April 17 TENNESSEE: Man faces death, but case not adding up----DNA evidence tells new story of 20-year-old crime Paul Gregory House waits on Tennessee's death row, smoking cigarettes and watching TV from his wheelchair in the prison clinic, with no faith in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "I really don't care if they want to hear (my story) or not," said House, who is 43 and has advanced multiple sclerosis. "I have no confidence that they'll do anything about it." House was convicted of raping and killing his Union County neighbor, Carolyn Muncey, 20 years ago, but his lawyers have raised serious questions that suggest he could be innocent. After the conviction, DNA evidence later proved House didn't rape Muncey, taking away the prosecution's motive for the killing. A medical examiner has said the bloodstains on House's clothing may have been planted. And neighbors say Muncey's abusive, alcoholic husband confessed to the crime. That's enough to create serious doubt in the minds of seven federal appellate court judges. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld House's conviction and death sentence by an 8-7 margin last year. Six judges concluded House was innocent, and the seventh said there should be a new trial. "I am convinced we are faced with a real-life murder mystery, an authentic 'who-done-it' where the wrong man may be executed," Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote in his dissent. "Was Carolyn Muncey killed by her down-the-road neighbor Paul House or by her husband, Hubert Muncey?" But the majority says House raised questions but failed to prove "that it's more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence." "Despite his best efforts, the case against House remains strong," Judge Alan E. Norris wrote for the majority. Muncey's battered body was found July 14, 1985, partially concealed at the bottom of an embankment near her rural home in Luttrell, about 25 miles north of Knoxville. A friend of Muncey's husband said he saw House emerging from the area where the body was found. An autopsy said a violent blow to the head caused Muncey's death, and there were wounds to suggest she struggled with her attacker. "I didn't kill her," House said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I haven't studied law books and all that. I'm not that interested in the law, not after I've been burned by it. I couldn't care less." House's public defender, Stephen Kissinger, said his client is an innocent man, wasting away on death row. "You're talking about a man who has clearly lost hope, and not without reason," Kissinger said. "Mr. House first tried to present this line of evidence back in state court 15, 16, 17 years ago." Kissinger expects the Supreme Court to rule on his petition sometime this year. The Death Penalty Information Center said 119 people have been exonerated on death row since 1973 and 44 since 1999, but none from Tennessee. There are about 3,400 people on death row nationwide. "Death sentences are down, executions are down, public support is down, and I think DNA has played a big part of that," said Richard Dieter, executive director of DIPC. Beyond the DNA evidence that proved House's semen was not found on Muncey's nightgown, more questions surfaced during a 1999 habeas hearing in federal court. Neighbors of the Munceys - Penny Letner and her sister, Kathy Parker - testified that Muncey's husband, Hubert "Little Hube" Muncey Jr., confessed to killing his wife. Parker also said the man regularly beat his wife. "He said they had been into an argument and he slapped her and she fell and hit her head and it killed her and he didn't mean for it to happen," Parker said. The other physical evidence tying House to the crime - Muncey's bloodstains on a pair of his jeans - was challenged at the hearing by Assistant State Chief Medical Examiner Cleland Blake. He testified that the blood likely came from 4 test tube samples collected during Muncey's autopsy. For Judge Gilbert S. Merritt, that was "strong evidence that the sample in the vials of blood were mishandled or possibly even tampered with and intentionally spilled on the jeans" between the time it was collected in Union County and sent to the FBI crime lab. Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers has declined to comment on the case, but Paul Phillips, who prosecuted the original case, said he's "personally satisfied" the true killer is on death row. "I have no doubt in my mind," he said. Even though House's semen wasn't on Muncey's gown as originally contended at trial, Phillips said he never gave it the weight it has received in post-conviction proceedings. "We know the semen stain on the night gown wasn't his," he said. "Would that have made a difference with the jury? I don't think so. We never emphasized the semen stain. We proved that she fought her attacker, and she had a lot of injuries consistent with being strangled and being hit in the head." House admits he lied to investigators about his whereabouts on the night of the murder, and he had scratches and bruises on his hands and arms. He also had a prior conviction in Utah as a sex offender. The prosecution said House lured Muncey out of her house the night she was killed by telling her that her husband had been in a car wreck. "That was an entirely believable scenario," Phillips said. "He was drinking bad at the time, and I'm sure she expected the damn fool to wreck." House, who had left his girlfriend's house for a short walk on the night Muncey was