June 21 NEVADA: Las Vegas man jailed in killing of 3-----2 6-year-olds among family members slain Metro Police have arrested a 35-year-old Las Vegas man in connection with the killing of his brother and 2 6-year-old children. Carleton Johnson is charged with 3 counts of murder and robbery with a weapon. Police said he shot his brother, son and niece inside a southwest valley apartment Saturday night. The coroner's office had not released the names of the victims this morning. Police also allege that after the shootings Johnson robbed a person at the Windsor Royal Palms apartment complex on Tropicana Avenue near Jones Boulevard about 9:20 p.m. He was arrested a short time later. Police said the victims' bodies were found about 9 p.m. in the complex in the 4200 block of South Jones Boulevard near Tropicana Avenue. The adult victim's girlfriend told police she was coming home to the apartment when she passed her boyfriend's brother leaving the home, police said. When she went inside she found her boyfriend and the 2 children dead. Terrance O'Leary, an apartment neighbor, said he heard something that sounded like gunshots Saturday night. Shortly afterward "we heard a neighbor woman screaming," O'Leary said Sunday afternoon. Other residents declined to comment and went about their daily activities. A bouquet of flowers lay at the entrance to the apartment where the shooting occurred late Sunday. The blossoms wilted in the afternoon heat. (source: Las Vegas Sun) USA: When Is It 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'? ---- Supreme Court Bans Juvenile Death Penalty Comprehensive neuropsychiatric and psychosocial assessments of death-row inmates and imaging studies exploring brain maturation in adolescents played a role in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to forbid the execution of killers who were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes, according to statements in court documents. In 1993, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons and a friend, 15-year-old Charles Benjamin, broke into the home of Shirley Crook (Roper v Simmons, 2005). She awoke, and the two young burglars bound her hands, covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, and shoved her into her minivan. They then drove her to a state park, where they tied her hands and feet with electrical wire, wrapped her entire face in duct tape, and threw her off a bridge into Missouri's Meramec River, where she drowned. Simmons later was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to die by lethal injection. Benjamin was sentenced to life in prison. It is Roper v Simmons that recently led the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, to affirm a ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court (Simmons v Roper, 2003). In 2003, the state court held that a national consensus had developed against executing juvenile offenders and that the death penalty imposed upon juveniles is "cruel and unusual" punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It set aside Simmons' death sentence and re-sentenced him to "life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole or release except by act of the Governor." For the past 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of when a child's thinking has matured sufficiently to be considered equivalent to that of an adult. In 1988, the court, in Thompson v Oklahoma, outlawed execution for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Yet, a year later in the case of Stanford v Kentucky (1989), the same court decided that 16-year-olds were sufficiently mature to be tried as adults and executed. The Supreme Court's decision last March bars the execution of those under 18 at the time of the murder. The decision nullifies laws allowing the death penalty for juveniles in 20 states and voids the sentences of 73 death-row inmates in 12 states. "The death sentences will be vacated, and those inmates will go through a re-sentencing process," Joseph McLaughlin, an attorney with Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe in New York City, told Psychiatric Times. McLaughlin filed an amicus curiae brief in Roper v Simmons for the American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), American Psychiatric Association and five other organizations (AMA et al., 2004). "The outcome for each individual will vary upon state laws. Some states provide life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, while others do not," he said. McLaughlin added, since the juvenile offenders will be removed from death row, many of them will have access to psychiatric treatment in those states that provide it. Considering Psychiatric Issues The legal briefs filed by Simmons (the respondent in the case) and amicus curiae in support of him described scientific findings of medical, psychiatric and psychological research relevant to the legal issues presented to the court. The brief filed by Simmons (2004), for example, noted that he possessed a low intelligence quotient, had suffered psychological abuse resulting from his parents' bitter divorce, had endured physical abuse, was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and