March 18 KENTUCKY: Supreme Court Ruling on Kentucky Death Row Inmate Bowling was convicted of murdering Edward and Tina Earley at their Lexington dry cleaning business in 1990. He was scheduled to die by lethal injection in November, but last minute legal challenges by his defense earned him a stay of execution. The Supreme Court agreed to look at his mental capacity and his claim. No claims of mental retardation were introduced during his trial. 2 intelligence tests given to him before trial placed his I.Q. well above the minimum of 70 that's required for an inmate to be executed. In Thursday's Supreme Court ruling Justice William Cooper said Bowling "was afforded both the opportunity to assert his mental retardation claim ... and chose not to assert the claim at trial." This is not the only issue that helped stay Bowling's execution. Whether or not Kentucky's method of lethal injection is is humane is being challenged as well and the outcome of that could also affect Bowling's future behind bars. (source: WTVQ News) NEBRASKA: High court affirms death row for Gales In the first test of the state's new death sentencing system, the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld Arthur Lee Gales' sentence to death row. Gales was convicted of the rape and murder of 13-year-old Latara Chandler and of drowning her 7-year-old brother, Tramar, in Omaha in November 2000. Gales also was convicted of attempted second-degree murder for the severe beating of the children's mother, Judy Chandler. "The court's affirmation of Gales' death sentences confirms our belief that the new sentencing process is both constitutional and appropriate," said Attorney General Jon Bruning. Gales' attorney, Susan Bazis of Omaha, did not return a phone call to her office. Gales was the 1st person sentenced under the death penalty law the Legislature passed in emergency session in 2002. Then-Gov. Mike Johanns called the session after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, should decide whether a killer deserves the death penalty. Although Gales already faced the electric chair at that time, his sentence had not yet been confirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court, which sent his case back for re-sentencing under the new law. In Friday's 32-page opinion written by Judge John Gerrard, the high court's 6-0 ruling rejected each of Gales' challenges to the new law. The court backed the new system in which a jury decides whether there are factors in a crime that justify a death sentence. It is still left to judges to make final decisions on death or life in prison. The court also rejected Gale's challenges that the electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment, that the courts did not properly compare his sentence to those given others convicted of 1st-degree murder, and that the courts do not have a fair system for choosing the 3 judges to serve on a sentencing panel. The court also turned down Bazis' argument that Latara Chandler's murder was not especially heinous or cruel because she may well have been unconscious before she was sexually assaulted. Gerrard said the evidence in Gales' case supported that Latara struggled and was choked into unconsciousness during or after the assault. The high court concluded the mitigating factors in Gales' case were outweighed by the four aggravating circumstances found by the jury - that Gales previously had been convicted of a violent crime, that the murders were committed to conceal his identity in the attack on the children's mother, that he committed multiple murders at the same time, and that Latara's murder was especially heinous because of the sexual abuse. "The mitigating factors found to be present - Gales' relationship to his family and his ability to adapt to life in prison - are not compelling and do not approach the weight to be given to the aggravating circumstances that the jury found," Gerrard wrote. The ruling, said Nebraska's attorney general, "will provide significant guidance in all future capital cases being tried in Nebraska." (source: Omaha World-Herald) CALIFORNIA: Almost from the moment Laci Peterson was reported missing on Christmas Eve 2002, police said, a combination of red flags and a gut feeling that things were not right drove their investigation in the direction of her husband, Scott. The patrol officer who responded to the Peterson home noticed a number of oddities. For instance, things did not square with Scott Peterson's tale of a fishing trip, said Modesto Police Detective Al Brochini at a news conference Thursday. Chief among those was Peterson's demeanor, given the fact his 8-months-pregnant wife was missing. "All along, he had a very nonchalant, going-through-the-motions kind of attitude with me," Brochini said. "His major concerns were not Laci in the beginning of the case." Instead, Brochini said, Peterson had voiced concerns about a car door hitting another and the condition of furniture. Another Modesto Police detective Jon Buehler cited a sugary phone message left by Peterson, ostensibly for Laci but really meant for police to hear, which Buehler said would have seemed odd for anyone married for a while. Peterson, 32, was convicted in November of killing Laci