April 29 TEXAS: Court: Why no black jurors?----Justices want hearing into lack of racial diversity during trial of white man guilty of murder A condemned man from Texarkana, Texas, scored a win of sorts in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The high court of Texas criminal cases has ordered a hearing to see why four African-Americans were struck from the jury that heard Chris Wayne Shuffield's capital murder case. The jury convicted him and sentenced him to die by lethal injection during his February 2003 trial in Bowie County. Shuffield shot and killed Lance Luke Walker, 36, in Walker's home on July 29, 2001. The 2 men, both white, had been friends. After the shooting, Shuffield was involved in a standoff with authorities at his mobile home before he was arrested. Shuffield wanted his case reversed because he argued he didn't get a "race-neutral jury." "(Shuffield) made the court aware that 11 of 13 African-American (jury pool) members had been excused from service-five by state peremptory challenge and four by state's challenge for cause. This statistic was sufficient to support an inference of racial discrimination," according to the opinion. The opinion lists four African-Americans that the justices want to know more about and why they were not allowed on the jury. But the court, in its opinion posted on Wednesday, declined to reverse the conviction. Bowie County District Attorney Bobby Lockhart said in a peremptory challenge, prosecutors can strike a potential juror from serving without having to give a reason. A challenge for cause is one in which a potential juror can be struck because the lawyer believes the person will be unable to follow the law in rendering a verdict. "In that case, our reasons would be neutral; it's a white-on-white case," said Lockhart. "I'm not overly concerned about this being remanded back. It's not reversed, it's just sent back to find out what the reasons were." Troy Hornsby, the Texarkana lawyer who appealed Shuffield's case, says the opinion is significant. "You can't strike a jury for their race and ethnicity and other things ... In this case, the defense complained that the prosecutors were striking African-Americans," Hornsby said. Craig Henry and Bill Schubert represented Shuffield at the trial. They used statistics to try to prove that Shuffield would be harmed if African-Americans were left off the jury. Hornsby said the ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals allows defense lawyers to use statistics to prove their argument in jury selection. "They made a substantial change in the law: Statistics are enough," said Hornsby, who thinks the hearing will be interesting because the lawyers will have to recall reasons they gave 2 years ago. Lockhart says they'll likely find those answers in the court transcript of the jury selection. Lockhart says the issue is odd because the argument of a race-neutral jury is being made by a white man convicted of killing a white man. He thinks the court is simply being overly conscientious because it is a death penalty case. But Hornsby says the race of a suspect or of an accused person doesn't matter. He says there is a prevailing belief that African-Americans are more sympathetic as jurors. "It's generally thought that African-American jurors tend to be more lenient, less likely to find someone guilty," Hornsby said. He says the ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals is a big win for criminal defense lawyers. "In the appellate world, on criminal stuff, any sort of upside is extremely rare. Your chances of getting any sort of relief are minimal. They're few and far between," Hornsby said. (source : Texarkana Gazette) USA: Maryknoll affirms international anti-death penalty declaration Statement delivered to UN Commission on Human Rights The Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers and the Maryknoll Sisters, which both hold consultative status as NGOs at the United Nations, joined with other Catholic groups as signatories on an anti-death penalty statement delivered to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Commission held its 61st session in Geneva in March and April 2005. "Restoration of society and the healing of victims, as well as reform and rehabilitation of the offenders," the letter states, "must be the goals of a criminal justice system." The letter was presented to the session under Item 17: Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The statement in its entirety follows. Delivered at the UN Commission on April 18, 2005 Dominicans for Justice and Peace, Dominican Leadership Conference, Pax Christi International, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Elizabeth Seton Foundation (Sisters of Charity), International Presentation Association: Sisters of the Presentation, Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic Inc., Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, Congregations of St. Joseph and International Young Catholic Students (IYCS), in conjunction with Franciscans International, are concerned about the application and the use of the death penalty in a number of countries in the world. Our long-standing position against the death penalty is grounded