Jan. 24 ARIZONA: Deciding life, death takes toll on jurors One juror felt his knees shaking as he sat down to decide if an Ahwatukee Foothills woman should live or die. Another says she spent the evening before the death penalty deliberations eating saltines and vomiting. A third says she flashes back to the case, which featured a murder inside an apartment, every time she drives past an apartment complex. Such is the emotional cost of Arizona's 2 1/2-year-old death penalty law under which ordinary people - jurors, not judges - make the toughest decision in the law, life or death, a choice no one would voluntarily make. Since Arizona revamped its law because of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that juries must determine mitigating factors in death penalty cases, Maricopa County juries are voting for death far more often than their peers in 4 other states affected by the ruling. They are also dishing out death sentences more often than judges did in the past. Including the jury in the Ahwatukee case, the trial of Wendi Andriano, Valley juries have voted the death penalty for 14 of 18 defendants since Aug. 1, 2002. That 78 percent rate contrasts sharply with the sentences of Maricopa County Superior Court judges, who imposed death in 15 percent of cases from 1995 to 1999, according to 2002 report by the state Capital Case Commission. While Arizona legal experts say it still may be premature to determine how the change is working, jurors in the Andriano case told The Arizona Republic that they believe juries should make the choice, even though they felt enormous pressure and anguished over their death penalty verdict. 'This is your duty' In all, 15 jurors in Maricopa County Superior Court in Mesa spent 4 months hearing the case against Andriano, 34, who was charged with killing her terminally ill husband, Joe, 33. He was poisoned, bludgeoned and stabbed in their apartment Oct. 8, 2000, while their children, then 2 and 3, slept in a bedroom. 6 of the 12 jurors who voted last month to execute Andriano were interviewed, along with 2 of the 3 alternates. "The first couple of weeks, it was kind of interesting," said juror Tanner Catalano, 27, of Gilbert. "After it started to set in that you had to make a decision like this, it became overwhelmingly stressful." Catalano and some of his peers on the jury argued that it is fairer for 12 everyday people to decide a death sentence than one judge. "A lot of things in life are hard. This is your duty," he said. Catalano played ice hockey to relieve the tension but said a rule that bars jurors from discussing a case with others forced him to keep his emotions private. "I'd walk around in a daze and people would say, 'What's wrong with you?' You can't tell them why," he said. The jury found Andriano guilty Nov. 18, about 15 minutes after they went into the jury room, said juror Jay Erke, 48, an airline mechanic foreman from Mesa. Juror Linda Percy, 63, a Realtor from Mesa, said jurors didn't believe Andriano's testimony, given over nine days on the stand, that she poisoned her husband as part of a suicide pact, and that she hit him 23 times in the head with a bar stool in self-defense to stop him from reaching for a knife. "The defense didn't have a lot of evidence, period," Percy said. "I don't think the defense had a lot to work with." But the decision to execute Andriano was far more difficult, she and the 5 other jurors all said. Reaching guilty verdict After they reached the guilty verdict, jurors heard a week of testimony on why Andriano should be executed, the aggravating factors that go into a death penalty decision. They deliberated for 4 hours before finding the slaying was especially cruel, qualifying her for the death sentence. They then heard 6 days of testimony on mitigating factors, reasons her life should be spared. They gathered in the jury room Dec. 16 to consider whether there were reasons for sparing Andriano's life. It took 4 days. The sometimes-heated deliberations dramatically changed the case's outcome, with a split jury gradually shifting toward the death verdict. When the deliberations began, the nine women and three men took a vote. Only three supported a death sentence, with four favoring a life sentence and the others undecided, said juror Mary Fobes, 74, of Mesa. Catalano said he wasn't sure. "I still hadn't made up my mind. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt," he said. After one day, the jury went home for a 3-day weekend that some called full of soul searching. When they reconvened, Catalano gave a pivotal speech outlining his reasons for supporting a death sentence, and the vote swung to 11-1 in favor of execution, Fobes said. "It was very passionate on why he thought she deserved the death penalty," Fobes said. "The more I thought about it, how could she be so brutal? She must have totally flipped her wig. I don't know how anyone could do that." But the jury was on the verge of a deadlock, with one holdout, a senior citizen from Gilbert, saying he was adamantly against the death penalty. On the 3rd day of deliberations, jurors took turns discussing each of 23 reasons listed by the defense for sparing Andriano's life, the mitigating factors, weighing whether they were sufficient cause for leniency. They included that Andriano was a good mother to her children and had signed up at age 19 for missionary work when in Mexicali, Mexico, for the 91st Psalm Church, now the Harvest Family Church in Casa Grande. Catalano said he gave all the mitigating factors some weight, but in the end, they were not enough. "Does a good mother brutally murder her husband?" he said. Percy said she also considered the arguments against execution, but on balance, "we could not find mitigating factors that overwhelmed the cruelty. To me, to