April 19 ILLINOIS: Ryan fights subpoena seeking testimony on pardons Former Gov. George Ryan is fighting an attempt to force him to explain why he decided death row inmate Madison Hobley was innocent and freed him in 2003. Ryan's latest court battle comes in a lawsuit Hobley brought against former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge and others. Hobley claims he was tortured into confessing to a 1987 arson that killed seven people, including his wife and infant son. Hobley was 1 of 4 death row inmates pardoned in January 2003 by Ryan, who declared they were innocent. He commuted the sentences of another 167 death row inmates to life in prison in a historic finding that Illinois' capital punishment system was "broken." Ryan has spoken publicly about his reasons for pardoning Hobley and the other 3 men. But now he is asserting "executive privilege," saying as governor he retained complete discretion over pardons -- power that is not subject to review. Attorneys representing defendants in Hobley's lawsuit feel otherwise. They issued a subpoena on March 29 demanding Ryan produce any notes, memos, correspondence, orders, directives, medical bills or other writings relating to Hobley's claims in his lawsuit. Because Hobley's lawsuit claims he is innocent of the 1987 arson, it's imperative to find out why Ryan agreed he is innocent, said James Sotos, lead attorney for the defendants in the case. Ryan "came out and declared this man innocent," Sotos said. "No court ever did that. ... Did he consider any of the evidence used to convict Madison Hobley?" But Ryan's lawyers, headed by former U.S. Attorney Dan Webb, said a governor's deliberations over pardons are "privileged from disclosure." Enforcing the subpoena would "chill present and future governors who face the often unpopular, but critical, task of examining individual cases and deciding if a pardon is appropriate," they wrote. Last week, Ryan's legal team filed a motion asking the court to toss out the subpoena. Pardons a surprise On a separate legal front, Webb is defending Ryan against federal criminal charges of using his office for personal gain. His trial is scheduled for September. Ryan spoke extensively about Hobley in a speech at DePaul College of Law, where he announced the pardons on Jan. 10, 2003. In prepared remarks, he said detectives under Burge's command grilled Hobley, beat him and nearly suffocated him with a typewriter cover to get him to confess. "Madison Hobley was convicted on the basis of flawed evidence," Ryan said. Ryan also said unreliable witnesses testified they saw Hobley buy gasoline the night of the arson. The jury foreman "intimidated some jurors" by laying his gun on the jury table and announcing, "We'll reach a verdict," Ryan added. Attorneys for Burge and the other defendants in Hobley's lawsuit said they've tried unsuccessfully to obtain the Illinois Prisoner Review Board's recommendations to Ryan about the death row inmates. "They have said, 'No, it's private,'" Sotos said. Just days after Ryan announced the pardons, several board members said they were misled into thinking Ryan would not give blanket clemency. Board member Robert Dunne was quoted as saying he sat on a panel that heard Hobley's case and was surprised Ryan granted a pardon to him based on innocence. (source: Chicago Sun-Times) VIRGINIA: Moussaoui asks for death sentence Accused al-Qaida collaborator Zacarias Moussaoui has written a U.S. judge asking to be sentenced to death in an apparent bid to involve the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema was sent the one-page letter by the French citizen, who is the only suspect in U.S. custody for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday. After being indicted in December 2001, Moussaoui initially pleaded not guilty then tried to plead guilty and later wanted to represent himself. He withdrew his guilty plea and wrote his own legal briefs to the court, sharply chastising, ridiculing and even threatening the judge, prosecutors and his defense team, led by federal public defender Frank Dunham Jr. Sources told the newspaper defense lawyers want this latest request thrown out, arguing the letter is Moussaoui's naive attempt to win a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Brinkema has requested a meeting with prosecutors and defense attorneys at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., before deciding how to proceed. (source: United Press International) ****************** Moussaoui Planning To Admit 9/11 Role Zacarias Moussaoui has notified the government that he intends to plead guilty to his alleged role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and could enter the plea as early as this week if a judge finds him mentally competent, sources familiar with the case said yesterday. Moussaoui's plan to plead guilty comes over his attorneys' objections and still has several obstacles -- including Moussaoui's own whim. The French citizen, the only person charged in the United States in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, tried to plead guilty in 2002, claiming an intimate knowledge of the plane hijackings. But he rescinded his plea a week later. His mental state has been an issue in the case ever since, and U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria is scheduled to meet with Moussaoui this week to determine if he has the mental capacity to enter a plea now, the sources said. In recent letters to the government and to Brinkema, Moussaoui said he is willing to accept the possibility of a death sentence, which sources said could resolve a key point of contention: Prosecutors are unlikely to drop their insistence on capital punishment. If Brinkema accepts a plea, she would then probably set a death penalty trial, at which jurors would decide if Moussaoui should be executed. Moussaoui's renewed interest in