Feb. 2 NEW MEXICO: Death Penalty Repeal Would Aid Families When her lawyer husband was gunned down by a former client on a sidewalk near his office, Andrea Vigil was swamped not only by the pain of the loss but by the press of day-to-day details. A funeral to arrange. A law office to dismantle. Bills that had to be paid - although Carlos Vigil's paycheck had stopped. Time off from her own work for counseling. "I really was a mess," Vigil recalled. Their friends and the community rallied around her after the August 1999 murder. But many family members of victims lack financial and emotional support, Vigil said Monday. "Our system focuses on the murderer," Vigil said as she pushed for a package of bills that would repeal the death penalty and use the money that supports it for victims' families. Crisis intervention, grief counseling, child services, funeral assistance and crime-scene cleanup, emergency funds, a hot line, and tuition assistance for murder victims' children are among the proposals. "Help needs to occur early in the process, rather than months later down the road with a victim's advocate in a courtroom," Vigil said at a news conference. Her husband's killer was sentenced to life plus 30 years in prison for the murder and related crimes. Death penalty opponents, who have tried without success for several years to get a repeal bill through the Legislature, hope the broader approach will mean more support for this year's measure, which would replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole. Rep. Gail Beam, D-Albuquerque, a longtime proponent of abolishing capital punishment, said the night Terry Clark was executed in 2001 for the murder of 9-year-old Dena Lynn Gore of Artesia, she concluded it was wrong not to be doing more for victims' families. She remembers thinking "there should be something more to memorialize this child than the execution of her killer at his own request." The New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty contends the state could save as much as $2.5 million annually in public defender costs if the death penalty were eliminated. Beam's legislation appropriates $2.5 million over the next couple of years to the Crime Victims Reparation Fund for programs. It also requires employers with 25 or more workers to give victims unpaid time off, or allow them to use vacation, personal or sick leave to attend court proceedings. Nearly half the House members are co-sponsoring the package of bills, and Beam assessed its chances of passage in the House as "excellent." In the Senate - although there are new members now - a repeal bill lost by a single vote in 2001. Gov. Bill Richardson is a death penalty supporter, but Beam said there had been a "long dialogue" with him since he took office and she held out the idea that he would sign a repeal if it reached him. (source: Associated Press) NEBRASKA: Court hears death row appeal An attorney for Arthur Lee Gales asked the Nebraska Supreme Court for a 3rd chance at a life sentence for the condemned killer. Susan M. Bazis in oral arguments Tuesday told the court Gales deserved another sentencing hearing because of errors in his 2003 hearing. Gales, 39, of Omaha, had been on the Nebraska death row since 2001 for the November 2000 rape and murder of 13-year-old Latara Chandler and the drowning and strangulation of her 7-year-old brother, Tramar. He was also convicted of attempted 2nd-degree murder in the beating of the children's mother, Judy Chandler. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in an Arizona appeal that juries, rather than judges, should decide if aggravators exist in murder cases to warrant the death penalty, the state Supreme Court ordered Gales be resentenced consistent with the federal court ruling. A Douglas County District Court jury in 2003 recommended Gales be resentenced to death for both murders. A 3-judge panel later accepted the recommendation. On Tuesday, Bazis argued the judge who presided over the sentencing jury erred in refusing to let Bazis question potential jurors one-by-one about their knowledge of the case. "I don't believe the jury selection was fair in this case," she said. The lower court judge only asked the jury pool if they had personal knowledge of the case - for example, if they had read official reports, or heard witness testimony - but refused to let Bazis question them about Gales' original sentence. She contended jurors who knew Gales was previously sentenced to death might be biased toward finding aggravating circumstances against him again. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning told the court that attorneys could have determined any bias with questions to the jury pool as a group. "(Bazis) just wanted to ask individual questions," he said. Bruning also rejected her claims there was no evidence the rape and murder of Latara Chandler that fit the state definition for a "heinous, atrocious (or) cruel" crime. He told the court a previous Nebraska Supreme Court held heinous crimes include murders with elements of torture, sadism, sexual abuse or extreme mental suffering. Latara Chandler must have experienced mental suffering in the moments before her death, Bruning said. "At some point ... this girl is lying there, knowing that her time had come," he said. Bazis questioned whether the sexual assault could be counted as an aggravator. She suggested Latara was either unconscious or dead when she was sexually assaulted. Gales himself has said the girl passed out after he choked her for 4 seconds, and Bazis said Tuesday that Latara's body had no defensive wounds, and showed no physical signs - such as tearing - of forcible rape. The statement prompted a question from Judge John F. Wright. "What kind of defensive wounds are you looking for" when the girl had a man's hands around her throat, Wright asked. Bruning reminded the court the heinous aggravator is established with a showing the crime involved sexual abuse or extreme suffering. He also said the Douglas County jury determined there were 3 aggravators against Gales in each child's death. The Supreme Court took the case under advisement and will rule later. (source: Lincoln Journal Star) NORTH CAROLINA: New Trial For Man Denied Lawyers In Capital Case In Raleigh, the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered a new trial for a Greensboro man sentenced to life in prison for a 2001 shooting death. The appeals court said Brandon Buford Davis should have been given a 2nd lawyer paid by taxpayers during his original death penalty trial. Jurors deliberated a death penalty but settled instead for a life sentence. Davis' appeal contended that a Guilford County Superior Court judge erred when he ruled that the accused man shouldn't be helped by a 2nd, state-appointed defense lawyer during his trial. The judge made the ruling because Davis' mother had hired a lawyer to represent him. State law guarantees poor capital defendants representation by 2 lawyers. But the trial judge found that because Davis had one private lawyer, he wasn't poor and wasn't eligible for a second lawyer paid for by the state. Appeals court judge Douglas McCullough wrote in Tuesday's decision that just because Davis or his family could afford one lawyer didn't remove the need for the state to provide a second lawyer. (source: Associated Press) *********************** Death penalty debate will likely heat up again----The death penalty debate will likely start up again The death penalty debate will likely heat up again in the coming weeks and months. A legislator has once again proposed a bill for a moratorium. Supporters want to stop executions 2 years to study the penalty in North Carolina and fix any flaws. This might be the year death penalty opponents get their way. Last year, 2 men were released from prison, both wrongfully convicted of murder. "There's many that's still in prison on death row that's innocent and until there's a moratorium to stop the executions to study, not just study the problem but to fix the problem," Darryl Hunt said. He was wrongfully convicted. That's why death penalty opponents want a 2 year moratorium to study the penalty and fix any flaws. "Every trial lawyer who's even tried any criminal case knows jurors frequently find people guilty who are not guilty," Paul Whitfield, a defense attorney, said. 2 years ago, the Senate did approve a moratorium but it failed in the House but in his 1st speech as sole speaker of the house, Jim Black hinted this year might be different. "Over the past few years we have had many headlines about death penalty convictions overturned. I believe we need to review our death penalty laws and protocols," Black explained. The Attorney General Office deals with all death penalty cases. Attorney General Roy Cooper said there's no need for a moratorium. "We've increased our use of DNA. We're making sure people who believe they're innocent have the right to prove their innocence," Cooper stated. Well known national death penalty opponent, Sister Helen Prejean visited Raleigh Tuesday. Her efforts to fight executions were made into the movie "Dead Man Walking." She believes North Carolina could set an example for the entire nation. She said, "All a moratorium means is let's recognize we got some problems. Let's recognize the system isn't working like it should and we don't want any people going there." "Nobody wants to execute a person who's not guilty but I think we really got a lot of good checks and balances and we got what we need," Rep. Russell Capps (R-Wake) said. In the end it's up to Governor Mike Easley. Even if the General Assembly votes for a moratorium he must sign the bill. In the past he's supported the death penalty. More than a thousand people have been sent to death row since 1910. That's when the state took over executions in North Carolina. The Department of Corrections reports nearly 400 were put to death. Currently 181 people are on death row. One man has been there since 1979. (source: RDU News) CONNECTICUT: Attorneys mull next moves after execution is called off Now that serial killer Michael Ross' execution has been delayed indefinitely, the lawyers he fired last year are trying again to be included in court proceedings. State public defenders want to be involved in any hearings on Ross' competency. And the lawyer for Ross' father is watching over the case and ready to file a challenge if he believes Ross' due process rights are being violated. Ross, 45, who is on death row for killing four young women and girls in eastern Connecticut in the early 1980s, has decided to forgo his remaining appeals and face his death sentence. He was originally scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection last Wednesday, but the execution is on hold while the issue of his competency is examined. Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth said his office needs to be part of a competency hearing to help provide a full picture of Ross' mental state. Ross fired the public defenders' office last year and hired private lawyer T.R. Paulding. "In order to get a valid and reliable finding, it would seem to us they should let us offer our evidence," Smyth said Tuesday, a day after the state's death warrant for Ross' execution expired. The state plans on seeking a new death warrant. Meanwhile, it remained unclear Tuesday whether a competency hearing would be held. The state Supreme Court on Monday granted motions from Paulding and prosecutors for another stay of execution, after Ross agreed to have his own competency examined. Nothing had been scheduled Tuesday in state or federal courts. Messages seeking comment were left for Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano. New London Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford already ruled last month that Ross is mentally competent. He also ruled that the public defenders and Ross' father had no legal standing to intervene in the execution. Smyth said he's hopeful Clifford will reconsider his earlier decision and grant the public defenders official status to participate in a competency hearing. They've argued that Ross likely suffers from so-called "death row syndrome" and is trying to commit state-assisted suicide by volunteering to forgo remaining appeals. Ross came within an hour of being executed Saturday morning. Paulding sought a stay, citing a possible conflict of interest. He said he had been persuaded of the need to explore death row syndrome. No new execution date has been set. In related news, New London County State's Attorney Kevin Kane filed a "motion for determination" in New London Superior Court seeking whether there is a possible conflict of interest between Ross and Paulding. If there is a conflict, the motion questions whether Ross is aware of it and has waived the conflict. Courts often investigate potential conflicts of interest. If such an investigation is not conducted, prosecutors can run the risk of a conviction being reversed or other appeals. Messages seeking comment were left for Paulding. A 45-year-old Cornell University graduate, Ross has confessed to a total of eight murders in eastern Connecticut and New York in the early 1980s. Ross remained at Osborn Correctional Institution, site of the state's lethal injection chamber, on Tuesday night, where he was moved to on Oct. 21. Antonio Ponvert III, an attorney for Ross' father, Dan, said his client does not have standing to participate if the state court holds a competency hearing. But Ponvert said if the state attempts to rush through the hearing in 30 days, he'll challenge it. "If, at the end of the day we believe the process has failed to meet due process requirements, we will pursue all available legal remedies," he said. Dan Ross has already challenged his son's execution on constitutional grounds. Ponvert said he believes that a proper determination of Ross' competency could last "many months." (source: Associated Press) CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court Upholds Oakland Man's Death Penalty The California Supreme Court has upheld a death penalty for an Oakland man who murdered 3 people during a 3-week period in 1989. Robert Young, 36, fatally shot cocaine dealer Terry Rivers during a robbery and shortly afterwards shot and killed Glen Frazier while robbing him in Oakland early in the morning of Jan. 30, 1989. In the third murder, Young crashed through the living room window of a crack house in Oakland early on Feb. 19, 1989, robbed a man who was in the house and fatally shot Sylvester Davis after Davis jumped out of a bedroom window in an effort to escape. Young was given a death penalty in Alameda County Superior Court for the Rivers and Davis murders and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for killing Frazier. The penalty was unanimously upheld by the state high court in a decision issued in San Francisco on Monday. The court rejected Young's argument that African-American women were unfairly excluded from his Alameda County Superior Court jury and that execution was a disproportionately harsh punishment for his culpability in the crimes. Young contended that factors supporting a less harsh penalty included his age (20 at the time of the murders), his low IQ of 75, a deprived childhood and lifelong learning disabilities. But Justice Janice Brown wrote that Young "at the age of 20 acted alone when he ruthlessly and fatally shot 3 men over a 3-week period." Brown wrote that the justices agreed with the trial judge's finding that the evidence showed "an extreme degree of callousness and cruelty and a total disregard for human life." The appeal to the state high court was the first step in Young's appeal of his death sentence. All death penalty cases in California are initially appealed directly from the trial court to the state Supreme Court. Young can now take his appeal to the federal court system. (source: Foxreno.com)