everybody there, the knife wound was the crowning blow. She had 3 chances to back off." While jurors were discussing whether to execute Andriano, they considered that they would have no control over whether the trial judge, Brian Ishikawa, would give her life in prison with or without parole, she said. Jurors did not want to see a 25 years to life sentence. "We also knew with the death penalty that she has an automatic appeal," Percy said. Different parts of the case resonated with jurors. Some said they were moved by Andriano's plea for life during the mitigation phase on Dec. 16, just before the final deliberations, while others considered it an Academy Award acting job. "I just thought, 'What an act you're putting on, honey,'" Fobes said. "She was such a liar. How could you believe anything she told you?" The emotional impact of Andriano's 45-minute plea, in which she admitting making "a horrible choice that night" but insisted her cancer-stricken husband wanted to commit suicide, may have waned as days passed and jurors focused on the details of the case, Fobes said. Erke was moved. "Her speech was heartfelt. It teared me up," he said. But "I thought she was more sorry for the consequences of what she did than for the actions." Others cited a videotape recording of the police interview with Andriano, only a few hours after the murder, as among the most incriminating evidence. The tape showed a relaxed Andriano talking to a Phoenix police detective, casually holding her knees against her chest. "I can't imagine being so calm and collected and having no emotions," Percy said. "She never cried, she never asked about her kids, she seemed flirtatious." Manipulation As the 3rd day of deliberations ended, Fobes said she told the holdout juror, a Gilbert senior citizen, "Wendi has manipulated you. He said, 'Yes, I know.'" The next day, the holdout gave a short speech saying he changed his mind. He declined 2 requests for an interview. The jury delivered the death penalty verdict Dec. 22. "Walking in there with that verdict, I was shaking like a leaf," Erke said, the daunting power of deciding if someone lives or dies overwhelming him. "It's 'Oh, my God, it's really happened.'" Most are still mulling over their decision, but only one juror, a young nurse, expressed doubts. "Sometimes, I think I'm too hard-hearted," Fobes said. "But she didn't feel any sympathy for him (the husband)." Percy said a telling look from Andriano was reassuring after a clerk read the verdict. "She gave us a look like, 'How dare you?' " Percy said. "I thought, 'I made the right decision.'" (source: Arizona Republic) NEW YORK: Guilty verdict: New York's justice system continues to turn a blind eye to the problem of wrongful conviction Before state lawmakers and Gov. George Pataki consider whether or how to try to "fix" New York's court-invalidated death penalty law, they must address the serious and growing problem of wrongful conviction that plagues the whole criminal justice system, not only capital cases. The state's long history of erroneous convictions and the continuing trail of high-profile mistakes, such as the Central Park jogger case, should have long ago set off warning bells. But criminal justice officials have resisted introducing basic accountability measures or safeguards, and legislators haven't enacted reforms. As a result, there's no assurance that more fatal mistakes wouldn't be made. Since Edwin M. Borchard's path-breaking book, "Convicting the Innocent" (1932), several studies have found New York high on the nation's list of wrongful convictions. Michael L. Radelet and Hugo A. Bedau, for example, documented 343 cases of wrongful capital conviction, including 23 wrongful executions in New York. My own recent study of wrongful convictions in New York documented more than 130 cases, all over the state (most of them involving convictions since 1980), in which innocent persons were convicted (mostly of murder) and sentenced to long prison terms. Noting that experts estimate that anywhere from 1 to 10 percent of those convicted of a felony are actually innocent, I argued that the proven cases represented simply the tip of the iceberg. To demonstrate, in 2001 I selected 12 people I had concluded were actually innocent but who were still in prison. Thus far, 6 have had their convictions overturned and 5 of the 6 have been released from prison. Another 3 are in court trying to prove their innocence. 11 of the 12 had been convicted of murder. Had they been sentenced under the death penalty, some might be dead by now. In the past, prosecutors didn't have to worry as much that their mistakes would ever come to light. Today, however, with the advent of DNA and possibly other definitive technologies, actual innocence in some cases threatens to become positively established even after an offender has been convicted or even legally executed. Sometimes a single case can rock the system. In the early 1960s, the New York criminal justice system reeled from the discovery that one of New York City's most highly publicized double murder cases had resulted in the erroneous "confession," arrest and conviction of a young innocent, George Whitmore. The furor opened such a Pandora's box that New York legislators eventually established a moratorium on capital punishment rather than allow the system to be subjected to more scrutiny. Any proven wrongful conviction can expose serious injustice and undermine respect for law enforcement. But if it were to be proven after the prisoner was executed, the gravity of the mistake could spell curtains for capital punishment and shake the criminal justice system to its core. In response to his state's wrongful conviction problem, then-Gov. George Ryan of Illinois convened a panel to review death penalty cases and