a plea comes as the case, which has seen years of delays, seemed to be headed toward trial. Moussaoui was indicted in December 2001, but his trial has been delayed three times. For most of the past 2 years, the case has been tied up in the appellate courts in a dispute over Moussaoui's access to key al Qaeda witnesses. Moussaoui's indictment has been hailed by the Bush administration as proof that the government could fight terror in criminal courtrooms, and his trial is seen as a possible airing of the evidence gathered relating to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If Moussaoui were to plead guilty, much of that evidence might never be heard. Although Moussaoui's antics have ranged from courtroom outbursts to blistering handwritten motions insulting everyone from Brinkema to his own attorneys, legal experts said there is a good chance the judge could find him competent to enter a plea. The legal standard, they said, is whether a defendant understands the charges against him as well as the consequences of a plea and can assist in his own defense. "I don't think the guy is crazy," said Andrew McBride, a former federal prosecutor in Alexandria who has followed the case. "Certainly, his comments in court to date indicate that he doesn't think like us and has a certain hostility toward the United States. But he's a fairly erudite guy. He speaks Arabic, French, English fairly well. He is an educated man." Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland law professor and former high-level Department of Justice official, said that Moussaoui "certainly has acted in a bizarre fashion that heads you in the direction of questioning his competence, but I think there is room here for a finding that he does understand what is going on and can make judgments on his own and is therefore competent." Federal prosecutors in Alexandria, a Justice Department spokesman and attorneys for Moussaoui would not comment, because the recent activity over a possible plea remains under court seal. Moussaoui is charged with conspiring with al Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks. When he tried to plead guilty 3 years ago, he declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and said he had detailed knowledge of the Sept. 11 plot. But after Brinkema gave him a week to think about it, Moussaoui withdrew his plea and claimed that although he is an al Qaeda member, he had no advance knowledge of the hijackings. Also in 2002, Moussaoui fired his attorneys and began representing himself. In his motions, Moussaoui insulted those lawyers, who were appointed standby counsel; taunted the Justice Department; and called Brinkema everything from a "death judge" to a would-be Nazi SS officer. Brinkema later restored Moussaoui's attorneys to the case, and they are now arguing that he is mentally incompetent to enter a plea, sources said. (source: Washington Post) MARYLAND: High court to hear Md. 'Miranda' case----Teen implicated self in Annapolis murder At the urging of Maryland prosecutors, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear the case of a teenager who allegedly implicated himself in a high-profile Annapolis slaying but was not tried because state judges determined he was unfairly questioned by police. The decision, which experts say could lead to a further honing by the justices of the so-called "Miranda rights" familiar to viewers of police dramas, revives a murder case that seemed all but over. Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. asked the high court to intervene after the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out Leeander Jerome Blake's statement to police, ruling that Annapolis police improperly questioned him after he had invoked his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present. In separate police interviews, Blake, then 17, and a friend reportedly blamed each other in the September 2002 carjacking-killing of Straughan Lee Griffin in the city's historic district. That Blake was freed last year by the state's highest court and, under a quirk in Maryland law, could not be tried short of action by the Supreme Court, led prosecutors to say Blake might get away with murder -- something his attorney sharply disputes. Under state law, prosecutors who lose pretrial appeals must drop charges if they are unsuccessful. Maryland lawmakers recently voted to change that law in homicide cases. Anne Arundel County State's Attorney Frank R. Weathersbee called the high court's decision the "beginning of a crucial stage on our road to justice for the murder of Lee Griffin." "We are thankful that the country's highest court has agreed to our appeal in this matter," Weathersbee said in a statement. >From her Portsmouth, Va., home, Virginia Griffin, the victim's mother, called the Supreme Court's action a "step toward getting Mr. Blake toward trial. He should at least be tried by his peers." Curran said in a statement that he was pleased to have the opportunity to bring the case to the Supreme Court, which accepts only about 100 cases a year out of more than 7,000 requests. He is asking that Blake's statement to police be allowed. Blake's lawyer said his client is innocent and he expects to prevail at the high court. "We believe we are right on the law. We expect the Supreme Court to uphold the decision by the Court of Appeals -- the unanimous decision by the Court of Appeals," said Kenneth W. Ravenell, Blake's attorney. Curran's request represented prosecutors' last hope to bring Blake to trial on charges that he and a friend, Terrence Tolbert, killed Griffin as the 51-year-old business owner was unloading groceries in front of his home near the State House on Sept. 19, 2002. After a legal roller coaster over the admissibility of his statements, Tolbert was convicted this year of first-degree murder in the slaying