Feb. 6 TENNESSEE: Death penalty helps bring state justice Executing a death row inmate in Tennessee is next to impossible. Our courts have sentenced numerous defendants to death over the past four decades, but we've given only one of them a lethal injection, a man who kidnapped, raped and then murdered a little girl as she begged him to spare her life, telling him Jesus loved him. The appeals process holds so many hurdles for the prosecution that carrying out the sentence can take decades, then be stopped at the court's whim. For instance, a man scheduled to die in January for killing a Shelbyville woman in 1985 was given a reprieve at the last minute after a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that has sent the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Endless rehashing of the case is most painful for victims' family members, many of whom feel no justice as the person who murdered their loved one sits on death row with good food, clean clothing and instant access to attorneys all paid for by the people. Yet the death penalty has its place in Tennessee, even if the state rarely pushes the button, so to speak. Apparently, the term "death sentence" rings like gunshots in the ears of defendants being tried in death penalty cases. In a word, they are scared. District Attorney Bill Whitesell went for the death penalty in the Captain D's triple murder, seeking the ultimate penalty against Latonya Taylor and Percy Palmer. Taylor was found guilty, but because the state never produced the murder weapon or much other physical evidence, the jury sentenced her to life in prison without a chance for parole. Palmer, though, decided not to take his chances in the courtroom as the state continued to press its death penalty case and opted to plead guilty with a chance at parole after 51 years. Prosecutors were initially frustrated as the case stretched out for more than three years, primarily because defense attorneys tried to circumvent the death penalty by proving their clients were mentally retarded. Tennessee won't execute mentally retarded people. Yet Palmer cut off his trial when he decided to plead guilty instead of risking death. The same could be said of Roger "Groundhog" Todd and Marcus Odom, co-defendants in the murder of Jeff Bell in Cannon County. After the district attorney agreed to drop the death penalty against Odom in return for testimony against Todd, the evidence on "Groundhog" was so overwhelming that he agreed to plead guilty and take a sentence of life without parole instead of gambling on the death penalty. If the jury had heard evidence that he killed Bell, then burned his remains and dumped them in a well, he likely would have been sentenced to death. As a result, Todd and Odom when he makes an official plea will spend the rest of their natural lives in prison, and co-defendant Jerry Stone will be left wriggling. >From a practical standpoint, the death penalty is a drawn-out process that seldom leads to execution. In Tennessee, we rarely take "an eye for an eye." Yet it can be a powerful tool in the hands of prosecutors trying to find justice in a complicated and dangerous world. (source: Editorial, Daily News Journal) UTAH: Man Avoids Possible Death Sentence With Guilty Plea A Riverton man has avoided a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to 2 counts of aggravated murder. Seth Rollins Broomhead, 21, will be sentenced to life in prison without parole as part of a plea agreement. Broomhead admitted Friday to 4th District Court Judge Samuel D. McVey that he shot and killed Maritza Aguilar, 22, and Pablo Montoya, 20, in June 2003 at an Orem tree nursery. Broomhead shot Montoya and Aguilar in the back of the head on June 13, 2003, killing them as they sat in the front seat of Aguilar's car. Police said they determined the killings were drug-related after they found 9 ounces of cocaine hidden in the car. "We felt this was an appropriate resolution and it provides closure for the families of the victims," prosecutor Tim Taylor said. "You don't have to put everyone through the pain of trial." Broomhead will sentenced March 9. (source: KTVX News) ALABAMA: Former Illinois governor set for university appearance Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, an advocate for a moratorium on the death penalty, has a lecture set for Feb. 15 at the University of South Alabama. Ryan moved 167 inmates off the Illinois death row at the end of his term in 2003. Ryan commuted the death sentences to life in prison. He also pardoned four others and reduced three other death sentences to 40 years behind bars, declaring the state's capital justice system "haunted by the demon of error." His 7 p.m. university appearance in Mobile is open to the public. Ryan's lecture, "From Death to Life," explores his change from being a death penalty supporter to becoming a chief advocate for a universal moratorium. The lecture series is sponsored by USA's Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice. (source: Associated Press) CONNECTICUT: Judge Chatigny's Bully(ing) Pulpit----As the Ross case suggests, criminal justice is surrounded by stupid slogans and stupid dogma. On Jan 29, those who were to witness the death by lethal injection of serial killer Michael Ross were told that the execution of Ross had been postponed due to "a potential conflict of interest." The nature of the conflict of interest was not described, but it seemed to have something to do with Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny's hissy fit. A day earlier, Ross' former public defenders, understandably dejected by a U.S. Supreme Court's order lifting a stay of execution earlier imposed by Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny, told Connecticut's news media that they had exhausted their legal resources. Chatigny had issued 2 stays of execution that in effect set aside previous decisions made by Judge Christopher Droney, Chatigny's peer on the court, and Connecticut's Supreme Court. Chatigny's ruling, had it passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court, would have required a new hearing during which new testimony concerning Ross' mental impairment would have been introduced by psychiatrist Dr. Stuart Grassian, who was prepared to testify that prolonged internment on death row was mentally debilitating. In vacating Chatigny's stay, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect denied that such testimony was necessary to determine the issue of Ross' competence to waive further appeals in his case. All the legal resources available to Ross' former public defenders had been explored and found wanting. 