in the respect for all human life, the opposition to violence in our society and the injustice of the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. To continue to enact the death penalty is to teach that violence and killing are acceptable ways of dealing with violence and killing. Restoration of society and the healing of victims, as well as reform and rehabilitation of the offenders, must be the goals of a criminal justice system. On this basis, a number of Dominican and other congregations in the United States have adopted a corporate stance advocating the abolition of the death penalty. We also remain concerned about its unjust and unequal application of the death penalty. It has been demonstrated that in countries where the death penalty continues to be enacted, it is more likely to be applied in a racist manner, more likely to be applied to minorities and the under classes in general. Poor people, disabled people and young people are more often subjected to capital punishment. The death penalty is still in use in a number of countries. In this respect, the 2nd World Congress against the Death Penalty, held in Montreal, in October 2004, expressed its concern over the resumption of executions in Lebanon, Chad, Indonesia and India and the re-establishment of capital punishment in Afghanistan and Iraq. The World Congress recognized however that Sngal had recently abolished the death penalty and congratulated Turkey, Bhutan, Samoa, and Serbia-Montenegro for also having abolished the death penalty. The Congress deplored the retention of the death penalty in 78 countries, notably in China, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, Guatemala, Japan and Cuba. In the United States, there are approximately 3,500 inmates on death row in 38 state and federal prisons. The largest number, over 600, is in California. Since 1973, there have been 117 exonerations of death row inmates. In response to this situation, the Catholic bishops of the United States launched in March of this year a campaign to end the use of the death penalty. The United States bishops have spoken out against the death penalty since the 1970s. In this context, it is appropriate to remember Pope John Paul IIs opposition to the death penalty and his 1998 call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The Pope was also known for making appeals on behalf of inmates on death row. In terms of positive developments in the United States, we note the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of that country recognizing that executing juvenile offenders is indeed cruel and unusual and declaring it unconstitutional to execute juveniles under the age of 18. [See May-June 2005 NewsNotes, page 20.] We also take note of 2002 decision by the Court to abolish the execution of persons suffering from mental retardation. Furthermore, we welcome the decision of the United States government to abide by the ruling of the International Court of Justice of March 31, 2004 which had ruled that the United States had violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States and that their cases should be reviewed. The case before the International Court dealt with alleged violations by the United States of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963). Regretfully, while agreeing to abide by the ruling of the International Court of Justice, the United States also announced that it was withdrawing from the protocol that allowed the International Court to receive and review alleged violations of the Vienna Convention. Recommendations Dominicans for Justice and Peace, Dominican Leadership Conference, Pax Christi International, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Elizabeth Seton Foundation (Sisters of Charity), International Presentation Association: Sisters of the Presentation, Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic Inc., Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, Congregations of St. Joseph and International Young Catholic Students (IYCS), in conjunction with Franciscans International: Encourage all governments to abolish the death penalty and to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires governments to put an end to capital punishment in their countries. Urge the government of the United States to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the optional protocol that allows the International Criminal Court to receive and review violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Invite state members of the Council of Europe to ratify Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. Urge governments to seek alternatives to the death penalty that reflect intelligence, civility, compassion and justice. (source : Maryknoll.org) UTAH: After Murder, Attention Paid to Lori's Relatives, but What About Mark Hacking's Family When Mark Hacking pleaded guilty April 15 to murdering his wife, it wasn't just her family that had to endure the wrenching courtroom confession. Douglas and Janet Hacking also sat silently in the gallery, listening as their son admitted: "I intentionally shot Lori Hacking." Mark Hacking initially reported his wife as a missing person to police, prompting a weeklong search by