had been diagnosed as "having a borderline personality disorder and a 'schizotypal' personality disorder." Friend of the court briefs filed by AMA et al. (2004) and the Juvenile Law Center et al. (2004) seeking to ban the juvenile death penalty cited several scientific studies, including those conducted by Dorothy Otnow Lewis, M.D., a psychiatrist at Yale University's Child Study Center, and her colleagues. Lewis has evaluated numerous murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles. In the late 1980s, Lewis, along with Jonathan Pincus, M.D., chief of neurology at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and professor emeritus of neurology at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, and others conducted comprehensive psychiatric, neurological, neuropsychological and educational evaluations of 14 juveniles in four states who were condemned to death (Lewis, 1998; Lewis et al., 1988). Their investigation revealed that 9 of the 14 had major neuropsychological disorders, 7 suffered psychotic disorders antedating incarceration, 7 had significant organic dysfunction on neuropsychological testing, and only 2 had full-scale IQ scores above 90. 12 reported having been abused, including 5 who were sodomized by relatives. Most of the juveniles attempted to hide evidence of cognitive deficits or psychotic symptoms and tried to conceal or minimize incidents of parental brutality. For a variety of reasons, the juveniles' vulnerabilities were not recognized at the time of their trials or sentencing. In 2004, Lewis and colleagues published a study of 18 males who had been condemned to death for homicides committed prior to their 18th birthdays. They were part of a cohort of 26 condemned juveniles in Texas. Lewis and colleagues conducted psychiatric, neurological, neuropsychological and educational assessments. They also reviewed all available medical, psychological, educational, social and family data. One of the purposes of the study was "to clarify the ways in which immaturity of their central nervous systems, traumas to their brains, predispositions to psychiatric illness, and chaotic, violent and abusive upbringings may have diminished their judgment and self-control." Asked about the major findings of the new study, Lewis told PT, "The group that we saw more recently compared to the group of 14 we saw in the 1980s had a higher and more normal range of intelligence." But even though most of the juveniles had average to low-average IQs, Lewis said, some were repeatedly not passed to the next grade level in school, while others were placed in special education classes and/or were transferred to alternate school settings. In the 2004 study, Lewis said she and her team conducted sophisticated neurological, neuropsychological and educational testing. All of the individuals evaluated neurologically and neuropsychologically had signs of frontal lobe dysfunction, Lewis said. The frontal lobe is involved in judgment, making decisions and putting breaks on behavior. The neuropsychological testing was even more powerful than the neurological exam in identifying executive dysfunction, she added. Another major finding was that the majority of the group (83%) had histories, signs and symptoms consistent with bipolar spectrum, schizoaffective spectrum or hypomanic disorders that long antedated their offenses. Their problem behavior had been seen early but was misinterpreted as being high spirits or lack of discipline, she explained. Lewis emphasized that most individuals with frontal lobe dysfunction, bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder do not commit murder or engage in violent acts. "However, studies have reported those who have such disorders and who come from homes where there is violence and abuse are significantly more likely to be violent than their peers," she said. Most of the juveniles Lewis and colleagues studied were raised in families where there was extreme violence, sexual and physical abuse, and where some family members exhibited mental illness. The 2004 study provided some of the details. One juvenile was beaten severely by numerous family members and sexually abused at age 7. Another was beaten often and, as a toddler, witnessed his father shoot himself in the head, an experience that resulted in recurrent flashbacks and for which he felt responsible. A third, at the age of 3 or 4, was caught by his stepfather eating chicken meant for adults. The stepfather took a knife and sliced the child's lower lip. The scar is still visible (Lewis et al., 2004). Particularly shocking, Lewis said, was when the researchers reviewed court records from the trials, most showed that no evaluation of the family had been conducted. In three or four of the records where an evaluation was made, the families were described as "stable" or "model families." What's more, Lewis told PT, only 4 of the 18 on death row had undergone pretrial psychiatric evaluations, 2 for the court and 2 for the defense, and those were incomplete. To the best of her knowledge, Lewis said no pre-sentencing neuropsychiatric evaluations were conducted. Another study cited in the amicus curiae briefs was that