'I'll have your law license.' But unexplored resources soon surfaced in the person of Judge Chatigny, who explicitly threatened - there is no other word for it - Ross' legal counsel with disbarment if, after Ross' execution, it should be determined that Ross had not been competent to waive further appeals. "I'll have your law license," Chatigny told Ross' lawyer, T. R. Paulding, should a future investigation show that prison officials had mistreated Ross or other prisoners. "What you are doing is terribly, terribly wrong," said Chatigny moments before Ross' scheduled execution during a phone conference that included numerous defense lawyers that three courts had previously determined had no standing to represent Ross' interests. Information had been supplied to Chatigny by attorney Hubert Santos that former corrections deputy commissioner John Tokarz was convinced Ross was acting from despair because of the harsh conditions in which he lived. Chatigny had toured death row while sitting on a different case and found living condition there to be "deeply disturbing," a point the judge made in a hearing earlier in the week. "I see this happening," judge Chatigny said to Paulding during his conference call, "and I can't live with it myself, which is why I'm on the phone right now. It's wrong. What you're doing is wrong." Chatigny told Paulding he (Chatigny) was well read on the psychiatric effects of prison isolation, and he questioned whether Paulding had given serious consideration to Grassian's theory that Ross' prolonged stay on Connecticut's death row made his client desperate to die. Revisiting issues decided previously at trial, Chatigny asserted that Ross' sexual sadism and other mental illnesses, as well as Ross' previous unsuccessful attempts to kill himself, raised questions that Ross may be suicidal. "You've put yourself in a pretty bad place," Mr. Paulding, said Chatigny, "and I would urge you to say, 'Michael, I can bring you in off the limb that we're both out on. I can bring you in.'" But Chatigny himself must be sensible that he crawled far out on a perilous limb, because the judge's invitation to Paulding was threatening and highly unorthodox. The judge was inviting Paulding to misrepresent his client's interests on the chance that future investigations might or might not show that Ross was incompetent - after Ross'competence had been asserted and affirmed directly by presentations in numerous other judicial proceedings. Assuming Grassian's unproved theories to be true, the practical effect of a finding that solitary confinement for extended periods of time is by itself mentally debilitating would require Connecticut to abandon the imposition of the death penalty in all cases in which a prisoner was confined in solitary longer than Ross. It would also require wardens to disburse felons awaiting capital punishment into the general prison population, a hazardous solution in the case of child killers like Ross. And it might require Connecticut to provide private continuing psychological care to anyone on death row. This turn of events no doubt would satisfy psychiatrists, anti-death penalty proponents and Judge Chatigny, but it is questionable whether it would be necessary, just or cost effective. The sentiments expressed by Judge Chatigny during his pummeling of attorney Paulding are not those of a judge who is prepared to weigh competing claims in a dispassionate and disinterested manner - which is why the judge was right to remove himself from the case. Judge Chatigny is a partisan in the coming battle to abolish the death penalty, and partisans belong in the legislature - not on the bench. *************************** Political Interference----Connecticut Republicans who want Jedge Robert Chatigny's head have crossed the line that protects the judiciary from overzealous politicians. The state Republican leaders who want Congress to investigate the conduct of federal Judge Robert N. Chatigny in the Michael Ross case are crossing the boundary that separates the legislative branch and the judiciary, one protected under the U.S. Constitution. What they're trying to do is one of the reasons the framers of the Constitution made federal judicial appointees judges and justices for life. There are a number of political issues that clearly are at work here. One is that Judge Chatigny is a Democratic appointee from the Clinton administration. The leaders who have asked the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Chatigny's Jan. 29 telephone call with Mr. Ross' lawyer are, by a strange coincidence, Republicans. The other issue is the controversy over the death penalty that Mr. Ross' pending execution have raised in Connecticut. The people who are angriest at Judge Chatigny are the ones who want to carry out this execution, which would be Connecticut's first in decades, and who oppose the repeal of the death penalty. Judge Chatigny's offense was to have scolded T.R. Paulding, Mr. Ross' lawyer, in the phone call, which helped precipitate an indefinite delay in the execution, and to have threatened Mr. Paulding with disbarment. As though this were the first time a judge ever read the riot act to a lawyer who wasn't doing his job. Mr. Paulding, to his credit, responded constructively to the tongue-lashing. The fact that he neglected to look into information that might have provided a different view than the one he was espousing in court regarding Mr. Ross' competency warranted the delay of the execution as well as the scolding Judge Chatigny administered. Fortunately, the federal Constitution protects the judiciary from such politically motivated assaults. Separation of powers should protect Judge Chatigny from any political retribution associated with his actions in doing his job as courageously as he did. And judges will continue to enjoy the privilege they deserve to lecture lawyers when the judges think the attorneys are out of line. (source for both: The Day) ************************ Ross judge a magnet for wrath, praise The federal judge who almost single-handedly stopped the state's 1st execution in 45 years has made controversial moves before, such as when he deemed the states sex offender registry