May 29 ILLINOIS: No Doubt law would save innocent A just and common-sense amendment to the law governing Illinois' death penalty was recently defeated in a Democrat-controlled Senate committee. Before the death penalty could be imposed, the bill would have required a judge or jury to determine that "the evidence leaves no doubt respecting the defendant's guilt." The Illinois House passed similar No Doubt legislation last March. Illinois' notorious death penalty system is nationally known for its colossal failures. More innocent men have been freed from Illinois' Death Row than the total number of executions. Although several reforms have been made since a moratorium on executions was imposed in 2000, the No Doubt law would help ensure that an innocent person is never again placed on death row. There are three phases in a death penalty case. In the guilt phase, a judge or unanimous jury determines whether the defendant is guilty of the offense. The legal standard at the guilt phase is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant is convicted, the case proceeds to the eligibility phase, in which a judge or unanimous jury determines whether one or more of 21 legal factors exist beyond a reasonable doubt such that the defendant is eligible to be sentenced to death. If so, the case proceeds to sentencing phase, in which a judge or unanimous jury must determine that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt before a death sentence may be imposed. The No Doubt bill would have added the additional step at the eligibility phase that the judge or unanimous jury find that there is no doubt that the defendant is actually guilty of the crime. This provision would make it less likely for a death penalty to be imposed in several categories of cases that have shown to be particularly prone to error -- for example, purely circumstantial cases, cases hinging on eyewitness testimony, and cases supported largely by a confession provided after a lengthy police interrogation. It was reported that the No Doubt bill failed in the Senate because prosecutors lobbied the committee for weeks and portrayed the bill as an effective repeal of the death penalty. One prosecutor was quoted as saying that he opposed the No Doubt bill because, "Only 1 juror needs to say, 'Look, I know [the defendant] did it . . . but I know he's crazy.' So they have this lingering doubt." However, even under current law, one juror at the sentencing phase could decide that a defendant's disturbed mental state constituted sufficient mitigating evidence that precluded the imposition of the death penalty. The No Doubt law would simply provide the option of finding the defendant guilty of the crime while withholding the ultimate and irrevocable penalty when absolute certainty of guilt does not exist. All people, including prosecutors, should be able to agree that a person should not be sentenced to death unless there is no doubt of guilt. The No Doubt bill should be revived and passed. Sean Collins-Stapleton, board member, Chicago Council of Lawyers (source: Letter to the Editor, Chicago Sun-Times) ALABAMA: Clock ticking for convicted killer -- Appeals exhausted, lawyer questions Talladega justice Talladega Police Lt. Billy Haney has waited 21 years for the man who killed his brother to die. 21 years for peace of mind. Years in which their parents have died, leaving him to witness the execution of Jerry Paul Henderson scheduled for Thursday. Henderson, 58, a Georgia maintenance technician, was convicted of shooting Jerry Haney to death with a shotgun in 1984 and collecting $3,000. Court records say Haney begged for his life, then Henderson fired the third and fatal blast. He was sentenced to death because murder-for-hire is a capital offense in Alabama. Henderson's attorney in later stages of his appeals says this was not a heartless murder-for-hire, but a tangled family tragedy with failings on both sides and with Alabama's indigent defense system. Money changed hands, Justin Ravitz concedes, but it was not a key motivation. Ravitz, a Michigan lawyer and former criminal court judge, said he presided over some "godawful cases. And I can say without hesitation, every week I sentenced someone more dangerous than Jerry Henderson." The Haney family's wait has been so long, in part, because of unusual activity and relationships in Talladega County as the case has wound through court. Among those detailed in appeal petitions: Steve Giddens, a lawyer appointed to represent Henderson at an appeal hearing, is the brother of Assistant District Attorney Rod Giddens, who prosecuted Henderson, and a long-time friend of Lt. Haney. While Steve Giddens represented him, Henderson, who has a seventh-grade education, waived his right to challenge the competency of his trial attorneys. Henderson's sister-in-law and co-defendant, Judy Haney, was convicted and initially sentenced to death for hiring him to kill Jerry Haney, her husband. Her sentence was reduced to life without parole after it surfaced that her attorney was drunk during parts of her trial. The judge found Gould Blair in contempt of court one morning and sent him to jail to sober up. That, and her being the mother of young children, led to her resentencing, leaving the Haney family disappointed and Jerry Henderson the only one eligible for the death penalty. "In my opinion, she should have been the first one executed," said Lt. Haney. "There's no doubt in my mind she plotted and planned the whole thing." But Haney does not complain about the long wait for an execution. He's devoted his life to the criminal justice system and believes it works. "I've been in law enforcement for 29 years now. I'm pro for the death penalty, but I've never had a feeling of actually wanting to watch an execution," Lt. Haney said in an interview at the Talladega Police Department, where he oversees officer training. "This is very personal in nature and I think it would give me some peace of mind." His brother was a father of 2 and financially stable enough to have his house paid