May 13 TEXAS: Judge allows defendant's statements in murder trial Jurors in Rodolfo "Creeper" Medranos upcoming capital murder trial will hear the alleged Tri-City Bombers recorded interview with police after his arrest in connection with the Jan. 5, 2003, slayings of 6 men, a judge ruled Thursday. Judge Mario Ramirez of the 332nd state District Court denied Medranos attorneys motion to suppress statements he gave to law enforcement officers following his arrest Jan. 24, 2003. Medrano, 25, pleaded not guilty to capital murder charges in the pseudo-cop raid that led to the shooting deaths of 6 men found in and around 2 small homes at 2915 E. Monte Cristo Road. His attorneys, Hector Villarreal and O. Rene Flores, argued that law enforcement officers spoke with Medrano after he had earlier asked for an attorney and after keeping him awake for nearly 50 hours. Ramirez also denied Villarreals request for a media gag order on the testimony given during the pre-trial suppression hearing. In the hearing, retired Edinburg Police Sgt. Reyes Ramirez testified that Medrano waived his rights to an attorney and voluntarily spoke with him. Assistant District Attorney Judith Cantu played for the court the tape of Medranos interview with Ramirez, in which Medrano said he understood his Miranda rights and did not want an attorney at that time. In the interview, Medrano told Ramirez he bought weapons for the Tri-City Bombers gang, in which he holds the rank of sergeant. However, he said that on the night of the killings, he was at home with his wife and learned of the slayings through television newscasts. Medrano said that before the killings, another gang member contacted him to supply weapons, but that he understood the gang intended only to rob marijuana from the home. Later, he said, gang members learned members of the rival Texas Chicano Brotherhood lived at the home. Medrano said he did not know how the shootings began. Two men, Juan Raul Navarro Ramirez, 20, and Humberto "Gallo" Garza, 30, were sentenced to death row after being convicted of the Edinburg murders. Prosecutors are also seeking the death penalty for Jeffrey "Dragon" Juarez, 29, the suspected highest-ranking Tri-City Bomber who police believe approved the slayings from his residence in Sugar Land. 6 other suspected gang members are awaiting trials in connection with the Edinburg slayings, and Edinburg police are still looking for 2 others thought to be in Mexico, Juan "Perro" Nuez, 29, and Ricardo "Rica" Cabello Martinez, 23. Hidalgo County Sheriffs Lt. Juan Sifuentes read to the court a 10-page statement he wrote on behalf of Medrano after interviewing him for 6 hours about the killings of four women in Donna in September 2002. Medrano is also charged with capital murder in relation to those deaths. A jailed gang member ordered the killing of a Donna bar owner who was to testify against him. However, gang members targeted the wrong car. In that statement, Medrano said Tri-City Bombers gang members used weapons he purchased to shoot the women, but said he did not learn about the slayings until after the women had been killed. A jury sentenced Robert "Bones" Gene Garza, 21, to death for the Donna murders in December 2003. Garza is also charged in the Edinburg slayings. Because Medrano is facing the death penalty, prosecutors and defense attorneys will interview each potential juror individually beginning next week. Jury selection is expected to take several weeks, and Medranos trial could begin in late June or early July. (source: The Monitor) ************************* Group urges Texas to study Illinois reforms A legal group that represents Texans in death penalty cases said Thursday that a council established by Gov. Rick Perry should learn from the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment, which in 2000 offered 85 recommendations to improve death-penalty decision-making in that state. About 2 in 3 of that commission's recommendations were later passed into law. The Texas Defender Service, based in Houston, is a private, nonprofit law firm devoted to improving the quality of representation given to indigent Texans charged with a capital crime or under sentence of death. The service's report titled "Minimizing Risk, A Blueprint for Death Penalty Reform in Texas," urges Texas to mimic Illinois in setting a moratorium on state executions while the advisory council created by Perry in March reviews issues. The 9-person Texas Criminal Justice Advisory Council, whose members have not been named, is expected to deliver recommendations to state leaders starting in 2006. (source: Austin American-Statesman) WASHINGTON (state): 'Angry Jurors' puts prejudices on trial How seriously do jurors take their responsibility to convict only the truly guilty? What qualifies as reasonable doubt? Such are the weighty questions posed in "Twelve Angry