killed, returned there a beaten mess. Phillips says it was from the struggle when he fatally beat her. But House says he was attacked by 2 men who pulled up in a car. "I may have known the second guy that got out of the passenger's side. It might have been Little Hube, I really don't know," House said. "I never saw their faces. I mean, it was dark as hell that night." For at least one judge, the evidence is simply not clear. "The evidence at House's state-court trial clearly pointed to him as the perpetrator," Gilman said. "But the evidence at House's habeas corpus hearing before the district court just as clearly pointed to Hubert Muncey as the guilty party. "At the end of the day, I am in grave doubt as to which of the above two suspects murdered Carolyn Muncey. I am also puzzled as to why more of my colleagues are not similarly in doubt." House, who wore a cigarette-burned white T-shirt during the interview and spoke haltingly, believes his situation is hopeless. He thinks the only way he will leave prison is after the state executes him. "They just want to kill me, whether they've got anything against me or not," he said. (source: Knoxville News Sentinel) USA: Our homegrown vortex: Violence begetting more Funny, when you rummage inside the heads of madmen, you often find both rhyme and reason. In setting off four bombs that killed two and hurt 123 over two years, Eric Rudolph was merely following to its logical conclusion the claim that abortion is murder. "Would you protect your children from the clutches of a murderer?" he asks in a manifesto released last week after he pleaded guilty in Birmingham and Atlanta courtrooms to the bombings in a deal in which he escaped the death penalty. "Would you protect your neighbors' children when they were under assault?" So Rudolph took life to save life - the usual excuse. He has much in common with Osama bin Laden, except that bin Laden's a more skilled tactician. Though perhaps mirroring the Mideast variety, America's Christian terrorism springs from domestic soil. One nurturant is our quickness, as a nation and as individuals, to resort to violence. That tendency crosses party lines, but the Bush administration holsters a hair trigger. George W. Bush set the tone in his six years as governor of Texas, where he oversaw 152 executions - a record no other governor has matched in modern times, according to The Atlantic Monthly. He granted clemency not once - despite facing cases in which the demands of prudence, justice or mercy permitted such action. The needless rush to war in Iraq shows best his unseemly eagerness to turn to violence as president. A big reason to avoid violence is that it does beget more of the same, and not all of it in direct response to the original use of force. Rather, a vortex of violence sucking in all of society gains strength - perhaps a reason why some researchers have noticed an uptick in homicides in the wake of executions. (Examples of such studies: "Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of Oklahoma's Return to Capital Punishment" by William Bailey and "Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California" by Ernie Thompson.) No, the research is not conclusive. Fortunately, Rudolph himself will stay in prison for life, rather than be put to death. So the violence he perpetrated might not fan new waves of violence. Such waves can emanate back and forth over years, even centuries. Thus, the crusades early in the last millennium help explain the jihad against America today. Most violence in America is homegrown, of course. Despite a drastic drop in homicides in recent years, we still lead the industrial world in murders - even though we boast the death penalty and the other nations don't. Another difference between us and them: Firearms proliferate here, but not elsewhere. In Rudolph's view, our murder rate is way undercounted. It doesn't include abortions. Defenders of a woman's right to end pregnancies reject Rudolph's premise that abortion is murder. They view fetuses, particularly in early stages, as just potential children - which means abortions should be permitted, but not taken lightly. Rudolph aims much of his wrath at the Christians who share his belief that abortion kills, but who refuse to use force to stop the killing. He calls them "liars, hypocrites and cowards." Some "pro-lifers" argue that people who kill to stop abortions are morally no better than abortionists. Illustrating that rationales for violence in one sphere can easily spill over into another, Rudolph answers the pro-life argument by pointing to Iraq. "Are you not the ones waving the flag in support of the coward Bush's operation in Iraq?" he asks. "Do you not say that Washington's cause justifies the bombing and shooting of thousands of people? Answer me, is the causus belli of promoting democracy in the Middle East more weighty for waging war than the systematic murder of millions of your own citizens?" By no means do I agree with Rudolph. But he does point to a kink in that particular pro-life argument. Even though he describes himself as a Catholic, Rudolph neglects to mention recently deceased Pope John Paul II, who happened to oppose abortions and the Iraq war and terrorism, even if perpetrated by a Christian. How does this pope fit into Rudolph's world view? In a way, the pope was a throwback to the pacifist Christ. The pope showed the world and America a way out of the vortex of violence: Skip needless wars, abandon the death penalty, aid the poor and the dispossessed. Yes, we can stop