentence they would be broadening those protections too much. Without either Kennedy or O'Connor, Rompilla's appeal will fail. A ruling is expected by late June. (source: Philadelphia Inquirer)