and the couple's unborn son. Jurors recommended he receive the death penalty, and a judge followed that recommendation Wednesday. On Thursday, Peterson was transferred from San Mateo County Jail to the infamous San Quentin State Prison, where he will likely be put to death when that day comes. Peterson's demeanor and lack of emotion were the 1st red flag, authorities said, and they continued through his sentencing. "That's been his reaction since the first day I met him," Brochini said. "Cool. Calm. Nonchalant. Polite. Arrogant. Thinks he's smarter than everybody. That's how he acted yesterday." Buehler said he believes Peterson misjudged the police and the media coverage of the case. It became a joke, he said, that detectives with only high-school diplomas and a little bit of college could bring down a guy with a 4-year degree from California Polytechnic Institute. Prosecutors said they would "definitely" have charged Peterson in his wife's death, even if her torso and the body of their son had not washed up on shore in April 2003. "It's a culmination of circumstantial evidence," prosecutor David Harris said. "Each piece maybe doesn't make the case, but when you put it all together, it makes sense. Even without the body, there was plenty of evidence to prove a homicide was committed and he was responsible." And when Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey, came forward to assist police, it was "huge," Buehler said. "In the early days, the information she had gave us some direction. ... Amber never went sideways on this once. We couldn't have asked for a better witness." And the audiotapes she made of her phone calls with Peterson were crucial as well, Harris said. "The jury got to hear that he wasn't what anybody saw. ... This is a person who's lying to the police, who wasn't being cooperative with the investigation." Laci's family members had been planning to attend the Thursday news conference, said Kim Petersen of the Sund/Carrington Foundation, which has assisted the family, but after Peterson's emotional sentencing Wednesday, "they are exhausted today, both emotionally and physically." Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden said he does not plan to attend Peterson's execution, should it occur in his lifetime. "For me, the statement has been made," he said. "This is a domestic violence homicide. It's not acceptable in our society to kill your spouse. If you're in a relationship and it's not working, use resources. Don't use violence. I think it's a worthwhile message to carry out of this tragedy." (source: CNN) **************************** Prosecutors Relieved Scott Peterson Jailed With Scott Peterson now in prison, the prosecutors and detectives who helped send him there said they were frustrated by the prevailing view early in his murder trial that the former fertilizer salesman would probably go free. "What was happening in court wasn't what was being reported on TV," Modesto Detective Al Brocchini said Thursday as the authorities offered their most in-depth public comments on the high-profile case. The discussion came hours after Peterson, secured with leg irons and shackles around his wrists and waist, was taken to San Quentin State Prison. The infamous lockup overlooks the same bay where the body of Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci, was discarded. District Attorney Jim Brazelton said he never lost faith that the state would win by methodically presenting a wealth of circumstantial evidence. Peterson, 32, was convicted of 2 counts of murder in November and sentenced to death Wednesday. "Things did get hard for a while. Our people were taking a hit," Brazelton said. "But, as the end result showed, they were on top of it. They were on top of it early on." The authorities declined to offer new evidence or theories on how Peterson carried out the slaying, even though a gag order that had prevented them from discussing their case has been lifted. Instead, during an hour spent fielding questions from reporters, they expressed hope that the public never forgets Laci Peterson. "There is not a sense of joy or jubilation. The job that needed to be done has been done," said Roy Wasden, Modesto's police chief. "There will never be a time we won't regret that this incident took place, but justice has been served." Brocchini explained how his suspicions became trained on Peterson the night he reported his eight-months pregnant wife missing because "I knew his actions weren't right." Inconsistent statements about where he had been that day, choosing to take a shower and wash dirty rags before calling anyone to ask about Laci Peterson's whereabouts and expressing concern that his boss would see a picture of his boat were all factors that pointed to Peterson, Brocchini said. "His major concerns weren't Laci," he said. Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002. Prosecutors said Peterson killed her and then dumped her body in San Francisco Bay. The badly decomposed remains of Laci Peterson and her fetus washed ashore 4 months later. Brocchini and Detective Jon Buehler, who was also assigned to the case, said they would relish the chance to interview Peterson again and would do so on their own, if it meant they would finally learn how he killed his wife and disposed of her body. But Brazelton, the prosecutor, predicted they would never get the chance. "I don't foresee him becoming a Ted Bundy, to sit down and give an in-depth interview about what happened," he said. "I think he will go to his grave with his mouth tightly sealed, just like he has all along." (source: Associated Press) ********************************** A shot in the dark----Unknown killers answered Blake's oft-uttered prayer I glanced at the Yahoo! news blurbs, as I always do, before checking my e-mail. There it was, "Robert Blake Acquitted." Nope, that can't be right, I thought. Must still be half asleep. I rubbed my eyes and looked again. "Robert Blake Acquitted." Damn, that is what it says. The O.J. verdict did not surprise me. To me, O.J. was obviously guilty, but he did have the "Dream Team" and he did have a predominantly black jury and jurors did hear lead detective Mark Fuhrman use the n-word roughly 900 times on tape. At least it made sense. The Scott Peterson verdict was a happy surprise. Personally, I thought there was a good chance Peterson would walk. He, too, was obviously guilty, but there wasn't really that much hard evidence tying him to the crime, just a very strong circumstantial case. Frankly, Peterson's alibi reeked. He said he was "fishing" on Christmas Eve. Fishing! In the San Francisco Bay Area on December 24th. Sure. Cold, wet, rainy, choppy seas, fishing. Great alibi. Then, when the police asked Peterson what kind of fish he was going after, what did he say? "I don't know." Name a fish! How hard is that? Bass, trout, grouper, sushi, fish sticks ... for the love of God - say something. What really fried Scott Peterson was that his wife's body washed up exactly where he said he was on the day she disappeared. The dumbest jury in the world could put that little puzzle together. In fact, Scott Peterson makes O.J. look like a criminal genius. At least O.J. had several plausible alibis: "I was hitting golf balls ... I was taking a nap ... I was taking a shower ... I was killing another woman on the other side of town ..." Robert Blake acquitted - it just did not make sense. For starters, Blake had asked everyone he knew to kill his wife: Friends, former associates, neighbors, the cable guy, the pizza guy, his pool guy. He sent out bulk e-mails, asking people to kill his wife; he ended his Christmas cards with "P.S. Wanna whack my wife for 5 grand?" Blake even asked stuntmen to kill his wife. Stuntmen! What were they going to do, stab her with a rubber knife? Shoot her with blanks? Prosecutors argued Blake ultimately arrived at the same conclusion so many of us come to: "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Then, they said, Blake gave the worst acting job of his life. Now, it would be easy to make cynical fun of Blake's acting career and point to "Baretta" and quotes like "You can take dat to da bank," and imply that Blake was a bad actor. But that is not true. The truth is, Robert Blake at his best was a damn good actor. His portrayal of a heartless killer in "In Cold Blood" was nothing short of gifted. And honestly, as a kid growing up, I had seen Robert Blake as a guest on "The Tonight Show," and his rapport with Johnny Carson was funny, sweet and often downright charming. Even vulnerable. At his best, Blake's self-deprecating honesty made him impossible not to like. However, on the night of his wife's murder, witnesses say that they simply did not buy his act. It was as if his heart just wasn't in it. They say his tears seemed forced. His shock contrived. Almost immediately, he became a suspect. Soon he was the only suspect. His story just did not add up. His alibi would have made Scott Peterson blush. At the time of his wife's killing, Blake claimed he was walking back to Vitello's restaurant to retrieve his gun. His !ital!gun!off!! Rule No. 1 one in homicide: In any murder alibi, the word "gun" should be conspicuously absent. He could have said he was going back to the restaurant to get his jacket or his credit card, but no, he actually said he was going back to get a firearm. Yet somehow, the jury found him not guilty. In other words, the jurors heard that Blake had conspired to kill his wife and knew that he made no particular secret of wanting her dead. But they came to the conclusion that on the night in question, by sheer coincidence, some stranger had happened along on a quiet residential street and shot the woman for no apparent reason. An impulse killing, as it were. They did not rob her, they did not take her car, her purse, nothing. They just happened along, answered Robert Blake's darkest prayer, then vanished into the night. Now, you are probably expecting an indictment of our "system." Well, I'm not going to do it. It brings to mind what Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." Yes, our justice system is flawed, it is only as good as the weakest juror in many cases, but where is there a better system? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? No, our "system" is not to blame for why some killers go to death row and others walk scot-free. (source: L. A. Daily News -- Phil Perrier is a comedian and humor writer in Los Angeles)
