Feb. 3 TEXAS: Kick 'Em When They're Dead Bible-beating state Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, has moved on to beating a dead horse - or, more precisely, a dead death-row inmate. On July 29, Talton penned a request to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, asking for an official opinion on whether executed inmate James Allridge violated state law by selling (over the Internet) artwork he produced while on death row. The state's untested "murderabilia" law prohibits inmates from profiting from their crimes, and requires forfeiture of any proceeds from the sale of "tangible property" that has increased in value because of a person's criminal notoriety. On Aug. 26, Allridge was executed for the 1985 Fort Worth murder of convenience store clerk Brian Clendennen. While on the row, Allridge taught himself to paint and draw, and his art - primarily brightly colored, highly professional renderings of flowers in full bloom against a deep black background - have been featured in art shows across the country and in Europe and have attracted considerable attention - both positive and negative. The inmate maintained a Web site featuring some of his drawings, which sold (and sell) for $10 as greeting cards, up to $300 for larger works. To Allridge's supporters, his art was a symbol of his rehabilitation a tangible and graphic example of the man he had become. Others, including the Clendennen family, considered his art, and the recognition it earned him, an insult adding to their injuries. Andy Kahan, director of the city of Houston's crime-victim's assistance program, considered Allridge's art simply a means to capitalize on his death-row status. "He is absolutely nothing except that he has murdered somebody in cold blood," Kahan told the Chronicle last summer. When actor Susan Sarandon's visit to Allridge made the news last summer, Kahan decided to use Allridge's case to test the 2001 murderabilia law. (For more on Allridge, see "No Mercy," Aug. 20, 2004.) Apparently Talton answered Kahan's plea (Kahan was cc'd on Talton's request to Abbott) and asked Abbott to opine - just days before Allridge's execution. Abbott told Talton the AG can't answer his question, because the value of Allridge's art is a "fact" question to be determined in court, not by the AG. So a forfeiture proceeding, concluded Abbott, "would require evidence that the value of the property was increased by notoriety gained from Allridge's conviction, among other things." Whether Kahan or Talton or someone else will actually sue the Allridge family to test the law remains unclear and, at press time, Kahan had not returned calls requesting comment. ************************* State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, last week filed a spate of bills aimed at reforming the state's criminal justice system. SB 223 would establish a Texas Innocence Commission to examine cases of wrongful conviction, search for the causes of those convictions, and recommend changes to prevent future cases of wrongful imprisonment. (The revenue-neutral proposition has been made before, but died in committee.) "The bottom line is [that] an Innocence Commission is good law enforcement," Ellis said. "It ensures the protection of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty." Ellis has also added several bills that would offer aid to the wrongfully convicted - SB 227 would simplify the pardon process for exonerated defendants, and SB 225 would increase compensation available to the wrongfully convicted up to $50,000 per year for most exonerated inmates and $100,000 per year for inmates exonerated from death row. (source for both: Austin Chronicle) ******************* Mendoza indicted for sexual assault of child While awaiting trial for capital murder charges, Moises Sandoval Mendoza was indicted by a Collin County grand jury for the sexual assault of a child in Farmersville, according to the affidavit. Mendoza was indicted with a 2nd-degree felony on 6 counts of sexual assault of a child younger than 17 years of age, the affdavit stated. He is currently being held in the Collin County Jail on capital murder charges for the strangling death of Rachelle O'Neil Tolleson, 20. The incident occured on Nov. 23, 2002 in Farmersville just over a year before Tolleson's murder, according to the indictment bill. The police report regarding the incident could not be obtained as of presstime. Leigh Hornsby, the District Attorney's spokesperson, said the sexual assault case is seperate from Mendoza's capital murder case. She also said the DA's office plans to pursue the sexual assault case after a verdict has been reached in the capital murder trial. "The DA plans to enter this as an extraneous offense during the punishment phase of the murder trial," Hornsby said. Mendoza's capital murder trial is scheduled to begin with a large panel gathering on March 4 and final jury selection on March 14, Hornsby said. Mendoza's attorney, Juan Sanchez, could not be reached for comment. Mendoza pled not guilty to capital murder last July. His bond was set at $500,000. Farmersville Police arrested Mendoza on March 24 for Tolleson's murder and the grand jury indicted him just three weeks later, according to court records. Police arrested Mendoza after he confessed to a friend, Stacie Marie Garcia, that he strangled Tolleson in his pickup truck and burned her body in a creek bed in eastern Collin County, according to court documents. "I have to tell you something, you're going to be mad at me," Mendoza is quoted as having told his friend in a felony affidavit. "I did it." At the time of the murder, Mendoza was also wanted on 3 existing 1st-degree felony indictments for a string of aggravated robberies in Dallas County. He also had been previously arrested on a family violence charge the year before, Lt. John Norton of the Collin County Sheriff's Office said. Judge Mark Rusch also refused the defense's request to preclude the death penalty. (source: McKinney Courier-Gazette) ******************* Will He Take the Stand?