thousands of volunteers before he confessed the crime to his elder brothers. Lori Hacking's body was found 75 days later amid 6,000 tons of garbage in a west Salt Lake County landfill. >From the first days of the search, the Hackings were the public face of the tragedy, sharing a platform with Lori's parents at news conferences to thank and encourage volunteers. But once Mark allegedly confessed the murder to his older brothers, public sympathy escalated for Lori's parents, Thelma Soares and Eraldo Soares. The Hackings retreated into the background, asking for privacy as they attempted to deal with what had occurred. Their son, who does not face the death penalty, will be sentenced June 6. Watching the story play out over the past 9 months, Stella Archuleta's heart has been filled with empathy for the Hackings. "I've been there," the Salem woman said. "Your life is never the same. In 1989, Archuleta's adopted son, Michael, was convicted of the tortuous beating death of a homosexual man near Cedar City. He is 1 of 11 men on Utah's death row. Michael came to the Archuletas at age five, with only a paper bag full of ill-fitting clothes. The adopted him at age 13 and hung on while he raged through life. Schools discipline problems grew into juvenile crimes, which compounded into adult-level felonies. At 18 he went to prison and at 26 he became a killer. "I'd be lying if I said it was easy, but I never gave up on him," says Archuleta. "I love him." But the hair stylist isn't sure how she or her family survived the small-town judgments after the murder and during the trial. Some people stared. Others stopped talking altogether. Some clients stopped making hair appointments. At school, Michael's brother and sister felt the sting in the accusing looks and words from classmates. "I really think it should be brought out that the families of the perpetrators are hurt, too," Archuleta said. "We've lost a loved one too, even though we lose them in a different way. It's really hard on the families, especially, if there are children." Rachel King, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union's Capital Punishment Project, says it may sound strange, but based on her interviews with families on both sides, she believes it's easier to be the murder victim's family than a death row family. "Society in general doesn't know what to do with these people," said King, whose book "Capital Consequences: Families of the Condemned Tell Their Stories" was published this year. "And when the perpetrator is put to death, well-meaning people don't know how to act. It's not like this person died a natural death." Each family navigates the situation differently, but King said she sees commonalities among the families, including a sense of chronic grief and betrayal. The betrayal, King said, can be twofold: There is a sense of being betrayed by the relative who committed the crime and by a society that sometimes can't see beyond the crime to the person. "That's very difficult for a family because they know the (perpetrator) is more complicated than that. They see he has good points and has done good things in his life, so it's very painful to see that playing out," King said. "I think they feel a sense of hopelessness and a desire to say, 'Wait a minute, he's not just that one act.'" Most of the clients represented by Elizabeth Hunt, a private attorney who handles murder conviction appeals in federal court, carry a great deal of shame not just for what they have done, but for what they have brought home to their families. "Often in the penalty phase, when it's the lawyer's job to dig up any kind of problem in the client's background, any kind of abuse or suffering, they don't want it brought out," said Hunt, whose death row client Ralph Menzies has filed a federal appeal for his conviction in the death of Maurine Hunsaker, a Kearns woman who was kidnapped from her job at a convenience store and found days later lashed to a tree in Big Cottonwood Canyon with her throat slit. "They just don't want to inflict anything more on their families." Many families don't want anyone to know who they are, said attorney Bob Steele, a federal public defender who once represented Roberto Arguelles, who was convicted of the sexual assaults and deaths of five women. On Utah's death row for more than a dozen years, Arguelles died in prison in 2003 after suffering an intestinal illness. "They are often horribly ashamed,'' said Steele, who maintains contact with Arguelles's mother, who has never spoken publicly about her son's crimes. "The kid kills and that is somehow your personal failure," he said. "It makes complete sense to (define) that moment as something that you did or didn't do in their life." In nearly 20 years as a criminal defense attorney, Ed Brass has seen most parents stay loyal to their accused and convicted children. He's also found himself working as a part-time therapist for families needing to vent their anger and disbelief. "They have a lot of questions. 'How could I have prevented this? I thought I knew you better than this?'" said Brass. "And there are people who cope by simply not believing that their kid could ever do anything like this." (source: The Associated Press)