of Cauffman and Steinberg (2000). In that study of more than 1,000 adolescents and adults (ages 12 to 48), researchers found that psychosocial maturity is incomplete until age 19, at which point it plateaus. Adolescents scored lower on measures of self-reliance and other aspects of personal responsibility. They had more difficulty seeing things in long-term perspective, were less likely to look at things from the perspective of others and had more difficulty restraining their aggressive impulses. Brain Research Sheds Light Researchers at Harvard Medical School, the University of California at Los Angeles, the National Institute of Mental Health and others have been collaborating to map the development of the brain from childhood to adulthood and to examine implications of that development. Some of the findings were in the brief presented by AMA et al. (2004). "Adolescents rely for certain tasks, more than adults, on the amygdala, the area of the brain associated with primitive impulses of aggression, anger and fear," the brief said. "Adults on the other hand tend to process similar information through the frontal cortex, a cerebral area associated with impulse control and good judgment. Second, the regions of the brain associated with impulse control, risk assessment and moral reasoning develop last, after late adolescence." It also noted that brain imaging studies have confirmed that the "frontal lobes are still structurally immature well into late adolescence" with both myelination and pruning being incomplete. Supreme Court Opinion In writing the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited from psychological and sociological studies. There are three general differences between adults and juveniles under 18, he said, that demonstrate juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders: First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies respondent and his amici cite tend to confirm, a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions ... It has been noted that adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior. Additionally, childhood is more than a chronological fact, he wrote. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage. Juveniles' own vulnerability and comparative lack of freedom to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting means they have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The third broad difference, according to Kennedy: is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed ... The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. He pointed out that an individual must be at least 18 years of age before being diagnosed as having antisocial personality disorder. "If trained psychiatrists with the advantage of clinical testing and observation refrain, despite diagnostic expertise, from assessing any juvenile under 18 as having antisocial personality disorder," he added, "we conclude that States should refrain from asking jurors to issue a far graver condemnation--that a juvenile offender merits the death penalty." Kennedy also warned that there is simply too great a risk that jurors would be influenced by the cold-blooded nature of a juvenile's crimes even when an offender's lack of maturity, vulnerability and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less than death. Kennedy further explained that "evolving standards of decency," which led the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 to ban the execution of mentally retarded people, are similar with respect to juveniles and that the "United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling, Richard Sarles, M.D., AACAP president, said, "This decision does not diminish the crimes that place juveniles on death row, but it does recognize that there are considerations to be made because of their age." David Fassler, M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the University of Vermont, noted to the press that the ruling affirms the Children and Family Justice Center, Center on Children and Families position held by nearly every major national religious denomination, child advocacy group, and legal and medical organization, including the AMA and hundreds of others who have called for an end to the juvenile death penalty. References AMA, APA, American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry et al. (2004), Brief submitted as amicus curiae in Roper v Simmons. Cauffman E, Steinberg L (2000), (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behav Sci Law 18(6):741-760. Juvenile Law Center, Children and Family Justice Center, Center on Children and Families et al. (2004), Brief submitted as amicus curiae in Roper v Simmons. Lewis DO (1998), Guilty By Reason of Insanity: A Psychiatrist Explores the Minds of Killers. New York: Ivy Books. Lewis DO, Pincus JH, Bard B et al. (1988), Neuropsychiatric, psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles condemned to death in the United States. Am J Psychiatry 145(5):584-589. Lewis DO, Yeager CA, Blake P et al. (2004), Ethics questions raised by the neuropsychiatric, neuropsychological, educational, developmental, and family characteristics of 18 juveniles awaiting execution in Texas. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32(4):408-429. Roper v Simmons 543 U.S. (2005). Simmons (2004), Brief for the respondent in Roper v Simmons. Simmons v Roper 112 S.W.3d397 (Mo. 2003). Stanford v Kentucky 492 U.S. 361 (1989). Thompson v Oklahoma 487 U.S. 815 (1988). (source: Psychiatric Times, May 2005) ******************** Race and the jury system Writing for the 6-3 majority that overturned the death penalty conviction of Thomas Miller-El, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote, "When this evidence on the issues raised is viewed cumulatively, its direction is too powerful to conclude anything but discrimination." It is somewhat reassuring to know that when discrimination is too powerful to ignore, the high court will not turn a blind eye. The Miller-El case involved a defendant who was convicted of the 1985 robbing and killing of a clerk at a Holiday Inn. During jury selection, prosecutors used their peremptory strikes to eliminate 10 of 11 potential African-American jurors. Some of the methods used by Dallas County prosecution were so ridiculous, Souter labeled it "trickery." Prosecutors eliminated black jurors even when they were 4-square for the death penalty. Potential black jurors were asked more penetrating questions than were white jurors about whether the possibility of rehabilitation would affect a vote for death. White jurors who voiced mixed feelings about the death penalty were kept on the jury while black jurors who were ambivalent were struck. Prosecutors shuffled the order of potential jurors to drive black jurors to the back of the queue. Prosecutors gave a bland description of the death penalty to white panelists but tried to provoke black panelists into voicing ambivalence about the death penalty with more graphic descriptions of the anticipated fatal injection to the defendant. This was all in keeping with evidence that Dallas County had formal and informal policies of excluding people of color from jury service from the 1950s through the 1970s. "Happenstance is unlikely to produce this disparity," Souter wrote. The Miller-El case was so bad that Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion that questioned whether it was time to end peremptory challenges altogether. Justice Thurgood Marshall advocated their abolishment in 1986. "The use of race- and gender-based stereotypes in the jury selection process seems better organized and more systematized than ever before," Breyer wrote. He added that peremptory challenges based on stereotypes "betray the jurys democratic origins and undermine its representative function." It would be even better if the nation began to challenge the criminal justice system that betrays democracy every day. While the highest court mercifully stopped jury shuffles and discrimination for Miller-El, the lower courts are shuffling into jail thousands more African-American and Latino men. Racial bias continues to riddle the system, according to a 2005 review of 32 state and eight federal studies by the Sentencing Project, a Washington think tank that advocates for more constructive alternatives to incarceration. For instance, a Pennsylvania study found that, controlling for the type of crime and past criminal records, white men aged 18-29 were 38 percent less likely to be imprisoned than black men aged 18-29. When white men under 30 were sentenced to prison, their average sentence was nearly three months shorter than for same-aged black men. A study of the federal courts found that 23 % of white defendants in drug cases received reductions in sentencing - even under mandatory sentencing - compared with only 13 % of African-American and 14 % of Latino defendants. In Detroit, the average sentence for black-on-white sexual assault cases was more than 3 years longer than for black-on-black sexual assaults and more than 4 years longer than white-on-white sexual assaults. In Florida, black people charged with drug offenses were 3.6 times more likely than white people charged with drug offenses to be sentenced more severely as "habitual offenders." In Kansas City, black defendants received sentences for drug offenses and property crimes that were respectively 14 months and 6 1/2 months longer than for similar crimes committed by white perpetrators. On the death penalty, the evidence long ago showed that it is meted out on a biased basis. The federal government itself concluded that murders of white people were more likely to result in death sentences than murders of people of color. About 1/2 of the nations murder cases had white victims, but 81 % of executions between 1976-2002 were over white victims. It is good that Breyer noted that racism in jury selection seems better organized and more systematized than ever before. But the nation, in its law-and-order mode of the last quarter century, has ignored conclusions such as those given by the Sentencing Project that racial bias in the entire criminal justice system, even if it is "somewhat hidden" and "somewhat surreptitious," is a "very real part of the process." Happenstance is unlikely to end the disparity. It will take a peremptory strike by America. (source: Boston