and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Griffin had just taken dry-cleaning out of his Jeep shortly before dusk when 2 youths approached him. He was shot in the head from inches away. His keys were taken. As the carjackers fled in his Jeep, they ran over him. About a month later, Blake and Tolbert were arrested. While in custody, Blake asked to speak with a lawyer. In the lockup, he was handed charging paperwork that said his friend pinned the crime on him and erroneously said he was eligible for the death penalty. Then an officer told him, "I bet you want to talk now, huh?" A detective admonished the officer in front of Blake. A half-hour later, Blake asked to speak with the detective and gave a statement. But in June 2003, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Pamela L. North excluded Blake's statement, saying that police had trampled upon the teen's rights. Prosecutors gambled on an appeal. Blake was freed because of a state law that said defendants must be let out when a prosecutor appeals a judge's pretrial ruling. (Legislators later changed that law, too). That November, the state's 2nd-highest court reversed North's decision and Blake was jailed again. Then his attorney appealed to the state's highest court, which found last June that Blake's statements were inadmissible. Blake has been free ever since. The question facing the Supreme Court is whether the jailed Blake approached the detective voluntarily in late 2002 -- which is permissible -- or was frightened and prompted into giving a statement. Legal scholars said the case raises issues that hark back to 1966, when the high court said in Miranda v. Arizona that police had to issue warnings to suspects that begin with "You have the right to remain silent." Ever since then, courts have been interpreting different circumstances of the warning. In later years, the court ruled that once a person in custody asks for a lawyer, police cannot question him about any criminal matter unless the suspect approaches the police. Nevertheless, in a decision 5 years ago, the court refused to overrule its famous Miranda ruling. Legal experts speculated that the court, increasingly dominated by conservatives, took the case to narrow the application of the Miranda warnings. Yale Kamisar, a law professor at the University of San Diego, said the case could give the court an opportunity to chip away at defendants' rights -- which he called a "distinct possibility. ... I think the court has been reading Miranda narrowly." Last year, the court allowed as evidence a weapon located only after a suspect who had not been fully advised of his rights told them where it was, he said. "It would not be surprising if the court reversed," he said. "On the other hand, I still think the Maryland court was right." Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland, said he suspects the court's decision to hear the case indicates that at least several justices think Annapolis police did not violate Blake's rights. "I think they are heading in the direction that makes the strict application of the Miranda doctrine not as necessary by police officers or law enforcement officers," he said. But Mark A. Graber, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Maryland College Park and at the law school, said this could well be a tough case to overturn on the facts -- the teenager, alone and frightened, read official paperwork that said his friend blamed him and in capital letters said he was charged with a capital offense. Then came the officer's pointed remark. Said Graber: "It would seem to be a very heavy burden on the state to show that these [circumstances] have no effect." (source: Baltimore Sun) INDIANA: Death sentence again----Judge follows jury recommendation for Wayne Kubsch It took no more than 5 minutes Monday for Wayne Kubsch to be sentenced to death for the 1998 murders of his wife, her son and her ex-husband. The victims' relatives spent another 15 minutes remembering their loved ones. A jury convicted Kubsch, 37, and recommended capital punishment at his retrial last month in St. Joseph Superior Court. "I believe the law requires you to follow the jury's recommendation," was all that Deputy Prosecutor Scott Duerring said to Judge William H. Albright. "I have no comment," Kubsch said, representing himself as he did during the trial's sentencing phase. Defense attorney Philip Skodinski was present as backup counsel. For the 2nd time, Kubsch was convicted of the September 1998 murders of his wife, Beth, 31; her ex-husband, Rick Milewski, 35; and Beth and Rick's 10-year-old son, Aaron Milewski. His wife was stabbed 11 times and wrapped in duct tape at the family home on Prism Valley Drive in Mishawaka. Milewski and Aaron each were shot and stabbed. The prosecution maintains that Kubsch was in financial straits and killed his wife to collect $575,000 in life insurance. The judge noted the jury found two aggravating factors applied: that a victim was younger than 12 and there was more than 1 murder. Kubsch, dressed in prison khakis, showed no emotion as Albright imposed the death sentence. As required by law, Albright set an execution date, April 18, 2006, which is actually meaningless. Albright appointed the Indiana Public Defender office to begin Kubsch's appeal. The appellate process is expected to take years. As permitted by law, several family members made statements after the sentence was announced. "I don't want anyone to forget Beth Ann," said her father, George Thompson. "She lit up a room when she came in. She just made you feel good.' He recalled his daughter loved lasagna and chocolate chip cookies and had a lot of fun with her three brothers and sister. 