May 12 TEXAS: TYLER MAN ARRAIGNED FOR CAPITAL MURDER Edgardo Santibanez Sanchez pleaded not guilty Wednesday to allegations he shot a Smith County man to death during a Thanksgiving Day robbery. The 38-year-old Tyler man was arraigned on a capital murder charge alleging he killed Alberto Flores III, 19, at a mobile home park off of Farm-to-Market Road 14. Sanchez, clad in a red Smith County Jail jumpsuit and shackles, used an interpreter for the hearing in Judge Kerry Russell's 7th District Court. A handful of the defendant's family members were present in the courtroom, including his wife, daughter and brothers. Defense attorneys Bobby Mims and Tonda Curry have been appointed to represent Sanchez. District Attorney Matt Bingham and First Assistant DA Brett Harrison are prosecuting the case, which Russell has set to go to trial in October. The state has not yet announced whether it intends to seek the death penalty in the case. Smith County officials have said they believe Sanchez shot the random victim many times during an aggravated robbery with an automatic assault rifle. During the Dec. 7 arrest, Smith County deputies discovered 67 counterfeit $100 bills and several weapons including a British World War II era 9 mm assault rifle with a homemade silencer. Due to the illegal automatic weapons and the counterfeit money for which he could face federal charges, both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Secret Service are also involved in the investigation. Sanchez may also be a suspect in multiple slayings in Mexico and an attempted murder in East Texas more than a decade ago, officials have said. The defendant remains jailed on $1 million bond. The judge has issued a restrictive and protective order in the case, limiting what those involved in the case can disseminate to the public. (source: Tyler Morning Telegraph) **************************** Navasota murder case leads to 2nd mistrial For the 2nd time in 19 months, a jury was unable to reach a verdict in the trial of a Navasota man who confessed to shooting and killing a Grimes County civic leader. District Judge Ken Keeling declared a mistrial Wednesday morning after a Walker County jury sent a note saying it was deadlocked after failing to unanimously make a decision about James David White. After deliberating for 16 hours over three days, court officials said two jurors refused to find White guilty of capital murder or the lesser charge of murdering Navasota funeral home owner and former school board member Lonnie Turner Sr. Ten other jurors wanted to find him guilty of murder, said Grimes County District Attorney Tuck McLain. "I'm disappointed, to say the very least," McLain said. "My biggest disappointment is for his family. I'd hoped to get closure. [White] confessed to murder, and I think there needs to be some responsibility there." The defense said although White admitted to killing Turner Sr. the night of Nov. 1, 2002, he did so under duress. White, 21, told jurors that he was forced to shoot Turner Sr. because his son, Lonnie Turner Jr., held a gun to the back of his head. The prosecution held firm that White was a liar and a thief who killed Turner Sr. during a robbery attempt. A Grimes County jury heard the murder case in October 2003, but was unable to return a verdict after it deadlocked 6-6. The trial then was moved to Walker County and the charges upped to capital murder. "We are tremendously pleased at the outcome," said defense attorney David Barron. "I don't think any 12 jurors anywhere can agree on this trial." Barron said the evidence of Lonnie Turner Jr.'s possible involvement in the murder was enough to convince some jurors that White did not willingly kill the man. "I think the key is Lonnie Turner Jr.," Barron said. "He's dirty. When he testifies, jurors see his guilt. It's obvious that he was involved." Turner Jr. has not been charged in connection with the crime, although law enforcement officials zeroed in on him following the murder, saying his unemotional reaction to his fathers death and the fact he stood to gain financially made him a potential suspect. During questioning, Turner Jr. adamantly denied being involved with the murder. Witnesses and cell phone records account for his whereabouts on the night of the shooting, according to testimony. McLain said it is likely he will try the case again in Walker County. Picking a jury in Grimes County would be difficult because of the heavy media attention, he said. In a future trial, the charges against White may change, he said. The capital murder charge may be dropped because none of the Walker County jurors agreed to convict him of that crime. McLain also may add a conspiracy to commit murder charge, but he said it is too soon to be certain of when and how he will proceed. "Giving up is something I don't do," McLain said. "But I've got to step back and cool off before making any decisions on how to proceed. I can't ignore that 10 out of 12 wanted to find him guilty. I just need to continue and move forward." McLain said unless new evidence is revealed, he does not plan on charging any others, specifically Turner Jr., with the murder. "Right now, there is not enough evidence to go after anyone else," McLain said. "We have to get substantial evidence. I can't prosecute on rumors or innuendoes." Barron said if the case is tried again, he