begetting yet more violence. (source: Gregory Stanford, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 16) ********************* Former U.S. Attorney visits Tulsa Former U-S Attorney General Janet Reno says the country isn't doing enough to ensure innocent citizens aren't being prosecuted and jailed. She says it's important to look at policing and prosecuting procedures, especially in states like Oklahoma that have the death penalty. Reno was in Tulsa yesterday, speaking at a conference on ethics and the limits of law enforcement. Reno -- who was attorney general from 1993 to 2001 -- says 157 jailed defendants have been exonerated in the last 17 years because of DNA testing. She says she's sure more innocent citizens are behind bars. (source: The Associated Press) *********************** Judges Battle Transcends Numbers----Republicans already rule most federal courts. The issue is how far right the GOP can take them. The looming battle over President Bush's nominees to the U.S. appeals courts might derail the Senate, but it probably won't make much difference in the federal courts. That's because Republican appointees already dominate them. 94 of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least 7 of the 9 seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees. Even if Bush wins approval for the dozen disputed nominees who have been blocked by Senate Democrats, only one circuit would change its ideological balance - hardly a seismic shift. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, now evenly divided, would become 10-6 Republican. Though it remains a staple of conservative rhetoric that the courts are "out of control" and driven by "liberal activists," the GOP's control of the White House for 24 of the last 36 years has given Republicans - if not conservatives - a firm grip on the federal judiciary. But the fact is that party labels don't necessarily mean much on the bench. For Republicans, that has become especially clear as the party has moved further to the right, in some cases leaving "conservative" judges looking "moderate." That's why last year's Republican Party platform took aim at the GOP-dominated federal courts and pledged to "stop activist judges from banning the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments." The fight may have more to do with the kind of Republican who joins the courts, in particular the Supreme Court. While Democrats are determined to block judicial nominees they see as conservative ideologues, the Republican leadership pushes for right-leaning judges. Under the Constitution, the president's judicial nominees need only a majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed. However, under the Senate's rules, it takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to cut off debate, breaking a filibuster. That means the 44 Democrats can block Bush's nominees by refusing to cut off debate. To prevent that, Republicans now threaten to remove the ability to filibuster judicial nominations. The imminent fight over appeals court nominees is widely considered a rehearsal for this summer, when the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is expected to retire. He could be the 1st of several high court justices to depart during Bush's 2nd term. "The only way to explain the fever pitch over this issue [of filibusters] is its potential impact on a Supreme Court fight," said Washington attorney Brad Berenson, a White House lawyer during Bush's first term. "It is about whether the Democrats will be able to block a Supreme Court nomination." The dominance of GOP appointees on the Supreme Court has not led to predictably conservative rulings. Indeed, the court has upheld the right to abortion and preserved the ban on school-sponsored prayers, two of its still-disputed liberal precedents. And more recently, it has expanded gay rights, upheld affirmative action in colleges and universities, and struck down the death penalty for murderers who are mentally retarded or under age 18. The importance of what brand of Republican joins the court was driven home in 1987, when Reagan chose the conservative Judge Robert Bork. Senate Democrats defeated Bork, and Reagan chose instead Judge Anthony M. Kennedy of Sacramento, a Republican with a reputation as a moderate conservative. He won a unanimous confirmation by the Senate. The switch proved momentous. In 1989, Kennedy cast the 5th vote to rule that burning an American flag was protected as an act of free speech. In 1992, Kennedy and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan's 1st appointee, cast the deciding votes to uphold the right to abortion and to prohibit public schools from sponsoring prayers, even during ceremonies such as graduation. O'Connor cast the deciding vote to uphold college affirmative action 2 years ago, and Kennedy cast the key vote last month to strike down the death penalty for juvenile murderers. Bork, now retired, has said he would have voted the other way on all those issues and given the conservative dissenters the majority. A similar drama could play out in Bush's 2nd term. Justice John Paul Stevens, who will celebrate his 85th birthday Wednesday, has been the court's liberal leader for the last decade. Though he has been in good health, he could be forced to step aside in the next few years. Similarly, O'Connor, 75, has been the subject of retirement rumors, although she says she has no plans to quit. If the Senate's filibuster rule survives, Democrats could wield a veto of sorts if Bush were to