Globe) PENNSYLVANIA: Justices Overturn a Death Sentence, Citing an Inadequate Defense Counsel The Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania man's death sentence on Monday on the ground that his lawyers' failure to search his record for evidence that could have persuaded the jury to spare his life fell below minimum constitutional standards for the effective assistance of counsel. As a result of the 5-to-4 decision, Pennsylvania must now either give the defendant, Ronald Rompilla, a new capital sentencing hearing or sentence him to life in prison for the 1988 murder of the owner of a bar in Allentown, Pa. The decision was the second in eight days in which the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence. Last Monday, in a case from Texas, the court overturned a 20-year-old murder conviction as well as the death sentence on the ground that the jury selection had been infected by racism. The court also ruled in March that the Constitution barred capital punishment for those who committed crimes before the age of 18. In the new case, Rompilla v. Beard, No. 04-5462, as in the case last Monday, Miller-El v. Dretke, the justices accepted a death row inmate's appeal from a federal appeals court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court then proceeded itself to grant the writ, which is a judgment that a conviction or sentence was unconstitutional. Justice David H. Souter was the author of both opinions. In both cases, the majority engaged in an unusually detailed examination of the record and concluded that the court's own precedents required a ruling for the defendant. In the Pennsylvania case, Justice Souter cited the court's precedents as well as the standards for performance of defense counsel published by the American Bar Association. That publication, identifying a "duty to investigate" and instructing lawyers to "explore all avenues," "describes the obligation in terms no one could misunderstand in the circumstances of a case like this," Justice Souter said. The American Bar Association filed a brief on Mr. Rompilla's behalf. But Justice Souter's assertion that the court was applying existing standards and not making new law provoked a sharply worded dissent from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who called the ruling a "remarkable leap" and a "radical departure" from the court's previous treatment of the question of inadequate legal counsel. Justice Kennedy accused the majority of "distortion" of the most directly relevant precedent. "This elevation of needle-in-a haystack claims to the status of constitutional violations will benefit undeserving defendants and saddle states with the considerable costs of retrial and/or resentencing," he added. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist joined the dissent, as did Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Souter's majority opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor, who also filed a concurring opinion. There were indications that Justice O'Connor had changed sides in the five months the case was under consideration, enabling Justice Souter to convert a dissenting opinion into an opinion for the court. This case was the last to be decided of the 10 cases the court heard during its January argument sitting. From this group, it was the 2nd majority opinion for Justice Souter, with the other 8 justices each having only one. Justice Souter almost never receives an extra assignment during an argument sitting. It happened only once in the last term, in a police interrogation case from Missouri, a 5-to-4 decision that was probably also the product of a late vote switch. The point of contention among the justices in the case on Monday was the failure by Mr. Rompilla's defense lawyers, members of the Lehigh County public defender's office, to examine the file of a rape case in which he had been convicted 14 years earlier. The case was germane because the prosecution had announced its intention to use the case to show that Mr. Rompilla was a previously convicted violent felon, one of the "aggravating circumstances" on which the Pennsylvania death penalty law permits juries to rely in imposing a sentence of death. The file was maintained in the same courthouse where Mr. Rompilla's murder trial was taking place and was easily obtainable by the defense, Justice Souter noted. "It flouts prudence to deny that a defense lawyer should try to look at a file he knows the prosecution will cull for aggravating evidence, let alone when the file is sitting in the trial courthouse, open for the asking," Justice Souter said, adding that "no reasonable lawyer would forgo examination of the file." Had the lawyers looked in the old file, Justice Souter continued, they would have been led to evidence of the defendant's limited mental capacity and background as an abused child, as well as his likely diagnoses of fetal alcohol syndrome and schizophrenia. According to evidence later unearthed by the new lawyers who handled Mr. Rompilla's habeas corpus case in federal court, he and his brother had been locked by their father in a small wire-mesh dog pen that was "filthy and excrement filled." Mr. Rompilla