Jan. 25 CONNECTICUT: U.S. court upholds Ross stay of execution A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a stay of execution that has postponed the lethal injection of serial killer Michael Ross, but prosecutors said they would immediately appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 3-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny in Hartford has the right to determine if Ross is mentally competent to forgo appeals of his death sentence, before allowing the execution to go forward. Chatigny issued the stay after hearing testimony Monday from a psychiatrist who testified that Ross' lengthy seclusion on death row may have made him incompetent to decide to end appeals of his death sentence. In its ruling, the appeals court urged Chatigny to complete the hearing as quickly as possible. But it said that Chatigny must hold the hearing before making a determination on whether the state's public defenders can intervene in the case and file motions on Ross' behalf. "We do not have a basis to adequately review, and to disagree with, the district court's conclusion that there was .... meaningful evidence ... that Ross was suffering from a mental disease, disorder or defect that substantially affected his capacity to make an intelligent decision," justices said in their five-page decision. Hartford attorney Hubert Santos, who argued on behalf of the state's public defenders, was happy with the ruling. "Right result and great result," he said. Ross, 45, admitted killing eight young women and girls and raping most of them in the early 1980s. He had been scheduled to be executed at 2:01 a.m. Wednesday. A judge had set the execution date after Ross fired his public defenders last year and told a judge he wished to expedite his execution. In hearing the appeal of prosecutors, Judge Robert Katzmann said the question was not whether there was adequate evidence to prove Ross was incompetent to waive his rights but whether as "somebody is about to be executed, what is the harm in having a hearing to make sure all of the evidence is put to the test?" Harry Weller, a supervisory assistant state attorney in Connecticut, said such a hearing was not necessary because the psychiatrist who testified Monday was someone who has never spoken to Ross and who offered incorrect information or provided evidence that had been thoroughly reviewed already by the courts. Weller said that Dr. Stuart Grassian, a former professor at Harvard University and an expert on the effects of incarceration on prisoners, "should never have testified yesterday." Weller said Ross has a "constitutional right to make this choice" to die, and said a third party was trying to impose its will on Ross. Santos countered that "all Judge Chatigny wants is time." He said the case had been "rushing through the courts the last several months." At one point, Judge Robert Sack suggested that if Ross wanted to die, "the legal system ought to let him make that decision." Santos said the reason Ross wants to die is because he cannot take his prison condition. He said the evidence of that includes 10 witnesses and Ross' own writings in which he describes prison conditions as so unbearable that it would be better to die. Weller, though, said that the conditions have not been intolerable and that Ross has had frequent visitors and almost daily chess games. The decision from the federal appeals court comes the same day the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected another attempt by the public defenders and Ross' father, Dan Ross, to intervene and file post-conviction motions on Ross' behalf. The high court ruled that lawyers had failed to prove that Michael Ross was incompetent to make his own decisions. A similar state Supreme Court decision earlier this month, denying public defenders the right to participate in a competency hearing, prompted the appeal to Judge Chatigny. "It's pretty clear that if there is any relief that is going to be obtained, it will be in the federal courts," said Jon Schoenhorn, Dan Ross' attorney. (source: Associated Press) KANSAS: Death penalty hearing begins Kansas should defend its death penalty law before the U.S. Supreme Court "with all the confidence of a warrior," Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston urged lawmakers Monday. Attorney General Phill Kline, however, said simply getting Kansas' law before the nation's highest court for review is a long shot. Lawmakers are considering whether to fix Kansas' death penalty statute or take their chances that it eventually will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court struck down the law last month, ruling 4-3 that one portion of the law unfairly favored prosecutors over defendants. The dissenting justices wrote a strongly worded opinion. Pending a possible reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision wiped six death sentences off the books -- five from Sedgwick County and one from Johnson County. A Goddard couple whose son and daughter-in-law were killed in their home hope lawmakers will wait for a possible reversal. "These people were sentenced, rightfully so, by the juries. We hate to see them sentenced to anything less," said Barbara Oblander. "You kind of get a feeling of betrayal," said her husband, Duane. They attended the hearing at the Capitol but did not testify. Gavin Scott was convicted in the 1996 slayings of their son, Doug Brittain, and his wife, Beth. The state Supreme Court's reversal came in the case of Michael Marsh, convicted of the 1996 slayings of Marry Ane Pusch and her 18-month-old daughter, Marry Elizabeth. Kline contends that his chances of getting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case will drop sharply if lawmakers change the statute this year. But he's also concerned about losing use of the death penalty for future cases if the statute is not changed soon. His office filed capital murder charges Monday against Scott Cheever in the slaying last week of Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels. "If you fail to act, Kansas likely will not have a death penalty for such future heinous acts," Kline said. "It is an extraordinarily difficult decision that you face." Foulston and Paul Morrison, Johnson County's district attorney, contend Kansas has a good chance to get its law reviewed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Few crimes meet the criteria for capital murder under Kansas' narrowly drawn law, they said, and the law is designed to make juries carefully weigh the circumstances before imposing a death penalty. "We have one of the most narrowly drawn statutes in the country, and that's a good thing," Morrison said. The chairman of the panel, Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, said he was unsure when the committee would act on the bill. "We're going to let it sit a little while, give people time to think," he said. The state Supreme Court's decision, unless reinstated, also wipes out the death sentences of Jonathan and Reginald Carr, convicted in the killings of Jason Befort, Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander and Heather Muller, and for Reginald Carr in the killing of Ann Walenta, all in 2000 in Wichita; Douglas Belt, for the murder of Lucille Gallegos in Wichita in 2002; and John Robinson, for the murders of two women in Johnson County. The committee will continue hearings on death penalty bills through Thursday. In addition to the bill that was the subject of Monday's hearing, one bill would abolish the death penalty and two others would strengthen state law against executing mentally retarded persons. (source: Wichita Eagle)
