July 23 TEXAS----female may face death penalty Vacuum may have been weapon The mother of slain 2-year-old Diamond Alexander-Washington might have used a vacuum cleaner attachment to beat the child, according to testimony given Friday in the 2nd day of pretrial hearings in the woman's capital murder case. Kimberly Alexander, 26, is accused of beating the toddler for wetting her panties on June 5, 2004. The child's injuries were so severe that she was airlifted to University Hospital, where she died the next day. Alexander is charged with capital murder in the death and faces a possible death sentence under a law that went into effect in 1994, making it a capital crime to murder a child under age 6. A vacuum cleaner, plus attachments, was among a list of about a dozen items seized from the apartment in the 4800 block of Ray Bon Drive that Alexander shared with Diamond's father, Tarri Washington Sr., and the couple's 10-month-old son, Tarri Jr. A detective testified this week that a vacuum cleaner attachment is believed to have been used in the beating. Police homicide detective Thomas Froelick read off a list of the items seized by detectives after they executed a search warrant at the apartment. Defense attorneys sought to have some of the items excluded from Alexander's upcoming trial, which has yet to be scheduled, but 144th District Judge Mark Luitjen ruled all the seized evidence will be admitted. Luitjen also indicated he plans to proceed carefully on the issue of whether Alexander has mental retardation and, therefore, is not eligible for the death penalty, if convicted. A hearing has been set tentatively for Sept. 9 to review the findings of a defense expert, who is evaluating Alexander's IQ and other competency factors. Prosecutors in March said they would seek the death penalty in the absence of "substantial evidence" that Alexander has mental retardation. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Virginia death row appeal that it is unconstitutional to execute a person with mental retardation. Luitjen denied a defense motion to hold a preliminary hearing to let a jury decide the mental retardation issue. He noted the Virginia case "does not prohibit the delivery of a death sentence. What (it) does is prevent the execution of the mentally retarded." (source: San Antonio Express-News) CALIFORNIA: Heavy security set for Aryan Brotherhood trial A judge preparing for a massive racketeering trial against the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang told defense lawyers on Friday they could summon a heavily guarded federal prisoner as a witness but he would come to court under exceptional security. U.S. District Judge David Carter set a date of Jan. 27 for the start of jury selection in the trial. Federal prosecutors claim the Aryan Brotherhood, a white prison gang that sprang up in California's San Quentin in the 196Os, has become a criminal syndicate that controls heroin and gambling within a large part of the nation's prison system and enforces its will through murder and intimidation. Carter said defense lawyers could call Tommy Silverstein as a witness but warned the notorious Aryan Brotherhood leader known as "Terrible Tom" would be shackled in court "just like a 'Silence of the Lambs' character." Silverstein killed a guard in 1983 at Marion federal prison in Illinois after slipping his handcuffs with the help of another gang member and pulling a concealed foot-long knife. Silverstein, who has also been convicted of killing three other inmates, is the nation's most heavily guarded prisoner, according to prosecutors. He is confined to a special cellblock in the basement of Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas. "He will come out here in chains and sit there in chains," Carter said in a pretrial hearing on Friday. The Aryan Brotherhood, also known as the Brand, is being prosecuted in California under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the same law used against Mafia crime families. Under an indictment unsealed in 2002, prosecutors have sought the death penalty against 23 Brand members, including Barry Mills, a founder. The case ranks as the largest death penalty prosecution in U.S. history, and officials say security is a major concern. Carter warned the gang leadership against trying to intimidate former gang members testifying against it with "the evil stare" during trial. Mills was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder as well as the 1979 execution-style slaying of another inmate in a federal prison in Georgia. Prosecutors charge Mills stabbed inmate John Marzloff to death for allegedly cheating Silverstein in a drug deal. The indictment accuses the AB of carrying out 16 slayings and conspiring to commit another 16. The gang is also charged with waging "war" against the DC Blacks prison gang in the 1990s and "engaging in a "conspiracy to murder black inmates." Defense lawyers have argued the prosecution case hinges on tainted testimony from AB "dropouts" who cooperated with investigators in order to secure special