Jurors," the behind-the-scenes legal drama now being staged by the Camwood Players. For answers, director Matt Laxton turned to Reginald Rose's script, which originally premiered Sept. 20, 1954 as "Twelve Angry Men," a teleplay for the weekly series "Studio One," one of the staples of the so-called "Golden Age of Television." The show's 1957 film incarnation featured Henry Fonda. A later stage version was titled "Twelve Angry Women." Laxton and company retitled the play to reflect the growing diversity of juries. The play explores the troubling possibility of wrongful conviction - especially in a biased community - and its implications for capital punishment. Its action takes place almost exclusively around a jury deliberation table, where 6 men and 6 women hold the fate of a 19-year-old suspected killer in their hands. For conviction, their decision must be unanimous, and therein lies the problem. One lone man, Juror No. 8 (Scott Rittscher) has doubts about the young man's guilt, and sets out to convince the others. Along the way, tempers flare, and biases are revealed. Some think the tenement the suspect lived in is proof enough of guilt. "That's the kind of people they are ... I never saw a guiltier man in my life," says testy Juror No. 10 (George Carter). But Juror No. 8 won't be swayed. "What does a killer look like?" he asks judiciously. Gradually, more members of the jury have their doubts. Juror No. 5 (Elizabeth Lundquist), herself a product of the slums, takes offense at the notion of any tenement child being cast as a potential criminal. Some jurors take their responsibility more seriously than others. One, the platinum haired Juror No. 12 (Julie Britton), is afraid the long deliberations will jeopardize her job in advertising. Undeterred, Juror No. 8 continues to trace discrepancies in the testimony which he says must point to reasonable doubt and acquittal. Vicki Lynn Maxey makes a convincing geriatric makeover in her role as Juror No. 9, the first to have her mind changed. Melissa Bridges is the foreign-born juror who reminds the others how fortunate they are to live in a place where one is allowed to disagree. Eventually, all but one juror is convinced of reasonable doubt. The lone holdout, Juror No. 3 (Ray Riches), erupts violently at the change of heart and mind. "You bunch of lousy bleeding hearts!" he cries. Despite a rather anti-climactic ending, the well-paced play delivers a riveting analysis of what it is like to hold one's fate in your hand. (source: The Everett Herald) NEW YORK: Defendant Avoids Death In Federal Murder Case A federal jury yesterday refused to sentence a New York man to death for the drug-related murder of three people near Pittsburgh in 1996. Defendant Michael Williams dropped his head and began crying as he was hugged by attorneys Cathy Waldor and Richard B. Lind following the verdict. "It's a tremendous relief," said Mr. Lind. "Anytime you get to this stage, you don't know what the jury is going to do." It was the 3rd time in 4 years that a Manhattan federal jury has been asked to impose the death penalty but declined to do so. It was the 2nd case in a year in which juries voted against death in a case where Southern District prosecutors initially chose not to seek the death penalty, but were overruled by the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Williams, 33, was convicted along with his father, 49-year-old Elijah "Bobby" Williams of the murders in Wilkinsburg, Pa., of Timothy Green, Joel Moore and Robert James-customers of a drug business the Williams' operated between the Bronx and Pittsburgh. The 3 men were killed because they allegedly refused to pay for cocaine supplied by the father-son team. Once the Williams' were convicted of the murders on May 6 after a trial before Southern District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, it set the stage for the penalty phase. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Helen Cantwell, Glen McGorty and Richard Daddario had convinced the jury that the 2 men sold powdered and crack cocaine in West Virginia and the suburbs of Pittsburgh in a multimillion enterprise that was furthered by violence and intimidation. Ms. Cantwell told the jury that the Williams' killed the 3 men to instill fear in other customers who refused to pay, telling the jury, "This gave them status. This made them feel proud." But on Monday, the jury disagreed about the father and son's eligibility for the death penalty. First, it found that Elijah Williams did not act with premeditation, the statutory aggravating factor needed in this case as a prerequisite to imposing the death penalty. Attorney David Ruhnke had argued successfully to the jury that its decision not to convict Elijah of conspiracy indicated they did not believe the murders were premeditated. However, the jury found that Michael Williams did