unconstitutional. While supporters of Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny hail him as "courageous," critics fault him for overstepping his bounds and advocating for criminals over the people they hurt. Michael Paranzino, president of the Maryland-based victim's advocacy group ThrowAwaytheKey, claimed Chatigny has a pattern of protecting criminals, from the sex offender registry case to that of condemned serial killer Michael Ross. "He consistently is bending over backward on behalf of predators, but seems to be showing little regard for victims," Paranzino said. Paranzino said he thinks Chatigny should resign from the bench and join Ross' defense team. "Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not be an advocate," Paranzino said. "This un-elected judge is using ridiculous legal mumbo-jumbo to protect a serial killer of girls and young women, adding unspeakable pain to the victims' families." But Chatigny is also finding support for what he did in the Ross case, and area attorneys say he is well known for being thorough and deliberate. "Judge Chatigny tried to convince the state to take a different approach, and when that failed, he acted as he did," said attorney William F. Dow III of New Haven. "Whether or not you agree with what he did, it was clearly a courageous act, because he knew the transcript would become public and that he would be criticized." In a Jan. 28 telephone call, Chatigny accused Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding, of ignoring new information from another inmate and a retired prison employee, who claim Ross wants to die because of deplorable death row conditions. Chatigny threatened Paulding's law license if the execution, set for 2:01 a.m. Jan. 29, went forward and new information about Ross' competence later proved true. "But looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said to Paulding. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor." "My investigation in a typical run-of-the-mill injury case would be more comprehensive than your investigation of this," Chatigny told Paulding. Paulding, a death-penalty opponent who insisted he was bound to follow his client's wishes, postponed the execution just over an hour before it was set to occur, saying new information needed to be examined. Since the telephone call, Chatigny has been at the center of controversy. On Wednesday, some Republican state lawmakers even called for a congressional investigation into what transpired. Some relatives of Ross' victims have said Chatigny stepped outside his bounds. On Thursday, Ross, who has admitted killing 8 women in the early 1980s, said his attorney was bullied by the judge into delaying the execution. Former President Clinton nominated Chatigny, who took the oath of office in 1994. Before becoming a judge, Chatigny, who is in his early 50s, had been a lawyer in private practice. Chatigny started out as a law clerk and later had his own law firm, Chatigny & Cowdery in Hartford. Chatigny graduated from Brown University in 1973 and Georgetown University Law Center in 1978. Through court personnel, Chatigny declined to be interviewed for this story. Chatigny also made headlines with his ruling in 2001 that the states sex offender registry was unconstitutional because it didn't give non-dangerous sex offenders an opportunity to appeal their inclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2003. The registry was offline for about a year after Chatigny's ruling. Hartford-based attorney Ross Garber was Chatigny's law clerk for a year when he was first appointed to the bench. "Even before becoming a judge, he was well-respected as a lawyer," Garber said. "In my experience, he is meticulous and studious and expects a lot from both himself and the lawyers who appear before him. He is not someone who makes decisions because they are expedient or politically popular. He makes decisions based on the law and facts." Garber said Chatigny's decisions in the sex offender registry and Ross' cases haven't been particularly popular. "In each case, he did what he thought was right, and what the law mandated," Garber said. "Federal judges are appointed for life, so they are immune from political pressures." House Speaker Jim Amann, D-Milford, one of the chief sponsors of the states Megan's Law, has been a strong supporter of the sex offender registry, which is designed to let residents know if potentially dangerous sexual predators live nearby. "I don't agree with the judge at all on his decision with Michael Ross or his former decision on the sex offender registry issue," Amann said. "But he is a judge and, while he sits in that chair, he has a right to make decisions." Chatigny is the same judge who ruled against another death row inmate, Daniel Webb, who filed a lawsuit against the Department of Correction claiming the conditions of confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Chatigny toured death row at the time and saw the living arrangements first-hand. In his phone call with Paulding, Chatigny made reference to that tour. "I found it to be a very striking experience, one that I remember vividly years later," Chatigny said. "There is abundant literature ... that gives great weight to the notion that a person who is in that setting can lose his ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary choice." Attorney James Nugent, who represented Webb in the lawsuit, said Chatigny ruled that Webb didn't meet his burden of proof, and the judge sided with the Department of Correction. "The fact that Judge Chatigny denied my claim (in the Webb case) confirms that he is not some bleeding-heart liberal," Nugent said. "We didn't have the evidence and he ruled against us." Nugent is one of the attorneys now representing Dan Ross, Michael Ross' father, who has been trying to block the execution. "(Chatigny) is a very conservative jurist who does not go out on a limb unless he is justified," Nugent said. "His legal reasoning is sound. What he did here was warranted - it was a life-or-death situation." Nugent noted that the psychiatrist who originally concluded Ross was competent to decide to forgo further appeals, Dr. Michael Norko, has since indicated that he might have reached a different conclusion if he had access to additional information, such as Ross' writings. "If (Chatigny) didn't intervene, Michael Ross would be dead," Nugent said. (source: New Haven Register)