will be ready to defend his client. During the past 2 years, the two have formed a strong bond, Barron said. "I think of him as a son," Barron said of White. "He is good-hearted, kind and gentle. He's very uncomplaining and the best client I've ever had. He knows that everything is in God's hands." White remained late Tuesday in the Grimes County Jail on pending burglary and aggravated robbery charges stemming from separate incidents. He has been jailed since confessing to the Turner murder in April 2003. Barron said he will file a motion to have Whites $535,000 bond reduced so he can possibly bond out and be released from jail within the next 30 days. (source: The Bryan-College Station Eagle) ************************* Crime lab earns partial approval----HPD facility is accredited in all divisions but DNA The Houston Police Department crime laboratory has received accreditation for all divisions except DNA, which has been shuttered for more than two years, officials announced Wednesday. Houston, once the largest city in the country with an unaccredited crime lab, has faced intense criticism in recent years after errors were exposed in the work of four divisions - DNA, ballistics, toxicology and serology. Two people have been released from prison after it was discovered that their convictions were based on errors in the lab's analysis of evidence. The accreditation - a certification meant to ensure that labs meet minimum standards - came on HPD's second attempt and was granted by a national forensic organization that inspects labs worldwide. The department's application was rejected in February because of shortcomings in its records on the custody of evidence. "We have taken a giant step toward regaining the confidence of the community and the criminal justice system," Police Chief Harold Hurtt said. "But we are, by no means, saying our work is over." The Houston Police Department crime lab is certified in these disciplines: - Controlled substances - Toxicology (blood alcohol only) - Questioned documents - Firearms - Biology (excluding DNA) To be accredited, labs must install safeguards, including systems to monitor analysts' testimony and reviews of lab work. "These things were not going on in Houston until sometime in the recent past," said Ralph Keaton, executive director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors accreditation arm, which inspected the lab. The facility now complies with a new state law requiring that all Texas crime labs be certified by the society before September. Its accreditation is limited, however, in two areas where testing has been suspended since 2002. The DNA division, the 1st where problems were revealed, remains shut down and was not reviewed by inspectors, Capt. David Watkins said. Also, the toxicology division performs only limited tests. Hurtt said he hopes to reopen the DNA division, after hiring new staff members and buying equipment and supplies, by the end of the year. Kim Downs, a firearms analyst who has worked in the crime lab for more than 10 years, said winning accreditation was important to employees and is a symbol that the Police Department is making the crime lab a priority. A longtime critic of the crime lab has said, however, that accreditation does not guarantee the quality of its work. Bill Thompson, a professor at the University of California at Irvine who helped expose problems with HPD's work, has called the Society of Crime Lab Directors an "old boys' network." He notes that some accredited labs in Texas still have had problems. (source: Houston Chronicle) USA: Society needs to bring back guillotine, firing squad Lefty liberal that I am, some of my supportive readership network has disdained my views on capital punishment. To review, I propose dispensing with lethal injection in favor of hanging, poorly rigged electric chairs, and a brutal, heinous execution method to be named later. I am sick of super-violent madmen like Jerry Hobbs III, who allegedly stabbed his 8-year-old daughter to death, along with her best friend. You have to wonder, why couldnt that particular DNA thread have been stopped at Jerry Hobbs II? Theres no satisfactory explanation for this killing, so why ratiocinate? Subhuman social defects need to die. They need to be removed from the landscape. Thanks for playing, youve used up all of your drink tickets, you dont got to go home but you cant stay here. Lights out. These cockroaches need to die soon, not particularly quickly, but publicly, soon, and horribly. One of the execution methods I have espoused in previous writings is the town square guillotine. Though a French invention and a little quick and merciful for my tastes, the guillotine is a mind-boggling, head-severing final two seconds from when the condemned first hears the blade start to drop. It would make for great TV. As the condemned, you can only pray that the blade is sharp. I also like firing squads. I suppose part of the worry about bringing back the firing squad is a revival of the old tradition of shooting particularly bad guys in the stomach so it would take them an hour to die. I would welcome the return of the firing squad, as well as the return of the tradition of shooting particularly bad guys in the stomach so it took them an hour to die. The most traditional death penalty is stoning. That was the death penalty of choice