act with premeditation in two of the killings and lawyers for both sides began presenting evidence on Michael. Yesterday, after being asked to consider four questions on non-statutory aggravating factors as well as mitigating factors put forward by the defense, the jury said it would not impose the ultimate penalty. The panel came to its conclusion despite unanimously finding the presence of 3 non-statutory aggravating factors: the impact of the deaths on the victims' families; the fact that Michael Williams killed more than one person in a single criminal episode and was convicted of a conspiracy to distribute powdered and crack cocaine; and that he had been convicted of trying to escape from a prison in Pennsylvania in 1998 and had a prior conviction for intent to distribute cocaine. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the 4th non-statutory aggravating factor-that Mr. Williams "demonstrates a high risk of future dangerousness" because of his escape attempt, his "continuing pattern of violence" and his "low rehabilitative potential." The jury, as it was entitled, opted not to consider the mitigating evidence and decided not to impose a death sentence even though it unanimously found the presence of three non-statutory aggravating factors. In 2001, a Manhattan jury declined to order the death penalty in the case of 2 of 4 men convicted in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. Last year, a Southern District jury deliberated for only 2 hours before deciding that Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez should serve life sentences instead of being put to death for the 1999 murder of a police informant in a narcotics investigation. Like the Quinones case, the Williams' prosecution represented one of dozens nationwide in which former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft overruled local prosecutors and insisted on pursuing the death penalty. Prosecutors declined comment after the verdict yesterday. (source: New York Law Journal; Cathy Waldor is a member of Waldor & Carlesimo in Manasquan, N.J., and Richard B. Lind is a defense attorney in Manhattan; The Associated Press contributed to this report.) ************************* Ideas for Improving System of Indigent Defense Vary Widely With the death penalty in limbo and the Capital Defender Office struggling for its life, why not use the office and its resources to establish a statewide indigent criminal defense system? That was the question raised yesterday by Albany attorney Terence L. Kindlon in testifying before Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye's Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Services. And it was a question that had some members of the commission nodding in apparent agreement. The commission is concluding a thorough examination of criminal defense in New York, and how the state provides counsel to indigent defendants. There are some who advocate a statewide defender general who would oversee all defense services statewide, some who prefer retaining local control but with guidelines and accountability, and some who think the existing system works reasonably well. Mr. Kindlon suggested the simplest solution is right at hand. Mr. Kindlon, a partner at Kindlon & Shanks, said the Capital Defender Office is staffed with skilled defense lawyers who, because of a Court of Appeals ruling that shot down the death penalty, are available. He said that instead of cutting the office's budget, the state should maintain the bureaucracy it already has in place to begin reforming the indigent defense system. "Most of the people, the vast majority, who do public defense work are talented and dedicated," he said. "It is not the people who are the problem." Rather, Mr. Kindlon said, it is the haphazard system. Unless the Legislature revives the death penalty statute by June 30 -- which the Assembly has no intention of doing -- funding for the Capital Defender Office will be cut to 30 percent of its budget as it deals with the remaining cases where death notices were filed or where defendants were sentenced to death. Although under People v. Lavalle, which was decided last June, the law cannot be enforced, there remain some lingering matters. As those wind down, so too will the Capital Defender Office. If the death penalty statute is patched by the Legislature, then the Capital Defender Office will have to be restaffed. But Mr. Kindlon and other advocates who both oppose capital punishment and support better indigent defense are urging the state to keep the office intact. Yesterday, the 31-member commission, co-chaired by former Bronx Administrative Judge Burton B. Roberts and Brooklyn Law Professor William E. Hellerstein, the former head of the New York City Legal Aid Society's criminal appeals bureau, seemed receptive to the idea -one of several it is considering as part