was sent to school in rags. He dropped out in the ninth grade. Mr. Rompilla's initial lawyers had not extracted this information in interviews with their client, who was often uncooperative, or with family members, who presented a more benign image of his upbringing. Justice Souter said that an adequate defense would have presented the information as evidence mitigating against the death penalty, and that there was a "likelihood of a different result" had the lawyers done so. In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said "there is no reasonable probability" that, short of giving "intense scrutiny to every single page of every single document," the defense lawyers would have been led to the information about Mr. Rompilla's childhood. A "rigid requirement" that defense lawyers give that kind of scrutiny to trial records, he said, would harm defendants by steering their lawyers away from other strategies. "The Constitution does not mandate that defense attorneys perform busy work," Justice Kennedy said. Both Justice Souter and Justice O'Connor, in her concurring opinion, denied that the court was imposing any such "rigid requirement." Justice O'Connor, in fact, said she was joining the majority "because the court's opinion is consistent with the case-by-case examination of the evidence called for under our cases." The effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution's Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court's major precedent, Strickland v. Washington, established a 2-part test for defendants to meet in order to show that their defense was constitutionally inadequate: first, that the representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and second, a "reasonable probability" that the outcome would have been different but for the defense lawyer's failings. For 16 years after announcing that test in 1984, the Supreme Court did not find any case in which a defendant's legal representation was inadequate. Beginning in 2000, however, it has decided 3 consecutive cases, including Monday's, in which it found the representation to have been constitutionally deficient. Eric M. Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law who is a specialist in the death penalty and habeas corpus, said the trend indicated that the court was increasingly troubled by problems of adequate representation for capital defendants. "They are starting to put some teeth in their scrutiny" of these cases, Professor Freedman said in an interview. "The basis themes of fundamental fairness in the administration of the death penalty have penetrated the Supreme Court as well as the general public." (source: The New York Times) VIRGINIA: Critical Audit Prompts Va. to Review DNA Evidence Virginia has begun a review of DNA evidence used in at least 160 cases by the state's Division of Forensic Science following a study critical of the crime laboratory. Robert J. Humphreys, a Virginia Court of Appeals judge, is leading the effort, which will review evidence in cases that date from 1994. About two dozen are death row cases, and the analysis marks the 1st time a state has volunteered to revisit the cases of executed felons on a large scale. One case involves Robin Lovitt, an inmate on death row who is scheduled to be executed July 11. State officials have said that other evidence was used to convict Lovitt and that his fate will not be affected by Humphreys's review. Emily Lucier, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Judith W. Jagdmann, said the office does not consider Lovitt's conviction a DNA case. The audit that led to the review criticized the Virginia lab's role in the case of Earl Washington Jr., a former death row inmate who spent 17 years in prison before he was pardoned in 2000. DNA evidence was not gathered for Washington's conviction, but it was used later to determine his innocence. In its study, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors concluded that a chief scientist failed to follow proper procedure when testing a piece of evidence in Washington's case and that his analysis of that evidence was wrong. The auditors also concluded that an internal review failed to properly identify the errors made by the scientist, Jeffrey Ban. Humphreys's team of half a dozen national forensics experts began its research last week. The analysis stops short of actually testing or retesting DNA. Instead, experts will determine whether scientists who handled the evidence followed proper procedures. The review should take about eight weeks. "You need to have impeccable credentials to go into court," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee and co-chairman of the Virginia State Crime Commission. "If they can't show that tests were done properly, that hurts prosecuting crimes." The General Assembly enacted a law this year that makes the Division of Forensic Science, which runs the crime lab, an independent state agency and creates an advisory board to help oversee its work. Several criminal defense lawyers have said that the changes were inadequate because they did not create a watchdog department to review the lab's reports and conclusions. Humphreys did not respond to