for when he was killed at age 33. "He was a hardworking, very ethical, moral person," Lt. Haney said. But, as revealed later in court, there was trouble in that house. Judy Haney and her children testified in her trial that her husband had violent rampages that left her bruised and her daughter's elbow shattered, and that some nights sent them fleeing into the woods, according to court documents. Also, Jerry Haney was having an affair. When Judy Haney found out, she emptied their savings account and fled to the Calhoun, Ga., home of her sister, Martha Henderson. "After Jerry (Haney) found out about the loss of funds, he threaten (sic)to kill her if the money was not returned," an investigator with the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles wrote in a pre-sentence report. This occurred in late December 1983. Jerry Haney was murdered New Year's Day 1984. Plot hatched in Georgia: In Georgia, Haney and her sister and brother-in-law worked out a plan for Jerry Henderson to feign illness during a party, then sneak out a window and drive to Talladega to kill Jerry Haney. People at the party would be his alibi. And because the Hendersons had some financial struggles, Judy agreed to give him money. It was 3 years later that law officers cracked the case. "It was technically a murder-for-hire, but it was more family resolving a matter that should have been resolved through the legal system and was not," said Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit law firm in Atlanta that represents poor people on Death Row and handled Judy Haney's successful appeal. "He'd been running around on her. He'd been abusing her, abusing the children. It's not appropriate to take the law into your own hands (but) this was a great family tragedy, and usually they are punished with a less severe sentence than the death penalty." Ravitz, Henderson's attorney, wrote in a 1999 appeal petition that the trial attorneys did not make that point to the jury: "If Mr. Henderson was provoked to act out of sympathy and concern for victims of abuse, and out of the hatred engendered for that which he did witness - rather than simply for money - the essential facts before the court are substantially different from that depicted by trial counsels' wholly inadequate effort and presentation." But there is another side to that story, according to Lt. Haney, who was close with his brother during this time. "Theirs wasn't a Cinderella marriage by any means," he said. "They had their differences and disputes like all people do, but that's no way to handle things." Lt. Haney pointed out that Judy Haney and the children were safe with her family more than 100 miles away when the killing occurred. Lt. Haney said his brother wanted to leave the family and start over and offered his wife "everything." So she could have gotten rid of him. "I'm not saying Jerry was a saint," Lt. Haney said. Ineffective counsel: For Ravitz, one of the most troubling aspects of the case is that he believes Henderson had a strong appeal on claims of ineffective counsel, but the brother of the original prosecutor persuaded him to forfeit that claim. "We never even got to the 'dance' so to speak. Alabama courts (and the 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court) shut Henderson out - and are allowing this execution to go forward - without ever even allowing for any measure of scrutiny as to the essence of his claims," Ravitz said. Eventually, Ravitz raised numerous claims in state and federal courts that bolstered contentions Henderson's court-appointed trial attorneys had not adequately defended him. They never hired an investigator, and presented scant testimony about his reasons for killing Haney, Ravitz argued, including that Henderson had been abused and abandoned as a child and had strong empathy for his niece, Tonya. He also argued that Alabama pays indigent defense attorneys so little compared with other states that the attorneys did not have the resources to defend him. His two attorneys were paid $4,961. But it was too late. Years earlier, Giddens had been brought in after another attorney, from Maryland, dropped out of Henderson's case. He met with Henderson for about an hour the day before the hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Maryland lawyer had raised some claims. But, after meeting with Giddens, Henderson waived them. Giddens told the judge, "He's well satisfied that his attorneys did everything they could for him." Lawyer: No conflict: Henderson said in court he thought his trial lawyers "done the best they could." One lawyer apparently raised a lot of objections in court. He "was actually jumping up and down like a jumping bean," Henderson has said. Steve Giddens is now district attorney in Talladega County, which has more than 10 people on death row, the highest per capita in the state. He said in an interview last week that he believed there was no conflict, and the federal courts have agreed. That his brother had helped secure the conviction did not sway his work on the Henderson appeal, he said. "I don't see what that's got to do with anything," he said. "Whoever raised that is dead wrong." And because the courts do not guarantee attorneys to death row defendants in all stages of appeal, the conflict issue was moot. "The lawyer basically can have complete malpractice, and there's no remedy for it because the court says you're not entitled to anybody, anyway," Southern Center for Human Rights' Bright said. Now the guaranteed appeals are exhausted, though anti-death penalty advocates are appealing to Gov. Bob Riley for clemency. At his sentencing in 1988, Henderson confessed to killing Haney, to being tormented by what he's done, and to finding a modicum of solace only in prayer and God. He didn't beg for his life. "My life belongs to God. It don't belong to anyone else," he said. "But I want you to understand that it's not right for anybody to take anybody's life. I don't care what the circumstances are. You know, the Lord said, `Thou shalt not kill.'" He didn't