treatment at a unit of a federal "supermax" prison in Colorado. (source: Reuters) USA: 9 black robes matter less than most of us imagine -- High court tends to nudge rather than revolutionize. With all the hullabaloo about Tuesday's nomination of federal appeals court Judge John G. Roberts Jr., it's easy to start imagining that the country's entire future depends on the makeup of the Supreme Court. That would be a mistake. Although the Supreme Court is undoubtedly an important American institution, it matters much less - and much differently - than most people think. In theory, the court is a "counter-majoritarian" institution. That's a fancy way of saying that unlike the president and members of Congress, who must be elected by political majorities, Supreme Court justices are appointed and, once in place, they not only serve for life but have the power to strike down legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. On paper, that doesn't look very democratic: Why should unelected judges be able to overrule the will of political majorities? Over the years, political scientists and legal scholars have struggled to defend the court's seemingly undemocratic aspects. The most common defense highlights the court's role as guardian of our Constitution: There must be some institution empowered to take the long view, enforcing constitutional provisions even when temporary majorities want to scrap them. A related defense holds that the court's job is to protect minorities from being trampled on by numerical majorities: For instance, giving the court the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation can help prevent whites from enacting discriminatory legislation intended to disenfranchise blacks. Both these arguments take for granted that the court is willing to take strong, powerful, principled stands against legislators and, in some cases, against the majority of voters. Recently, however, many scholars have questioned that assumption. In his 1991 book The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? political scientist Gerald Rosenberg presented powerful evidence that even landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade either had little practical effect or simply reflected broader societal changes that were already under way. Although Rosenberg was at first roundly attacked by legal scholars (who have something of a professional stake in believing that Supreme Court decisions matter), today many constitutional experts accept that Rosenberg was correct: Courts rarely mount serious challenges to the preferences of political majorities. As Stanford Law Dean Larry Kramer put it, "There is now a general consensus among social scientists that courts have not been a strong or consistent counter-majoritarian force in American politics." In other words, Supreme Court decisions are more of a mirror than a catalyst, reflecting public opinion far more than they shift it. This shouldn't surprise us; Supreme Court justices, like the rest of us, are influenced by shifting social mores. And they know that the court's institutional credibility - and ability to get its decisions enforced - depends on not getting too far ahead of the curve. Take Brown v. Board of Education. As University of Virginia law professor Michael Klarman has argued, the court's decision that racial segregation was unconstitutional came only after national elites already had begun to frown on racially discriminatory policies. Even in the South, the winds of change were beginning to blow before Brown. The court's ultimate decision merely nudged the nation a bit further in the direction it was already going. As Klarman notes, Brown had an effect - it's just that the effect was not what most people assume. In fact, Klarman asserts, Brown's primary effect was not to inspire the civil rights movement, which would have begun anyway, but to provoke an angry backlash in parts of the Deep South against desegregation. In the short run, this slowed the pace of reform; in the longer run, however, televised broadcasts of brutal Southern repression during civil rights protests "transformed racial opinion in the North, leading to landmark civil rights legislation." The moral of the story? As Yale Law School's Jack Balkin says, the Supreme Court is bad at tackling but good at piling on. With or without John Roberts, don't expect the court to deviate dramatically from what most Americans want. This should be depressing to conservatives hoping for radical change from the right and reassuring to liberals fearing the same. But both sides should keep in mind Rosenberg's ultimate conclusion: The myth of the all-powerful Supreme Court can be dangerous if it diverts the attention of activists from the real engine of social change, which is, as always, the people. So, whether you want to ban abortion or keep it legal, whether you want greater federal power or less federal power, don't bother so much about the court. The people you really need to convince aren't wearing black robes up in Washington. They're all around you. (source: Houston Chronicle, Viewpoints--Rosa Brooks is an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. (This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.)) NEW MEXICO: DA to seek death penalty for Albuquerque murder In Alubquerque, prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty against a 42-year-old man accused of killing an Albuquerque woman in her home. Phillip Busey allegedly severely beat Kathryn Hauser, 52, in her Nob Hill home Jan. 19. She was discovered after an attorney walking to work heard her screams. She died later in a hospital. The death penalty can be sought because the killing was committed during an attempted kidnapping or rape, court records showed. District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said Friday the case is the only capital case in Bernalillo County. Busey is charged with 1st-degree murder, criminal sexual penetration, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, armed robbery and tampering with evidence. No trial date has been set. Authorities say Busey is a chronic burglar who has spent a good part of his life in prison. He has been a suspect in 45 break-ins in New Mexico and Missouri, court records in those states show. (source: Associated Press) OHIO: Jury recommends life sentence for man who killed 3 A jury on Saturday recommended that a man spend the rest of his life in prison for killing 3 young people execution-style 2 years ago in a drug robbery. The Franklin County Common Pleas Court panel deliberated Friday and Saturday morning after hearing relatives and friends speak on Vernon Spence's behalf Thursday. Spence, 31, of Columbus, was convicted on Tuesday of multiple charges of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and kidnapping. Prosecutors said he killed the 3 in an apartment near the Ohio State University campus after he and 2 accomplices robbed them of 5 pounds of marijuana and $70 in cash. Spence's lawyer, Gerald Sunbury, said he was elated that the jury did not recommend the death penalty. "It was my position that my client's life should be spared and the death sentence wasn't appropriate," Sunbury said. Sunbury and defense attorney Thomas Charlesworth told jurors Spence had a troubled childhood and shouldn't be sentenced to death. Judge Dale A. Crawford scheduled Spence's sentencing for Tuesday. Generally, judges are bound to follow the jury's recommendation of a life sentence. The victims, Kayla Hurst, 21, of Granville; her boyfriend, Aaron Grexa, 23, of Greensburg, Pa., and his roommate, Eric Hlass, 22, of Russellville, Ark., were bound before being shot in the back of the head. Spence testified on Monday that he was home alone the night 2 co-defendants said he killed the 3 to keep them from identifying him. Co-defendants Todd Bensonhaver and Rodell Rahmaan pleaded guilty to reduced charges, including involuntary manslaughter, and were sentenced to 21 years in prison. Prosecutor Ron O'Brien refused to criticize the jury's decision to not give Spence the death penalty. He said judges in Ohio instruct juries not to concentrate on the crime, but rather the reasons a defendant should not be put to death. "It is in some cases difficult to convince all 12 people if you focus on the defendant only and not the crime," O'Brien said. (source: Associated Press) FLORIDA: 1979-85--------May 26, 1979----Reaction to news of death Protesters said a prayer, and then, the vigil was over. John Spenkelink was convicted in 1973 of killing a man in a Tallahassee motel and sentenced to death. His case became a battleground in the death-penalty debate. This was 1 of 8 stories the Democrat ran the day after the execution. When the news reached protesters outside the governor's office Friday, faces already tearstained and worn by sleeplessness succumbed to grief. John Spenkelink, the man many had traveled hundreds of miles to save, was dead.... "Let's go from this place," said Mike Jendrzejczyk, an official of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. "It is a place of death." ... The demonstrators, at first numbering about 75 and later as many as 300, had marched to the Capitol from the Governor's Mansion before 9 a.m. Friday. They clapped rhythmically, producing loud echoes as they entered the building and filed into a small reception area outside the governor's office. There, separated from the governor by locked double doors and plainclothes and uniformed security men, they chanted, shouted, wept and prayed.... The mood swung from hope to anger, from defiance to grief.... But after Robin Gibson, [Gov. Bob] Graham's general counsel, emerged from the office at 9:10 a.m. to speak to them, the mood grew hostile [because they had wanted to speak to Graham], and demonstrators banged furiously on the door and on the walls ... in a rage that threatened for a moment to turn violent.... Jendrzejczyk quickly called for calm and for 5 minutes of quiet. "We are not a mob," he told the crowd. "We are peaceful people who are coming here to demand that life not be taken."... Jan. 20, 1980 (source: Tallahassee Democrat)