----A man facing the death penalty wants to take the stand in his own defense but his lawyers say it's not a good idea. Justen Grant Hall is charged with capital murder for killing Melanie Billhartz in October of 2002. Hall's attorneys say he wants to tell the jury he's innocent, but they're encouraging him not to. Hall has been visibly involved in his trial since it began in the 34th district court. In a contrast to other defendants, he frequently talks to his lawyers during witness questioning and takes notes. The state says Hall strangled Billhartz and cut her fingers off in retaliation for ratting him out to police. But today his lawyers questioned detectives about not following leads and other possible suspects. They say someone else killed Billhartz, and plan to present those facts instead of putting Hall on the stand. "We still have a witness who's going to come here and prove Justen didn't do this. I don't think there's any reason why the client shouldn't exercise his 5th amendment rights," Attorney Francisco Macias said. The defense also questioned a gang expert about Hall's participation in the "Aryan Circle," a prison gang. They argue other men who were with Hall that night are leaders in the gang and were more likely to have murdered Billhartz, or at least ordered it. (source: KTSM News) *********************** Bill Before Legislature Would Study Death Penalty Will a new bill encourage Texas legislators to put the death penalty under the microscope? State Representative Elliott Naishtat is pushing House Bill 493 this session. The bill is written to create a commission that will study the death penalty. The commission would study how attorneys, detectives and courts handle cases. If the bill passes, The Texas Tech Law School will have a faculty member appointed to the 11-person panel. Naishtat`s prior legislation on the death penalty failed to pass the house. Legal experts say this time, it could be different. "This time around, his bill does not have any sort of moratorium provision which his bills have had in the past," says Larry Cunningham, with Tech`s law school "It's simply a bill to create a commission to study the problem." The proposed bill would also analyze how DNA evidence is being used in Texas death penalty cases. (source: KAMC News) OHIO: Lying isn't a capital offense The 201 wretches who currently populate Ohio's death row are, without a doubt, troubled people. Each has committed acts that warrant their separation from society. But are they all guilty of murder? That is the question that state officials and people of conscience must continue to ask before allowing the execution of the condemned. In at least one case, the state is prepared to kill a man even though a compelling body of evidence indicates that he literally lied his way into a death sentence. The case of John George Spirko Jr., a violent career criminal and congenital liar, demands that lawmakers and law-enforcement officials take a close look at how this state carries out executions. In a three-part series last week, Plain Dealer reporter Bob Paynter meticulously detailed the web of lies, deception and stunningly inane logic that Spirko used to convince law-enforcement authorities that he was an eyewitness to a 1982 murder in Van Wert County. The evidence, however, is overwhelming that Spirko had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Betty Jane Mottinger, who ran a post office in tiny Elgin, Ohio. But using the impenetrable logic of a classic bumbling criminal, Spirko told authorities he was present at her murder, hoping to parlay a web of lies into a deal that would lessen the penalty he and a girlfriend faced in a unrelated assault case. There was no physical evidence that he was present at Mottinger's brutal slaying, and his stories - contradictory and constantly changing - made no more sense then than they do now. Yet, with the help of a zealous postal inspector investigating the case of a lifetime, Spirko managed to get himself not only convicted, but sentenced to die. A number of courts have upheld the conviction, and Spirko is down to his final appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. In some ways, Spirko deserves his predicament: He has killed before. But in this case, the evidence shows that he is scheduled to die this spring because he is a liar, not a murderer. Nor is he the only one involved in this case who is guilty of shading the truth. The Van Wert County prosecutor's office failed to share with defense counsel compelling evidence that would have seriously damaged the case against Spirko. That kind of misconduct should be of great concern to Ohioans. Failing a Supreme Court stay, Gov. Bob Taft should weigh the evidence and decide whether an execution would be an injustice. (source: Cleveland Plain Dealer) ARIZONA: Man who burned girl still faces death penalty A Maricopa County Superior Court judge refused Wednesday to drop the death sentence against a man convicted of lighting his 2-year-old daughter on fire and watching her die. Judge Barbara Jarrett ruled that Shawn Grell's defense attorneys failed to prove he is mentally retarded and let the death sentence she imposed in 2001 stand. "In our heart, we knew Judge Jarrett knew he wasn't retarded," said Lee Petruso, mother of Amber Salem, whose daughter Kristen was burned alive on Dec. 2, 1999. "I feel he's more uneducated, not retarded," Petruso said. "He can plan things, he can do things, he can follow through on things." The state Supreme Court, in essence, invited Jarrett to reduce Grell's sentence to life in prison in April 2003 by ordering her to reconsider whether he is retarded. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a year earlier that it's unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, so the issue before Jarrett was whether Grell qualifies for execution. The state high court will decide whether Jarrett's ruling will stand or whether jurors must resentence Grell under another U.S. Supreme Court decision, one that transferred authority for death sentences from judges to juries, Deputy County Attorney Paul McMurdie said. Petruso said she hopes the state Supreme Court doesn't order a jury to resentence Grell. "We're done, we're so tired, we don't want to live on eggshells for the rest of our lives," she said. McMurdie and defense attorney Gary Bevilacqua agreed Grell's I.Q. falls within the mental-retardation range. But McMurdie said the definition of mental retardation also includes whether a defendant is capable of functioning in society. "Someone who has low intelligence and is otherwise adapting to their surroundings is not mentally retarded," McMurdie said. "He had the ability to adapt when he chose to. He just chose not to follow the law." But Bevilacqua argues that Grell, now 29, suffers from organic brain damage and is mentally retarded. Bevilacqua could not be reached for comment Wednesday but has argued repeatedly that Grell could never function in society, that he failed to hold jobs and maintain social relationships. Bevilacqua was barred from presenting new evidence at a December hearing because Grell refused examination by mental-health expert hired by the state. Jarrett ruled that an examination by a new defense mental-health expert was inadmissible. The hearing then focused on evidence already presented in 2001. (source: Arizona Republic)