say you can do it through a court and it's all right." (source: Birmingham News) OHIO: New prosecutor faces tough caseload Residents of Putnam County only had 2 murders to think about in the past 10 years. Now the county's first full-time prosecutor, Gary Lammers, must weigh 2 potential death-penalty homicide cases, turning the quaint courthouse in downtown Ottawa into the center of a media frenzy and challenging a prosecutor just 5 1/2 months into his 1st term. "You hope you never have to come across these cases," said Lammers, a resident of Ottawa since 1978, with the exception of his college years and 8 months working in Toledo. "We live in such a wonderful community, county, area, state and country that I just consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to represent people in this capacity." The routine cases prosecuting harassment and drunken driving moved to the side recently as a pair of potential death penalty case files moved onto Lammers' desk. Fort Jennings' Michael G. Luebrecht admitted to drowning his 13-month-old son, Joel Michael, in a conversation with a 911 dispatcher. That case goes to the grand jury Friday. Lammers also inherits the case of Kenneth Richey, who was convicted of murdering 2-year-old Cynthia Collins in a Columbus Grove apartment fire in 1986. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, and Lammers must decide if he'll retry the case. "Those are difficult cases," Lammers said. "They can pull you into them, and you become emotionally involved in them many times. Any time you're involved in a case in which emotions are heightened, it's going to make those cases that much more difficult. They weigh on you heavily. I know it will weigh on me, much in the same fashion as it has for my predecessors and past prosecutors." Luebrecht's attorney, Lima lawyer Bill Kluge, succinctly summarized the tough days ahead for Lammers. "He certainly has a kettle of fish, doesn't he?" said Kluge, a friend for the past 20 years who donated $100 to Lammers' election campaign. The county has other challenging court battles ahead. Lammers isn't as directly involved with a pair of lawsuits against the county involving its economic development arrangement with the Putnam County Community Improvement Corp. until last summer. The county commissioners still consult him on those issues, though. The results of a jury trial from earlier this year also face a possible reversal. Attorneys for Luke Mansfield appealed his conviction for 5 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Lammers' office will also prosecute an alleged theft ring linked to nearly 80 thefts, with ties to Allen, Hancock, Paulding and Van Wert counties. "Many times you may find yourself feeling that you're being pulled in a thousand different directions," Lammers said. "You're going from one fire to another fire, to another fire, to another fire. You're without the opportunity to maybe devote as much time as you'd like to it, to make sure that fire's absolutely, positively taken care of." Lammers might be new to his current role, but he certainly isn't new to prosecuting. The 1989 Ohio Northern College of Law graduate served as an assistant prosecutor in Putnam County from 1990 to 2000 under former county Prosecutor Daniel R. Gerschutz, handling many juvenile cases and assisting on adult prosecutions. He spent two years as an assistant prosecutor for the city of Lima before taking on his own private practice. When he campaigned for prosecutor, Lammers pushed to replace the county's traditional part-time prosecutor and its $50,991 salary with a full-time prosecutor and a $96,176 salary. He cut his assistant prosecutor staff down from 4 to 2, with hopes of cutting that part of the budget by $38,000. In all, the switch to a full-time prosecutor will cost the county's taxpayers about $50,000 more this year in salaries and benefits than the office spent last year under former part-time prosecutor Kurt Sahloff. The rental of office space for the prosecutor's office involves $8,100 more per year spent from the county's general fund. Recent events confirmed Lammers' beliefs the county needed a full-time prosecutor, despite its costs. "I'm thankful I decided to go full-time because of the demands and time constraints the job has placed on me," Lammers said, "especially in light of these most recent developments and serious cases we have before us." One benefit of a full-time prosecutor was accessibility, said Putnam County Commissioner Bob Riepenhoff. Many county officials consult with Lammers before making major decisions. "He's lived up to his promise to be accessible," Riepenhoff said. "When we call him, he is al-ways available to us. I'm impressed with his advice. It seems to be based on a good knowledge of the Ohio Revised Code." Now that knowledge will be put to the test in a county with few murders in its recent his-tory. When the county did suffer a murder recently, it usually involved a minor. Aside from the Luebrecht and Richey cases, 2 other wrongful death cases included children. In June 2003, Ricky Daniels of Columbus Grove pleaded guilty to involuntary man-slaughter and child endangering in the death of his 6-month-old son, Trey Daniels. In May 2002, a jury convicted Marvin L. Martin II of Continental in the murder of his 15-year-old brother-in-law, Charles Plummer-Breckler, in Dupont. Lammers said he'd take the death-penalty questions in the Luebrecht and Richey cases very seriously. A Catholic who regularly attends Mass, he said he'd weigh the facts carefully before recommending anything. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks out against capital punishment if "bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons." "Usually in most death penalty cases, the prosecutor is the individual putting that option out there," Lammers said. "He's not the one ultimately weighing and making that decision, though. That'll be the trier of fact making that decision. The ultimate decision lies in another group's hands, so to speak." (source: Lima News)