phone messages left at his offices in Hampton Roads and Richmond. Although the audit did not uncover any systemic problems at the lab, a spokeswoman for Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) said the review could restore confidence in one of the nation's most respected crime laboratories and lead to changes in laboratory policy. "Even in this review, we've sought to have a very independent process," said Ellen Qualls, Warner's director of communications, adding that three cases from each examiner in the department will be reviewed. "At every step of the way, Virginia has sought to go above and beyond what was requested." Legal experts said the review must determine whether the Earl Washington case was an isolated incident or an example of long-standing problems within the lab. A successful analysis by the investigators "would look at the errors that happened in the Earl Washington case and determine the source of those errors and figure out whether they are systemic," said Betty Layne DesPortes, a criminal defense lawyer in Richmond who heads a legal panel for the American Academy of Forensic Science. "One of the overriding themes of the errors was a lack of strict adherence to scientific protocol. A full investigation of the errors is crucial to maintain our integrity in the results," she said. She added that so far, she has been impressed by the methodology and approach Humphreys has taken with the review. The review will include not only all death row cases since 1994 that hung on DNA evidence but also more routine testing done by Ban and others, state officials said. *********************** Kilgore Backs Death Penalty for Accomplices Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore proposed Monday that accomplices to murder be eligible for the death penalty. Kilgore, who offered the idea last year while serving as Virginia's attorney general, said the move would allow prosecutors to charge gang leaders and others who order killings with capital murder. He included the proposal as part of an initiative that he said would curb gang violence. "Gangs are the modern-day mob," Kilgore said in a statement detailing the proposals. "They are organized, dangerous, deadly crime syndicates that prey on our youth and target our communities." Kilgore also proposes to increase rehabilitation for young offenders, allow civil lawsuits against gangs, stiffen sentences for gang-related offenses and establish new laws against obtaining false identification papers. Kilgore's Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, called the announcement an effort to distract people from a poor record on fighting gangs. Kilgore was the state's secretary of public safety in the mid-1990s and served as attorney general from 2002 until February, when he resigned to devote more time to the campaign. In recent years, Northern Virginia law enforcement officers and community leaders have been struggling to contain gang violence, which they see as a growing problem. Delacey Skinner, a spokeswoman for Kaine, declined to say whether he favors expansion of the death penalty to accomplices. "What I see is an attempt to reintroduce the whole death penalty discussion and not really deal with the problem of gangs," Skinner said Monday. State law allows the death penalty in murder-for-hire cases, and sniper John Allen Muhammad was successfully prosecuted for capital murder in part under an exemption that allows terrorism convictions even in cases where it is not clear who pulled the trigger. But Virginia courts, and courts across the nation, have rejected other attempts to impose the death penalty on accomplices. In the Muhammad case, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the conviction could stand -- even though it was not clear whether Muhammad or partner Lee Boyd Malvo pulled the trigger -- because the murders could not have happened without Muhammad's involvement. Kilgore said that as governor, he would urge the legislature to broaden the death penalty to apply to the killing of a witness in a trial and to crimes committed in a gang-related offense. An aide said Kilgore wants to eliminate a rule in all capital murder cases that the death penalty be applied only to the triggerman. "It would apply to everybody. But the focus for us is to get after the gang leaders," said Kilgore's policy director, Carrie Cantrell. "We had the legislation for the anti-terrorism statute. That statute was upheld by the courts. This would be a similar process." Steven D. Benjamin, the immediate past president of the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the Kilgore proposal would vastly expand the cases in which prosecutors could seek the death penalty. He said that could fuel the debate over whether the death penalty is imposed fairly in the state. "There are already questions about the fairness and evenhandedness" of the death penalty's application, Benjamin said. If the Kilgore proposal passes, he said, "we are eliminating a check on our passion and our emotion." Benjamin said Kilgore's proposal would probably be constitutional but would be subject to interpretation by courts. The triggerman rule, for example, is a