March 22 NORTH CAROLINA: Judge orders files given to defense More than three months after staying the execution of death-row inmate Charles Walker, a Superior Court judge on Monday ordered prosecutors to turn over more investigative files related to his case -- a move that could lead defense attorneys to file another round of appeals. The decision came in an often heated three-hour hearing during which one of Walker's attorneys charged that prosecutors drew up paperwork years earlier to intentionally deceive the defense into believing they had received all investigative files when they had not. Prosecutors hotly disputed that contention. "That is a complete, 100 % falsehood," said Howard Neumann, Guilford County chief assistant district attorney, after the hearing. "We complied with the law in every respect." Walker's defense attorneys are trying to persuade Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III that Walker is ineligible for the death penalty. Walker, 39, was sentenced to death ten years ago for his role in the 1992 murder of 20-year-old Elmon Tito Davidson Jr. of Greensboro, whose body was never found. In an unusual move, Craig stayed Walker's execution on Nov. 29, just four days before the man was scheduled to die by lethal injection. The state Supreme Court later upheld Craig's order. Craig wanted to hear further arguments from defense attorneys, who contend that Walker was convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of five witnesses who pointed to Walker as the mastermind to escape more severe punishment for themselves. Defense attorneys also claim that a jury incorrectly recommended a death sentence for Walker based on the aggravating conduct of two co-defendants -- who decided on their own to shoot and cut up the victim when Walker was not present. According to testimony, the body was thrown into a trash bin and never found by authorities. Prosecutors on Monday said that the testimony at issue was corroborated by a taped phone conversation played at trial in which they claim Walker admits to moving Davidson's body. The call, which occurred about 2 months after the killing, was between Walker and an acquaintance, Antonio Wrenn. Wrenn was a co-defendant in the case who allowed police to record his conversation to help investigators gain information against Walker. After playing the tape in court a dozen or more times, both sides disputed what was actually said. "I don't hear it," defense attorney Paul M. Green told the judge about Walker's alleged admission. The most heated exchange of the hearing happened when defense attorney Jonathan Megerian alluded to prosecutors trying to hide information from the defense that could have helped Walker's case. He claimed that prosecutors had deliberately drawn up an affidavit in 1997 to make it sound like there was only one file in the Walker investigation and the defense had received everything from it. But only recently did Megerian and his co-counsel realize that there were other police files that weren't turned over containing potentially exculpatory evidence. "(The affidavit) was misleading, that's for sure," Megerian said Neumann, who prosecuted the case, angrily denied the accusation. Despite his initial reluctance, the judge eventually ordered prosecutors to hand over a total of 3 files. After reading one in court, Megerian claimed that it contained exculpatory evidence that could have been used at trial to impeach at least 1 of the state's witnesses. The significance of that discovery was not immediately known. The defense signaled they might file an additional motion for appropriate relief. Meanwhile, Craig must rule on the defense's current arguments, a decision that could come at any time. "Obviously, I have a lot of things to think about," Craig said before the hearing ended. (source: News & Record) CALIFORNIA: Ex-Calif. prosecutor admits conspiracy In San Jose, a former prosecutor testified Tuesday he conspired with a judge to keep Jewish jurors off a capital murder case that ultimately sent the defendant to death row. At a hearing ordered by the California Supreme Court, John "Jack" Quatman recalled how the late Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stanley Golde lectured him in chambers April 28, 1987, during jury selection for Fred Freeman, who was sentenced to death for killing a bar patron during a robbery. "What are you doing?" Quatman, now a criminal defense attorney in Montana, quoted Golde asking. "No Jewish person can sit on a death penalty jury and vote for death," the judge said, according to Quatman. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy will forward his findings to the California Supreme Court on whether the court should grant Freeman a new trial. Murphy limited the scope of Tuesday's testimony solely to jury selection in Freeman's case, and did not allow questioning on the topic of an alleged office-wide policy against black women and Jews on capital cases. State prosecutors tried to show Quatman was lying. George Williamson, a special prosecutor with the state attorney general's office, asked Quatman whether he knew he was violating his oath of the state Bar when he illegally eliminated at least 3 jurors he thought were Jewish. And he grilled Quatman about whether he told anybody immediately after Golde's alleged statements. Quatman conceded he neither told his supervisor, nor reported his own or the judge's conduct to the state Bar. He also testified he did not have a grudge against the district attorney's office, as state prosecutors allege. (source: Associated Press) *************** Trial begins for man accused of kidnapping, killing California girl DNA consistent with that of Samantha Runnion was found inside the car of the man on trial for abducting and killing the 5-year-old girl, a prosecutor told a jury Monday. And defendant Alejandro Avila's DNA was found under the girl's fingernails after her body was found the day after her abduction in July 2002, Deputy District Attorney David Brent said during his opening statement to the jury. Brent said that DNA was found inside Avila's Ford Thunderbird. The genetic material was found in what Brent said were dried tears recovered from a door handle. Deputy Public Defender Phil Zalewski told the jury in his opening statement that cell phone records show that it would have been difficult for Avila to have been with Samantha at the time of her death. Zalewski said that his client was obsessed over a breakup with his girlfriend, and he was driving around randomly, the cell phone records show. Responding to the prosecution's allegations about evidence, he said that the origin of the DNA was suspicious. Both attorneys spoke for about 15 minutes in Orange County Superior Court. Avila sat quietly at the counsel table. Erin Runnion, Samantha's mother, and her husband, Ken Donnelly, sat in the 2nd row. Virginia Runnion, a witness for the prosecution, said she was caring for her granddaughter at about 6:30 p.m. on July 15, 2002, when Sarah Anh, Samantha's 6-year-old playmate, came running in and told her, "Samantha's been taken, a man came and took Samantha." Virginia Runnion said she called 911 and rushed outside the family's Stanton condominium to see if she could see the kidnapper's car but was too late. Avila, 30, of Lake Elsinore, is charged with sexually assaulting and suffocating the girl. Samantha's body was found off Ortega Highway in an area popular with hang gliders. Avila was questioned by sheriff's deputies 3 days after the abduction, then arrested on the 4th day. Avila had been acquitted in January 2001 in Riverside County on charges of molesting 2 girls, 8 and 9, who were the daughter and cousin of an ex-girlfriend. Members of the family told police that one girl Avila was accused of molesting had lived in the same Stanton condominium as Samantha until about 6 months before Samantha was killed. Avila faces a possible death sentence if convicted. (source: Orange County Register) ************************** High court rules death row inmate's religious conversion properly considered at trial The Supreme Court says a jury properly considered a convicted killer's religious conversion before sentencing him to death. Today's 5-to-3 ruling comes in the case of William Payton, who was convicted and sentenced in the 1980 rape and stabbing death of a woman in Garden Grove, California. The high court said jurors had taken Payton's behind-bars religious conversion into account -- and denied a request for a new trial. Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not participate the decision -- from a case that was heard in November -- because he was undergoing thyroid cancer treatment at the time. (source: Associated Press) ************************ Court: Inmate's Religion Used OK at Trial The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a jury which sentenced a convicted killer to death had properly taken into account his religious conversion, even though a prosecutor incorrectly argued it was irrelevant. In a 5-3 ruling, justices reversed a lower court ordering a new trial for William Payton. While a California prosecutor was wrong to make that assertion, the errors did not make a difference in sentencing because jurors had heard testimony from other witnesses attesting to Payton's religious conversion, they said. "Testimony about a religious conversion spanning one year and nine months may well have been considered altogether insignificant in light of the brutality of the crimes, the prior offenses, and a proclivity for committing violent acts against women," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. He also noted that justices only can overturn the death sentence if it was unreasonable given all the evidence presented. "In context, it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that the jury believed Payton's evidence was neither credible nor sufficient to outweigh the aggravating factors, not that it was not evidence at all," Kennedy wrote. In a dissent, Justice David H. Souter argued Payton deserved a new trial because of the prosecutor's misstatements. "The trial judge utterly failed to correct these repeated misstatements or in any other way to honor his duty to give the jury an accurate definition of legitimate mitigation," Souter wrote. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Payton's is one of the longest-running death penalty cases. He was convicted and sentenced in the 1980 rape and stabbing death of Pamela Montgomery of Garden Grove, Calif. Currently, there are more than 600 inmates on death row in California, although the state has executed only 10 people since 1992 due to protracted legal challenges and concerns about fairness of the system. His lawyers have said that about 70 cases involve death row inmates who claim that mitigating factors after a crime - such as a religious conversion - were not properly considered because of inadequate jury instructions. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in consideration of the case, which was heard in November while he was being treated for thyroid cancer. Rehnquist returned to the bench Monday after a 5-month absence because of the illness. He was back again Tuesday for 2 more arguments. The 80-year-old chief justice's voice remained hoarse and he moved slowly, but he appeared fully engaged and seemed to enjoy being back at work. Rehnquist read an opinion, asked half-a-dozen questions during the first argument, smiled at his colleagues' quips and made a couple of his own. He provoked laughter with a comment to an attorney representing famed Los Angeles lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who is named in a lawsuit the court is considering. As the attorney began describing a hypothetical scenario in which Cochran was running for mayor of San Francisco, Rehnquist remarked, "I thought he lived in L.A." The ruling was in Brown v. Payton, 03-1039. On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov The opinion in Brown v. Payton is available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050322payton.pdf USA: Catholic tide turning away from executions Widespread use of DNA evidence combined with church teachings on human life have prompted a sharp drop in the number of Catholics who support the death penalty, according to a study released Monday by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops. The poll, billed as the largest and most comprehensive study of Catholic attitudes on capital punishment, found that 48 percent of more than 1,700 Catholics surveyed support the death penalty--a plunge from 2002 when another survey reported Catholic support for capital punishment at 64 percent. Almost a third of the Catholics opposed to the death penalty said they had previously supported it but have changed their minds. When asked why they reconsidered, the No. 1 reason cited was religion. "This is a seismic shift in public opinion," said John Zogby, president of Zogby International, which conducted the poll in November. Zogby said the increased use of DNA evidence in exonerating people on death row has created a "cataclysmic event" that is altering public opinion. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, D.C., said at a Monday news conference that he was among those Catholics who had reconsidered his support of the death penalty. Growing up in a family of police officers, McCarrick said support for capital punishment was "part of growing up." But as a pastor, McCarrick said he came to believe the death penalty hurts all people, not just the one being executed. "We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. We cannot defend life by taking life," said McCarrick. "I'm not a young man. But as a pastor, teacher and citizen, I hope I will see the day when the nation I love no longer relies on violence to confront violence." Release of the survey coincides with an aggressive new Catholic campaign to end the death penalty that includes a new Web site (www.ccedp.org), educational materials for parishes and schools, legal advocacy and brochures outlining the church's position on the issue. Rev. Robert F. Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, called the shift in Catholic opinion a "dramatic development." Although use of DNA evidence is one factor in the shift, Drinan said, he also pointed to the persistent pleas of Pope John Paul II to protect life. "There are many factors involved in this and DNA is just one," said Drinan. "The Catholic Church has evolved in its teaching on the death penalty. Before they would say it was allowed in extreme cases to protect society. Under Pope John Paul II, that has changed. It's an evolution in church teaching." In his 1999 encyclical "The Gospel of Life," the pontiff called on followers of Christ to be "unconditionally pro-life" and "proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation." "A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil," he wrote. "Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform." Some Christian leaders who support the death penalty say its justification can be found in the book of Genesis, in which God said to Noah and his family, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." According to the Zogby survey, however, most Catholics said their reason for opposing the death penalty also comes from the Bible: the commandment that states "Thou shalt not kill." When asked about attitudes on the death penalty, 63 percent of Catholics surveyed said they were concerned about what the use of capital punishment "does to us as a people and country." Even among those who support the death penalty, a majority shared that concern, Zogby said. John Carr, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that finding offered some hope that more Catholics could be persuaded to change their opinion. "We know we have a long way to go on this. This is not a campaign of judging people but persuading people." (source: Chicago Tribune) ******************* It's time to kill the death penalty On March 1, in a much-criticized decision, Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles, declaring it unconstitutional. 