he ultimately commuted all capital sentences. Some states have adopted new safeguards such as requiring the videotaping of all police interrogations and devising more careful procedures for lineups and other ways of identifying suspects. But New York officials have stuck to their old flawed methods, brushing aside any concerns about likely errors. During the last 20 years, only 20 or so persons have received cash awards under the state's unjust conviction law (known as the Isidore Zimmerman law, named after a famously framed convict). But that result just scratches the surface and doesn't get at the root of the problem. Instead, legislators and governors have jumped to constantly increase prosecutorial power and resources, while at the same time curbing and inadequately funding public defense. Consequently, many observers believe, wrongful convictions have actually increased, just as criminal sentences have grown more severe. For starters, the Legislature should consider enacting these reforms: Designate and require a specific state agency to maintain a database regarding defendants who have been found wrongfully convicted. Require the Court of Claims to annually report about its actions relative to cases filed under the unjust conviction law. Convene a blue-ribbon panel to hold public hearings and report its findings on wrongful convictions. Require police to videotape in full all interrogations and to make a copy of the tape available to suspects. (Although this can help to protect the police from unfounded allegations of coercion, some police, including the New York Police Department, have resisted it.) Require police to use sequential photo lineups such as New Jersey has done. Requiring eyewitnesses to view pictures one by one, rather than letting them "shop" through police photo books, would help reduce erroneous identification, a leading cause of wrongful conviction. Overhaul the state's inadequate public defense system to ensure that indigent defendants will receive effective legal representation. Reconsider the total immunity from civil liability that prosecutors enjoy. Revise the law to make it easier for an inmate to get a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Require that whenever a wrongful conviction has been shown, the police department, prosecutor, defense attorney and judge involved must file a damage report explaining what went wrong and suggesting what can be done to prevent a recurrence. Government officials aren't the only ones who have failed to respond to the problem. With rare exceptions, most law schools, criminal justice trainers, bar organizations and news media also have neglected to address the issue. Without extraordinary safeguards, any execution would amount to legalized lynching. The state's legalized killing of one innocent person would make murderers of us all. The inevitability of error is just one reason why the death penalty is a bad idea. But it's one that fair-minded citizens even punitive ones can understand. (source: Scott Christianson, Ph.D., a Rensselaer County resident and former executive assistant to the state director of criminal justice, is the author of "Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases" (2004) and other books; Times-Union) MISSISSIPPI: Poll: Death penalty not easy sell in state Mississippi isn't as conservative on one hot-button issue as many other states. Results of the 2004 Mississippi Crime Poll show support for the death penalty among state residents is lower than the national average. "Fewer than three of every five Mississippians support capital punishment, which is about 20 to 30 percent less than the national average," said Dr. Alan Thompson, criminal justice professor at The University of Southern Mississippi. The poll is the 1st comprehensive report of its kind designed to identify citizens' beliefs, perceptions and attitudes on crime and justice. It examines issues such as prosecutorial discretion, judicial fairness, correctional policy and citizens' confidence in local police, among others. This month, the 23-page report was delivered to every member of the state Legislature and other key law enforcement agencies. Thompson said the report's results could provide state policymakers with relevant information to bridge the gap that often exists between public perception and legislative action. District Attorney Buddy McDonald said he's impressed with the results of the poll. "This could be very valuable information for those of us in law enforcement and the courts, providing feedback to see how we're viewed by the public and how they think we're doing our job," said McDonald, who serves Lamar, Pearl River, Marion, Jefferson Davis and Lawrence counties. He noted the importance of one statistic - 78 % of those polled agreed that "it is a good idea to give all law enforcement agencies radar authority for purposes of enforcing the speed limit and preventing accidents. "Some people say that sheriffs will just set up speed traps, but they don't understand the politics of being a county sheriff," he said. "They have to get elected, so they're not going to go out and systematically harass potential voters." McDonald said he's not surprised Mississippians are less inclined to support capital punishment than their national counterparts. He said he has tried a number of death penalty cases, and people's religious views always play a part with respect to the juries. The poll's data seems to support this theory. While more Mississippians might disagree with the death penalty, it does not stem from fear of wrongful execution. Four out of five indicated being either "moderately confident" or "very confident" that Mississippi courts adequately protect innocent defendants from being erroneously put to death. (source: Biloxi Sun Herald)