of a broad review of the entire indigent defense system. The commission's formation was prompted by the lengthy and ultimately successful struggle to increase rates paid to assigned counsel, and the reaction of counties suddenly saddled with extra costs as a result of that increase. Some counties formed public defender offices so they would not have to rely on assigned counsel and pay the $75 per hour rate now mandated. Others chose different routes. The result is that indigent defense services are provided in dozens of different ways across the state, with no central standards or oversight. Earlier this spring, the New York State Bar Association urged the court system to adopt uniform standards and to provide independent oversight to ensure consistent and quality representation. That recommendation has been presented to both the Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Services and the Administrative Board of the Courts. At yesterday's hearing, the commission heard a range of opinions, and got a glimpse of how indigent defense is handled in some of the more remote corners of the state. Livingston Hatch, the public defender in Essex County, is leery of diverting control to "a select group" of bureaucrats who "know nothing about" the local practice and community. He opposes a statewide defense system. Mr. Hatch's predecessor, however, said he quit the job because his independence was constantly being undermined. Mark T. Montanye said his office had a fraction of the resources of the district attorney and, as a result, individual rights were commonly "trampled." He strongly favors a statewide approach. Gaspar M. Castillo Jr., who runs Albany County's conflict defender office - which gets involved in cases where the public defender has a conflict of interest - said that he was promised autonomy and independence, and the county executive delivered on that promise. Mr. Castillo said that as a result of that autonomy he is able to recruit people with considerable experience. Yet, Mr. Castillo said the lack of statewide standards or mandatory training jeopardizes the system statewide. Rensselaer County's public defender, Jerome K. Frost of Troy, told the panel he is reluctant to shift responsibility and control of indigent defense services to a state panel or office. Mr. Frost maintained that indigent defendants in Rensselaer County are well-served, a remark that sparked brief debate between him and one member of the commission, Lawrence S. Goldman, a white-collar criminal defense lawyer in Manhattan. Mr. Goldman also chairs the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Last year, the judicial conduct commission called for the removal of a popular Troy City Court judge, Henry Bauer, for repeatedly neglecting the bail and counsel rights of indigent defendants. In most of the cases, the defendants were represented by Mr. Frost's office. Mr. Frost maintains, as do many private defense attorneys in the Capital Region, that Judge Bauer, who was ultimately removed by the Court of Appeals, was a fair and reasonable judge who may have erred in a relative handful of the tens of thousands of cases he had handled on the city court bench. Yesterday, Mr. Goldman wanted to know why the public defender stood by Judge Bauer instead of its clients. "Why didn't the public defender ... speak up?" he demanded. "You weren't there, sir," Mr. Frost responded. "I read the record," said Mr. Goldman. "You weren't there," Mr. Frost repeated. "I am not here to defend Judge Bauer. But I am here to defend my office." Mr. Goldman was 1 of 3 members of the commission who voted to censure rather than remove Judge Bauer. (source: New York Law Journal) FLORIDA: Death-row appeal rejected The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal from a death row inmate condemned for beating, raping and strangling a 93-year-old in her Pinellas Park home. Anthony Washington, 48, was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of Alice Berdat even though a jury recommended that he be sentenced to life in prison. In Florida, juries in capital trials recommend sentences but judges make the final decisions, although they rarely overturn a recommendation for life. Of the 367 people on Florida's death row, fewer than a dozen are there despite jury recommendations for life. Washington argued that his judge erred in his override. In Thursday's unsigned opinion, Florida's high court said Washington waited too late to raise the issue. But the court also said that any legal error in the trial was harmless because the evidence backed up the death sentence. Justices Charles Wells, R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince, Raoul Cantero and Kenneth Bell concurred in the opinion; Chief Justice Barbara Pariente concurred in the result only and Justice Harry Lee Anstead dissented. (source: Tallahassee Democrat)