2 weeks later, a California judge sentenced Scott Peterson to death. Both cases have kept the spotlight on the death penalty. With this renewed attention, one thing is clear: It's time to officially kill the death penalty. The Arizona legislature ought to set the example and outlaw it now. But it won't until we Arizonans demand it. We should and we must. Although reasons for abrogating the penalty abound, there are five particularly persuasive reasons. First, the death penalty should go because it's permanent, but not error-free. When we talk about punishing people through an imperfect justice system replete with human error, permanence is an exceptionally bad thing. The problem is that even if DNA or other evidence eventually proves that a person didn't commit a crime, we can't reverse the penalty once the person has been executed. There's no 2nd chance. And the proven error rate is alarmingly high. More than 114 people have been exonerated from death row since 1972. That's more than three people per year. Moreover, those are just the people whom we know science has exculpated. But DNA testing often isn't even used because many jurisdictions can't afford it or have no established procedure for applying it. In other words, until modern science becomes cheap enough to be used in every death penalty case - to invariably rule out the possibility of a defendant's innocence - we're running the risk of sending innocent people to die. Worse, there's a high probability that we've already executed innocent people. That's especially troubling because our justice system was established with precisely the opposite objective: People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If reasonable doubt exists in a criminal case, the defendant walks. As the saying goes, "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." The 2nd reason the penalty should go is because it doesn't promote the goals of our criminal justice system - namely, rehabilitation, education, deterrence and retribution. The death penalty advances none of these interests. It provides little, if any, social utility beyond that which is accomplished by a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Furthermore, when a person is executed, we make no attempt to promote the interests of education or rehabilitation; instead, we implicitly give up on the offender. In a civilized society, revenge alone shouldn't trump the important, longstanding criminal justice goals of rehabilitation, education and deterrence. Third, the death penalty should go because it doesn't effectively deter crime. Supporters claim that the death penalty prevents murder by scaring would-be killers with the fear of a death sentence. However, no evidence supports that conjecture. Quite the contrary; studies repeatedly demonstrate that executions do not deter crime. It's just that simple. Fourth, let us not forget that race discrimination is another inherent, irreconcilable problem with the death penalty. Although black Americans make up about 12 % of the population, they account for 42 % of current death row inmates. Since 1976, black Americans make up 43 % of total executions, but they comprise only around 25 % of the population. And though both blacks and whites have been the victims of murders in almost equal numbers since 1977, 80 % of the people executed in that period were convicted of murders involving white victims. Fifth and last, we should oppose the death penalty because it contravenes basic respect for human life. In fact, all pro-life Christians should assail the death penalty. "Pro-life," to be consistent, means choosing life in all circumstances - including opposing abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. For example, the Catholic Church officially opposes the death penalty, except in very narrow, limited circumstances. Other Christian denominations profess similar doctrine. Surprisingly, however, there are few anti-death-penalty marches or rallies, even from those who assert that their ultimate aim is to foster a "culture of life." Sadly, that "culture of life" seems to include only some lives - not those whom society has condemned for their bad acts. The real irony of that position is that it's plainly hypocritical. Jesus Christ taught us to protect the marginalized, outcast and downtrodden. Who better exemplifies a modern pariah than a convicted killer? Pro-life Christians have a duty to oppose the death penalty. For all of these, and more, reasons, Arizonans - and all Americans - should urge legislators to terminate the death penalty, and now. Even one more execution is one too many. (source: Columns,Dillon Fishman is a 3rd-year law student; Arizona Daily Wildcat)