choose, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas to replace Rehnquist. Another possible nominee, Judge J. Michael Luttig of Virginia, a conservative, has been targeted by liberal activists and could expect a Democratic filibuster. However, if the Republicans win a change in the filibuster rule, Bush could look forward to easy confirmation for his Supreme Court nominees. In the meantime, the fight is over nominees to the midlevel appeals courts, whose authority is limited. They hear appeals from the federal trial courts in their region, and these appellate judges are supposed to follow the law as written by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. When the circuit courts disagree on a significant issue of law, the Supreme Court usually takes up a case to resolve the dispute. Many of the disputed Bush nominees to those courts are not likely to have much impact even if confirmed. For example, Priscilla R. Owen, 50, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, was nominated to serve on the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans. She had a conservative, pro-business record on the Texas court, and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee said they did not believe she would be fair to workers, environmentalists and others who sued a business. In 2003, using the filibuster, the Democrats repeatedly blocked Owen from having a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. However, if the filibuster were broken or the rules were changed to enable Owen's confirmation, she would merely add one more conservative voice to a thoroughly conservative appeals court. Eleven of its 15 current judges are Republican appointees. Despite some of their rhetoric, Congressional Republicans have acknowledged by their actions that the federal courts are not wildly liberal. This year, the GOP pushed through a bill to limit class-action lawsuits by transferring them from state to federal judges. Its sponsors believed the federal judiciary would prove more friendly to business and less accommodating to trial lawyers and consumer activists. The great exception to the GOP dominance in the federal court system is the 9th Circuit in the West, where Democratic appointees hold 16 of the 24 seats. In the late 1970s, Congress created new judgeships in growing regions, and President Carter filled seats on the 9th Circuit with liberal Democrats, several of whom still serve today. In the 1990s, some of the Carter appointees stepped down, and they were replaced by appointees of President Clinton's. As a result, Bush's drive to solidify the Republican hold on the federal courts is unlikely to break the Democratic grip in San Francisco. Only one of the pending nominees - William G. Myers III - is earmarked for the 9th Circuit. But if the president cannot change the ideological cast of the 9th Circuit, Republicans in Congress can change the makeup of the 9th Circuit itself. It is by far the largest of the appeals courts, encompassing nine states, from Alaska to Arizona and California. "It is not a question of if the 9th Circuit will be split, but when," House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) told a conference of judges at the Supreme Court last month. House Republicans are backing a bill to create 2 or even 3 circuits out of the current 9th Circuit, but the plan has stalled in the Senate. ***** A Republican bench Of the 162 active judges on the U.S. court of appeals, 94 of them, or 58%, are Republican appointees. There are 12 nominees by President Bush awaiting confirmation, all of whom were nominated earlier but blocked in the Senate. A breakdown of the circuit courts and their members: Democratic - Republican - Bush Circuit Headquarters appointees appointees nominees D.C. Washington* 4 - 5 - 3 1st Boston 2 - 4 - - 2nd New York 7 - 6 - - 3rd Philadelphia 6 - 7 - - 4th Richmond 4 - 9 - 2 5th New Orleans 4 - 11 - 1 6th Cincinnati 6 - 6 - 4 7th Chicago 3 - 8 - - 8th St. Louis 2 - 9 - - 9th San Francisco 16 - 8 - 1 10th Denver 5 - 7 - - 11th Atlanta 5 - 7** - 1** Federal Washington* 4 - 8 - - Who appointed current judges Nixon: 1 Ford: 1 Carter: 9 Reagan: 29 G.H.W. Bush: 29 Clinton: 59 G.W. Bush: 34 Total: 162 * The D.C. Circuit takes up appeals filed in the nation's capital. The Federal Circuit is a specialized court that chiefly handles patent cases. **William Pryor of Alabama was put on the 11th Circuit by President Bush in a temporary, recess appointment. The president also nominated him for the seat, and Pryor is awaiting confirmation by the Senate to a permanent post. (source: U.S. Courts of Appeal) *********************** Execution by Lethal Injection Is Not Humane or Painless Prisoners executed by lethal injection in the US may have experienced awareness and unnecessary suffering because they were not properly sedated, concluded a research letter in last week's issue of The Lancet. The authors believe the use of lethal injection should cease in order to prevent unnecessary cruelty and a public review into anaesthesia procedures during executions is necessary. Lethal injection is the most common way people are legally put to death in the USA. It has eclipsed all other methods of execution because of public perception that the process is relatively humane and does not violate the US Constitution's Eight Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Anaesthesia during lethal injection is essential to minimise suffering and preserve public opinion that lethal injection is a near-painless death. Lethal injection generally