in the Bible. There are lots of stonings in the Bible. I like stonings. With a stoning, the community decides as an entity that one of its members is unfit to live, and it gathers together to kill that person together. Modern execution divorces the community from the dispensation of capital punishment. My vision of a return to community involvement in capital punishment is to tie the killers hands behind their backs, put a pillowcase on their heads and let a bunch of Irish and Italian kids from Boston finish them off with chains and bats. And of course, broadcast it on television. Every time I suggest that kind of justice, I get more hate mail than I can answer. But thats probably because I would like to reserve the option of flaying the murderer of children with shallow cuts from razor blades, then tossing him into a vat of salt and fishing him out by the nostrils with a crowbar, after which he is taken apart with a blowtorch, piano wire and a pair of vise grips. The target is a 3-hour death. The Lunsford killer, who raped an 8-year-old girl and buried her alive, gets the special execution provisions I propose. Crimes of passion and business disputes that result in homicide dont qualify for the eyeball paper cuts until you bleed to death execution I propose for Lunsfords killer. All states should have the death penalty available to them. You never know where the next Ted Bundy will turn up. Im glad that here in the live free or die state, though we havent pulled the trigger in 30 years, if we have to, we can. (source: Chris Elliott -- Seacoastonline) *************************** Counting Questions: Adding Up High Court Outcomes ----Number, tone of queries are good indications of how justices will rule -- but some jurists are easier to read than others When the Supreme Court heard arguments last October in the juvenile death penalty case Roper v. Simmons, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to tip his hand with an unusual line of questions. "I have one other question I'd like to ask because it's been troubling me," Kennedy said to former solicitor general Seth Waxman. Waxman was arguing on behalf of Missouri inmate Christopher Simmons in his challenge to the law that allows execution of those who committed their crimes at ages 16 and 17. "If we ruled in your favor and this decision was given wide publicity, wouldn't that make 16-, 17-year-olds subject to being persuaded to be the hit men for the gangs?" Waxman, partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, replied that the over-18 "Fagin" of such a gang could be dealt with separately. Kennedy was not satisfied. Twice he came back to the point, fretting about the loss of the "deterrent value" of exposing juveniles to the death penalty, then pointing to a "chilling" brief filed by the state of Alabama that chronicles heinous crimes committed by 17-year-olds. Kennedy, it seemed, was a lost crucial vote for those who hoped the Court would abolish the juvenile death penalty. Wrong. 4 months later, Kennedy wrote the opinion for a 5-to-4 majority striking down the death penalty for under-18s. He made no mention of his underage hit man concerns, and cited the Alabama brief only in passing. So much for predicting the votes of Supreme Court justices based on the tenor of oral argument. You never can tell, right? Well, maybe you can, if you do it right. Kennedy, it seems, is the exception to the rule. In a new study entitled "The Illusion of Devil's Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow their Decisions During Oral Argument," Sarah Shullman came up with a surprisingly simple and accurate way of predicting outcomes based on the number and tenor of oral argument questions by justices. Shullman's article, in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, reports on oral arguments in 10 cases she observed during the October 2002 term. As she watched, she tallied the number and tenor -- helpful or hostile -- of all the questions asked by all the justices. Then a student at Georgetown University Law Center, Shullman is now an associate at Steel Hector & Davis in West Palm Beach, Fla. After seven of the 10 cases she studied were decided, Shullman looked for correlations -- and found them. In all of the cases, the justices in aggregate asked more questions, and more hostile questions, of the party that ultimately lost the case. The model of the devil's advocate -- peppering the side you favor with tough questions -- did not appear prevalent enough to derail this conclusion. Shullman also found that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the most questions -- and the least hostile ones -- of all the justices, and that Justice Stephen Breyer asked the most hostile questions. But his was equal-opportunity hostility, handed out in equal measure to both sides. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, often viewed as the mystery swing vote, turned out to be highly predictable using this method; she asked more than 3 times as many questions of the party she then voted against than the party she supported. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was, oddly enough, one of the least predictable, according to his nearly equal questioning of both sides. What about Justice Clarence Thomas, who almost always remains silent on the bench? "Because Justice Thomas is rarely a swing vote, his silence should not pose an obstacle in most cases" to prediction, she writes. Justice Kennedy's questioning, she found, correlated least predictably with his ultimate votes. He asked roughly the same number and type of questions of both sides. Hence, perhaps, his misleading signals in Roper. Parenthetically, we know from other sources -- most recently the Blackmun papers at the Library of Congress -- that Kennedy, more than other justices, is prone to changing his mind after oral arguments. For Kennedy, the oral argument is not the final act of the play. He is a notorious brooder. Kennedy's classic metaphorical mlange, first uttered to journalist Terry Carter as he deliberated abortion rights in 1992, still reverberates: "Sometimes you don't know if you're Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line." In any event, on the basis of her early success, Shullman proceeded to predict the remaining three cases she had charted that were still pending before the high court. And bingo! She was correct each time. A couple of justices strayed and asked more questions of the side they ultimately favored, but overall the justices turned out to be "quite predictable," she says. "Essentially, whether they do it by asking more questions or by asking questions that are more hostile in content, the justices simply give the side they disagree with a harder time," she concludes. "This information suggests that one might profitably use an analysis of their questions to predict what was previously thought to be unpredictable." Shullman acknowledges that her sample was small, but the methodology has already been tested since she did her study. John Roberts Jr., one of the masters of the trade before taking the bench in 2003, used her theory for a talk he gave on oral advocacy before the Supreme Court Historical Society last year. Picking 14 oral arguments from the 1980 term and 14 from the 2003 term, Roberts found that in fact the most questions went to the losing party in 24 of the 28 cases -- an 86 % rate of accuracy. "The secret to successful advocacy," Roberts deadpanned in conclusion, "is simply to get the Court to ask your opponent more questions." An 86 percent success rate in making predictions compares favorably with that of other players in the growing field of Supreme Court prognosticators. Political scientists have gotten into the game to test the relative importance of precedents and politics in Supreme Court decision making. The Supreme Court Forecasting Project, based at Washington University in St. Louis, used statistical models and a panel of experts to predict the results in the cases argued in the 2002 term. The statistical method, based on data such as the circuit of origin and an analysis of precedents, came out right 75 % of the time, while the human experts predicted outcomes correctly in 59 % of the cases. At a symposium on the project, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times got into the spirit of things and looked back at her stories from the same term and found that in the 16 decided cases in which she ventured a prediction, she was right 75 percent of the time. The allure of the question-count method is not just that it is simple, but that it now will be incalculably easier to use. Since last October, transcripts of the Court's oral arguments have named the justices asking the questions. (Before, they were listed only as "question," with no identification of the justice asking it.) Now all you need do is to search the .pdf files of transcripts for the names of each justice, and you'll have the count. Coming back to the Roper case, what would have happened if predictions had been based on the overall question count, rather than on a single line of questioning by Justice Kennedy? Kennedy, it turns out, asked the same number of questions of both sides, and in retrospect, some of his questions to Missouri's advocate were hostile as well. But the overall number of questions told the story: Waxman fielded 40 questions, while Missouri's state solicitor James Layton took 58. Missouri gets the most questions; Missouri loses. Maybe hard cases are not so hard after all. (source: The American Lawyer) OHIO: Analysis shows need for review of death penalty Calls for a study of capital punishment in Ohio are appropriate in the wake of an analysis by the Associated Press. The AP's analysis of 1,936 capital indictments from 1981 through 2002 found that defendants were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence for killing a white victim than for killing a black victim. Nearly half of the capital punishment cases ended with a plea bargain. The study also found discrepancies in death sentences based on the county where the crime was committed. While Ohio Gov. Bob Taft and top lawmakers said Tuesday they would not call for a moratorium on executions in Ohio in reaction to the analysis of that system by The Associated Press, there seems ample reason to take a serious look at the state capital punishment law and how it is being followed. In response to a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Ohio Legislature in 1981 passed a new death penalty law, hoping that it would be a fair system for prosecuting killers whose crimes were so evil that it was clear that they deserved to die. Unfortunately, there simply are too many disparities