precedent created by legal cases over the years in which judges have refused to allow prosecutors to expand the use of the death penalty. State Sen. William C. Mims (R-Loudoun), who serves on the Courts of Justice Committee, said he believes it would be constitutional to impose the death penalty in cases of gang-ordered killings. The legislature has referred a similar bill to the state's Crime Commission for study. "I expect it will be back before the General Assembly in 2006 and there will be a whole lot of support for it," Mims said. (source for both: Washington Post) ARKANSAS: Reasons for Death Penalty Announced----Howell to Face Trial This Fall In Bentonville, prosecutors on Monday announced their reasons for seeking the death penalty against Timothy Howell, accused in the September stabbing death of Elvin Ramirez in Bentonville. Two aggravating circumstances make the death penalty appropriate against Howell, said Benton County deputy prosecutor Clay Fowlkes: The act was cruel and depraved, and Howell has been convicted of a prior violent felony. A jury found Howell, 41, guilty in 1984 of stabbing Kenneth Joslin to death. The lead prosecutor in the case was David Clinger, now a Benton County circuit judge. Howell was sentenced to 20 years and served 8. Benton County Circuit Judge Jay Finch wants to hold a jury trial this fall but must coordinate with other judges to borrow a courtroom, since his has no jury box. Finch ruled Monday on 37 motions submitted by defense attorney Billy Bob Webb. These included: - Compel the state to publish its criteria for seeking the death sentence and to provide data concerning prior homicide prosecutions in the judicial district since promulgation of the current death penalty statute in 1975. This motion was denied. - Prohibit introduction of aggravating circumstances. This was denied. - Force the state to disclose mitigating circumstances. This was granted. Also Monday, a hearing was held for Timothy McChristian, 20, Howell's son, who is charged with 2nd-degree battery in the incident. A review hearing was set for Oct. 7 and a jury trial for Oct. 31. According to court documents, Elvin Ramirez was found stabbed in the heart, lying in a pool of blood inside an apartment on Northwest "D" Street on Sept. 2. He died several days later after life support was disconnected. Ramirez, 37, had been visiting a woman at the Bentonville apartment when Howell arrived, wielding a crowbar in one hand and a black-handled knife in the other, the woman told police. A young man was with Howell, the woman said. She called for help, then saw Howell swing the crowbar and hit Ramirez between the shoulder blades before she chased him from the house, according to court documents. Police arrested Howell and McChristian Sept. 3 at a Neosho, Mo., residence. They were later returned to Arkansas. The men admitted being at the apartment, and Howell admitted hitting Ramirez with a pry bar but denied having a knife. He said he went to the apartment to confront Ramirez about an earlier incident involving his niece. McChristian is free on a $50,000 bond. Finch set a $1 million bond for Howell in March. (source: The Morning News) ******************* Motions multiply during capital-murder-case hearing Circuit Judge Jay Finch dealt with several motions during a hearing Monday in Timothy Glenn Howells murder case. Howell is charged with capital murder in connection with Elvin Roberto Ramirezs death. He died Sept. 4, 2004, from a puncture wound to his heart, according to court documents. Neosho, Mo., police arrested Howell, 41, and his son, Timothy Joe McChristian, 20, hours after the incident occurred at 406 N. W. D St., Apt. A, in Bentonville. Howell is accused of acting with premeditation and purposely causing Ramirezs death by stabbing and cutting him multiple times and causing blunt-force head trauma. If convicted of capital murder, Howell could receive life imprisonment or the death penalty. Prosecutors believe there are two aggravating circumstances which justify the death penalty: The crime was committed in a cruel and depraved manner, and Howell has previously been convicted of murder. Many of the motions dealt with the death-penalty concerns, and the judge denied each of them. Finch will set a pretrial hearing and jury trial in the case after talking with Circuit Judges Tom Keith and David Clinger about the use of one of their courtrooms for the trial. Howell was found guilty of 1st-degree murder for stabbing Kenneth Joslin to death in April 1984. Howell was later sentenced to 20 years in prison. He was released on parole on March 24, 1992. He completed his parole in November 1993. McChristian was released from jail on $50,000 bond on Oct. 28, 2004. He has pleaded not guilty to his charge of battery in the second degree. The charge is punishable with up to 6 years in prison. McChristian admitted being the second person at the scene with his father, according to court reports. McChristians jury trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 31, and a pretrial hearing in the case is set for Oct. 7. Howell is being held in the Benton County Jail on $1 million bond. (source: The Benton County Daily Record)