'She was loved and respected by everyone, especially her family," Thompson said. Stephanie Hall of Culver described her cousin's great smile and giggle. She recalled Beth enjoying time with her sons and how she hoped to have another baby with Wayne. Hall said she has started a scholarship fund to help domestic violence victims receive a stipend toward furthering their education. Hall complained that Kubsch is selfish, that he has not apologized, that he did not even mention Beth during his statement at the trial. "We have photos, videos and scrapbooks. You can't take that away from us," she said. Patty Thompson, Beth's sister-in-law, recalled how difficult the deaths were for the entire family, including her two young daughters. She told of teaching the girls they shouldn't hate. "It's easier to say you forgive than it is to do. It's easier to forgive someone who wants to be." "I'm happy it's finally over," Richard Milewski, Rick's father, said afterward. His comments were echoed by Diane Rasor, Beth's mother, Linda Milewski, Rick's wife, and many other family members there. Kubsch's father, daughter and several friends attended the sentencing and left without comment. Also, present was one juror, a woman. Beth's other son, Anthony Early, now 18, who as a 12-year-old found his brother's and Milewski's bodies in 1998, chose to attend his GED class instead of the sentencing, said Rasor, his grandmother. Duerring said he is confident the case will stand up on appeal and not be sent back like the Indiana Supreme Court did in 2003. "I thought it was important to retry it as originally filed," Prosecutor Michael Dvorak said. "We would have had an option to change it. He noted Kubsch's appeals could take 16 years based on the way things are now. Kubsch becomes the 2nd St. Joseph County man on death row. 15 years after he was sentenced, Alan Matheney is nearing the end of his appeals of his sentence for the 1989 beating death of his ex-wife, Lisa Bianco. Phillip Stroud received the death penalty in 2002 for the murders of 3 carpenters working in a Lakeville barn. In 2004, the Indiana Supreme Court sent Stroud's case back for a new sentencing hearing, which is set for June. (source: South Bend Tribune) NEBRASKA: High court to hear challenge to electric chair The Nebraska Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in the latest legal attack on the state's use of the electric chair as its sole means of execution. The high court will hear arguments May 5 in an appeal brought by death-row inmate Carey Dean Moore that says Nebraska's use of the electric chair amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Such arguments have been made before, but Moore's lawyer, Alan Peterson, argues that the "evolving standard of human decency" has made the time ripe for the court to declare death by electrocution as cruel and unusual. "Nebraska ... now is alone in the United States, actually in the whole world, in still requiring electrocution," he said. "Nebraska is the last holdout for this universally rejected and condemned sole means of capital punishment." No American court has ever ruled that electrocution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. But as legal challenges were mounted against its use in recent years, others states adopted alternative methods such as lethal injection as a means of execution. Solicitor General J. Kirk Brown argues that nine other states still have electrocution as an alternative method of execution. "The very practice of electrocution has been upheld by other courts within the past year, and there is no argument even plausible that there are differences in the level of `evolving decency' among the different circuits or states of the union," he said. In 2003, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon of Omaha stopped short of declaring electrocution unconstitutional in vacating the death sentence of Charles Jess Palmer for a 1979 murder in Grand Island. Bataillon said he had been prepared to rule the use of the electric chair as cruel and unusual punishment. Three people -- Harold Otey, John Joubert and Robert Williams -- have been put to death in Nebraska since executions were resumed in 1994. Palmer's lawyer presented evidence and post-mortem photographs of the three in arguing his case. Coroner reports show that Joubert suffered a 4-inch blistering burn on the top of his head and blistering on both sides of his head above his ears. Williams had a "bubble blister" the size of a baseball on his left calf. Williams had pronounced "charring" on both sides of a knee and the top of the head. An execution witness reported seeing smoke emanating from Williams' knee and head. In 1997, 5 members of the Florida Supreme Court successfully implored state lawmakers to give death-row inmates an alternative method of execution to "avert a possible constitutional 'train wreck."' "Now, no other state mandates that humans face the horror of death by internal burning and shock, with the well-known history of bungled, smoking failures of the century-old technique," Peterson said. Electrocution "involves more than mere extinguishment of life and will subject defendant to needless agony, physical suffering, torture, mutilation, disfigurement, and degradation." Nebraska's high court has never applied the "evolution of decency" test to the electric chair. "It is, with all respect, time," Peterson said. "No longer can this state tolerate the form of punishment now almost universally recognized to be beyond the bounds of minimum human dignity, civility, and decency." Sen. Phil Erdman of Bayard introduced a bill (LB506) this session that would switch Nebraska's method of execution to lethal injection. The bill, however, remains stuck in the Judiciary Committee. Moore was sentenced to death for the 1979 murders of Omaha cab drivers Reuel Eugene Van Ness Jr. and Maynard D. Helegland during 2 robberies. On The Net: Nebraska Legislature: http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/index.htm Nebraska Supreme Court: http://court.nol.org/ (source: Associated Press)