in the system. Financial considerations, race, the attitude of the prosecutor and the location of the crime should not be factors in determining whether a person lives or dies. Add to that a substantial number of people who reasonably believe that the state -- or any civilized government -- should not be in the business of taking people's lives and this all adds up to a situation that cries out for review by those in authority. In fact, the Ohio House approved legislation in 2004, calling for the state to conduct a comprehensive study of the capital punishment system. The Senate, however, refused to go along with the plan. The findings of the Associated Press survey make it clear that it's time to rethink the need for such a review. Even one of the sponsors of the 1981 law, State Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer, who represented this area as a member of the Ohio Senate, sees the need for such a review. He said that the analysis reaffirms early concerns that race would come into play and he called the results "alarming." This is clearly a serious issue. Ohio executed 7 men last year, 2nd only to Texas, and has executed 16 men since 1999 when it began to carry out death sentences again. We believe the state must find a way to ensure fairness in the system. We believe the state must look at the current system in terms of its effectiveness and efficiency. Is it appropriate for the appeal process to continue to be a problem that leaves convicted murderers sitting for years on death row? We believe the state should once again rethink the entire concept of capital punishment. Would broader use of the life-without-possibility-of-parole sentence be a viable replacement for capital punishment or would we be eliminating an appropriate punishment and possible deterrent? It's a difficult and emotional issue. But it's one that state lawmakers shouldn't shy away from. (source: Port Clinton News Herald) ************************* Ohios injustice system Ohio Gov. Bob Taft should pull a Ryan. The Associated Press analysis of Ohios capital cases provides more than enough evidence for Taft to follow former Illinois Gov. George Ryans lead and place a moratorium on the death penalty. Avoiding the issue would be politically easy. But evading the truth would be morally bankrupt. According to APs analysis of more than 1,900 capital cases from 1981 through 2002, defendants were more than twice as likely to receive the death sentence for killing a white victim as a black victim. Nearly 1/2 of capital cases ended with a plea agreement, and there were wide discrepancies in death penalties based on the county the defendant was being tried in. Even the cost of capital punishment trials keeps some Ohio counties from seeking the death penalty, reducing the application of the states most supreme penalty to a matter of chance. In 1999, Ohio resumed executions after a 36-year hiatus. Since then, the state has put to death 16 men, including 7 last year. Ohio ranked 2nd only to Texas in executions in 2004. What plagues Ohios justice system is not unique. In 2000, Ryans dramatic action in Illinois came after a blue-ribbon panel found, among other things, a disproportionate number of black men were on death row, many convicted or condemned by all-white juries. The legislature failed to act. So Ryan did. A 2001 study uncovered the capricious nature of how the death penalty is applied in Indiana. Life or death factors included the competence of defense attorneys and prosecutors, the defendants socio-economic status, as well as the political and economic climate among Indianas counties. Taft appears to at least have a thoughtful stance on the subject. In 2001, he signed a bill that eliminated the electric chair as a form of execution. The state executes prisoners by lethal injection. In 2003, he agreed with the state parole board recommendations and commuted one death row inmates sentence to life in prison without parole. The specter of appearing soft on crime is an accusation many governors face in this situation. But a moratorium on the death penalty doesnt mitigate the severity of the crime. Tafts actions would signal that he believes a truly remarkable system of punishing criminals must at all times be fair and applicable to all defendants. (source: Editorial, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette) IOWA: Former cellmate testifies in death penalty trial A woman who shared a cell with Angela Johnson testified this morning that she saw Johnson draw maps and write notes to Robert McNeese in the death penalty trial in Sioux City. Sara Bramow was in a 2-person cell at the Benton County Jail in Vinton with Johnson in August 2000. She said there were multiple conversations about Johnson's case during their 8-week stay in the jail. Bramow told the jury that Johnson insinuated that she was involved in the murder of 5 people. She told the jury that Johnson said 4 people were killed during one incident and her ex-boyfriend was shot at a separate time. Johnson told Bramow that the people had "narced" (cooperated with police) on them. "They deserved everything they got," said Johnson, according to Bramow. "Anyone who narcs on somebody deserves it." Robert McNeese concluded his testimony this morning after reviewing much of what had already been presented on Wednesday. (source: The Globe Gazette)