consists of the sequential administration of sodium thiopental for anaesthesia, pancuronium bromide to induce paralysis, and finally potassium chloride to stop the heart and cause death. Without anaesthesia the person would experience suffocation and excruciating pain without being able to move. Leonidas Koniaris (University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA) and colleagues analysed protocol information from the states of Texas and Virginia, where around 45% of executions are done. They found that executioners-typically one to 3 emergency medical technicians or medical corpsmen-had no training in anaesthesia, drugs were administered remotely with no monitoring of anaesthesia and there were no data collection, documentation of anaesthesia, or post-procedure peer review. They also noted that neither state had a record of the creation of its protocol. The investigators also analysed data from autopsy toxicology reports from 49 executions in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. They found that concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of the 49 executions; 21 inmates had concentrations consistent with awareness. The study suggests that the current practice of lethal injection for execution fails to even meet veterinary standards for putting down animals. Dr Koniaris states: "Our data suggest that anaesthesia methods in lethal injection in the US are flawed. Failures in protocol design, implementation, monitoring and review might have led to unnecessary suffering of at least some of those executed. Because participation of doctors in protocol design or execution is ethically prohibited, adequate anaesthesia cannot be certain. Therefore to prevent unnecessary cruelty and suffering, cessation and public review of lethal injection is warranted." In an accompanying Editorial The Lancet comments: "Whether you receive the death penalty depends not on what you have done, but where you committed your crime, what colour your skin is, and how much money you have. The use of the death penalty not only varies from state to state (12 US states have no death penalty) but from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within a state. Repeated studies have shown a pattern of racial discrimination in the administration of the death penalty. "Capital punishment is not only an atrocity, but also a stain on the record of the world's most powerful democracy. Doctors should not be in the job of killing. Those who do participate in this barbaric act are shameful examples of how a profession has allowed its values to be corrupted by state violence." (source: Medical News Today) IOWA: Honken's girlfriend faces death penalty case Iowa Attorneys are making final preparations for the 2nd death penalty trial in Iowa in more than 4 decades. Jury selection begins Tuesday in federal court in Sioux City in the case of Angela Johnson. She's the former girlfriend of Dustin Honken, who was convicted last fall in the drug slayings of 5 people, including 2 children, in the Mason City area in 1993. The jury recommended the death penalty. Honken will be sentenced after a judge resolved post-trial appeal motions. Johnson is charged with conspiring with Honken in the execution-style slayings. Attorneys predict Johnson's trial will last about as long as Honken's 8-week trial and feature much of the same evidence. But Johnson's trial will also feature some unique twists, including testimony about her mental state in the days after the bodies were discovered. Johnson tried to commit suicide in jail after the bodies were found by investigators who used a map she drew and gave to a jailhouse informant. (source: Associated Press) CONNECTICUT: She'll wed killer -- if he'll fight execution In Oklahoma, Susan Powers is known as a bright mathematician who created a Web site for a group that cares for abused animals. In Connecticut, she is the woman who became romantically involved with serial killer and rapist Michael Ross. Ross, who confessed to raping and killing women in New York and Connecticut in the early 1980s, agreed last year to drop his appeals against the death penalty. His execution, set for May 11, would be the first in New England in 45 years. He and Powers, however, have rekindled a romance she had broken off in 2003. Powers has promised to marry him and move closer if he will fight his execution. Their relationship is detailed in Ross' letters -- in which Ross writes he fears being abandoned by Powers "even more than the execution itself" -- and a deposition by Powers. The documents were part of testimony before a judge who will decide if Ross is competent to give up his appeals. Death row romance is not rare. Nationwide, about 23 percent of death row inmates had spouses in 2003, the most recent statistics available from the Justice Department. Others, like Ross, have girlfriends or boyfriends. "They're certainly not unusual," said Sheila Isenberg, author of Women Who Love Men Who Kill. "They're not crazy. The relationships fill their needs." Women who date killers come from all backgrounds. Many were abused by their husbands or fathers, Isenberg said. Ross and Powers chat by phone regularly, discussing everything from life on death row to the latest episodes of "This Old House.'" Powers began corresponding with Ross in 2000. Powers said she was "petrified" the 1st time she visited Ross. But she concluded that his crimes stemmed from mental illness. "I try to see the good in people," Powers said in a deposition. (source: Associated Press)
