July 29 USA: ACLU Says Habeas Legislation is Unconstitutional, Should be Rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee The Senate Judiciary Committee today has begun to consider legislation that would strip federal courts of their jurisdiction and take away defendant's safeguards against being wrongfully convicted and even executed. The committee will continue to consider this legislation after the August recess. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes this bill, saying it unconstitutionally violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers and threatens the independence of the federal judiciary. Senate bill 1088, the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, eliminates state prisoners ability to access federal courts in order to have their criminal cases reviewed. If passed, it would prevent the federal courts from reviewing many types of legal errors in criminal cases. "This bill virtually eliminates a state prisoners ability to call for a federal court to review their case, if for example, their lawyer fell asleep during trial." said Jesselyn McCurdy, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Inexperienced lawyers, and prosecutorial misconduct, among other things are some of the reasons why convictions are overturned as a result of habeas proceedings. This bill would eliminate state prisoners ability to access federal court as a court of last resort." Since 1976, when capital punishment was resumed in some states, federal habeas corpus has been the principle means by which the federal courts have forced the states to adhere to constitutional standards for the imposition of the death penalty. Those standards are essential if capital punishment is to be administered in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. Yet death penalty statutes are complex and state courts often fail to interpret them correctly. Thus, in many cases federal habeas proceedings become the court of last resort for state prisoners with claims of innocence. If S.1088 is enacted many wrongfully convicted people will never have the opportunity to establish their innocence in a federal court. Currently, courts determine whether states have established competent legal counsel for people sentenced to death. Under S.1088, the U.S. Attorney General, the chief prosecuting officer, would have the authority to decide whether states indigent defense systems are providing adequate representation. It is inappropriate for the Attorney General, an unobjective observer, to make this type of decision and this demonstrates that supporters of this legislation are not sincerely interested in providing competent legal representation . "The bottom line is that this bill strips the federal judiciary of their power by taking away the ability for state prisoners to gain access to the federal courts," said McCurdy. "This bill should be called the Steam Roller Procedures Act of 2005 because nothing will be left of habeas corpus in this country if this legislation is passed." For more on the ACLUs concerns with Habeas Corpus and Court Stripping, go to: http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=18824&c=15 (source: ACLU) ************************** A time-saver poor defendants don't need Right now a sneaky, nefarious bill that threatens to close down access to federal courts is masquerading in sheep's clothing. The ''Streamlined Procedures Act'' (S. 1088; H.R. 3035) says it will make federal habeas corpus more efficient, but it is actually designed to eliminate, not streamline, federal habeas review for the indigent. Probably you have never thought about habeas corpus, but it is an important part of the Constitution of the United States. It means that the federal courts can step in if a person is held in custody in violation of the Constitution. For example, if a person has been convicted while being represented by a lawyer who slept through his trial (this actually happened in Texas, and the Texas state courts did nothing about it), or if the police or prosecutors had evidence that shows the person is innocent, a federal court can force the state to obey the Constitution and give that person a new and fair trial. The founders of our country deemed it a check on the power of the government to imprison or execute wrongly. Most of the exonerations of the innocent that we have heard about have occurred after direct appeal counsel dropped the ball for one reason or another, thus "procedurally defaulting'' issues for later review by either state or federal courts. Under these bills, however, review of these cases will generally be eliminated unless actual innocence can be shown. However, an analysis of the more than 100 DNA-based exonerations across the country reveals that proof of innocence emerges only after the rubble of other legal errors is swept aside. The world of federal habeas is complex and obtuse. I have written two articles on this topic, co-authored a textbook on the law of habeas corpus and practiced (and still practice) in the field. As it exists now, meritorious claims (such as that prosecutors withheld evidence that shows the accused is innocent) are hard enough to get before a federal court. There are cases in which the evidence is clear that the defendant did not get a fair trial and would have been acquitted if he had, and prosecutors have been successfully hiding behind technicalities for years to avoid. I am tempted to ask, when faced with one of these prosecutors relying on technical evasion of the merits of the issue: What are you afraid of? Why can't we just get to the issue and see what is fair, what is just, what is constitutional instead of spending years and hundreds of thousands of dollars while you erect one procedural blockade after another? This bill would make it even easier for the prosecution to avoid getting to the merits on issues, would erect needless barriers to court, and would contribute to the current view that form is more important than substance. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Today's right wing is fond of harkening back to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. I wish they would read the Constitution and do as it commands. Andrea Lyon, director, Center for Justice in Capital Cases, DePaul University College of Law (source: Letter to the Editor, Chicago Sun-Times) VIRGINIA: Wolfe wins stay of execution Justin Michael Wolfe, who was convicted of a murder in Bristow, has won a stay of execution while he awaits a federal appeal. Wolfe, 23, was scheduled to be executed on Wednesday, July 27, for the 2001 murder-for-hire killing of 21-year-old Danny Petrole Jr. in Petrole's Braemar townhouse. "(The execution) has been stayed," said Larry Traylor, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections. "It was stayed late Friday afternoon so it is not going to occur. Last week, Wolfe's attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of execution. On Friday, the high court turned down that request, but the attorneys immediately filed another federal appeal. The execution date has been postponed indefinitely until the outcome is decided. Wolfe is a Chantilly resident who was convicted in January 2002 for hiring Owen Barber IV, 24, also of Chantilly, to kill Petrole in March 2001. Wolfe admitted to dealing marijuana but has denied involvement in the killing. The 3 men were active players in a large regional drug ring. Petrole alone reportedly sold more than $1 million worth of marijuana, and police seized one of the largest caches of drugs in Prince William history when they searched his home as part of the investigation. Barber confessed to shooting Petrole 9 times, telling police Wolfe ordered the killing to escape a drug debt. Barber said he participated because he was in debt to Wolfe at the time. As part of a deal with prosecutors, Barber pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder and testified against Wolfe in exchange for a life sentence, which he is serving out at Wallens Ridge State Prison in Big Stone Gap. Wolfe awaits word of his appeal on death row at the Sussex I State Prison in Waverly. According to Traylor, death row prisoners are moved from Sussex I to the Greenville Correctional Center in Jarrett several days before their execution. The death chamber is located at the Greenville prison, where condemned prisoners spend their final days. Traylor said Wolfe had not yet been moved when the stay was granted and that he will remain on death row while the appeals process continues. The appeals have centered on more than 3 dozen alleged errors made during his trial and the inadequacy of his court-appointed attorney, who has since lost his law license for problems handling other cases. Wolfe, who turned 20 just days after the killing, is 1 of 4 men currently awaiting execution for Prince William crimes. Paul Warner Powell was 22 when he stabbed his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend, Stacie Reed to death in her Yorkshire home, then raped and stabbed her younger sister, who survived to testify against him. Larry Bill Elliott, a former army intelligence officer, was convicted in 2001 of the Woodbridge murders of Dana Thrall and Robert Finch. Prosecutors said he first shot Finch, the ex-husband of Elliott's girlfriend, and then murdered Finch's friend Thrall as well when she stumbled upon the killing. John Allen Muhammad was convicted of the sniper killings that terrorized Northern Virginia in 2003. He was first tried and sentenced to death by Prince William County jurors for the sniper killing of Dean Meyers at the Sunoco Station on Sudley Road. He and his teen accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, have since been tried and convicted in other localities as well. (source: Gainesville Times) CALIFORNIA: 'M*A*S*H' star urges love over fear Actor and activist Mike Farrell, who's been involved for decades in human rights issues --- especially as a steadfast opponent of the death penalty --- gave an information-ladened and emotionally charged address at the closing July 22 session of the week-long Social Action Summer Institute at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Focusing on "why I work for justice," the 66-year-old Farrell, who is best known for portraying Capt. B.J. Hunnicut in the popular television series "M*A*S*H" from 1975 to 1983, said his motivation came from ingrained feelings against injustice and inequality. "I do it because I hate and, I suppose, fear injustice," he told more than 100 people gathered in St. Robert's Auditorium. "The phenomenon of the powerful praying on the weak had always tapped a reservoir of rage in me --- probably because I was fearful in a family dominated by a rather frightening, volcanic man. "Add to that the promise implicit of being raised in a society that claims to honor and cherish the values of every human life. And the fact of my having a certain amount of visibility through working in an industry that touches so many lives and offers so much opportunity for contact, adds to a sense of personal responsibility." The former Marine and UCLA student said he was continually inspired by the courage of others --- especially those once referred to as the "least among us." "While I do believe in the possibility of personal transformation, I don't try to change the hearts and minds of others," he explained, "but rather to touch them, believing as I do that we're all fundamentally the same, with the same hopes and beliefs and aspirations." Farrell recounted visiting a man in El Salvador imprisoned for organizing teachers who showed him acid scars of torture on his chest, and interviewing a woman in Santiago, Chile, whose husband had been "disappeared" for years. He recalled meeting another man in Virginia's deathhouse across a "cooling" table where guards with asbestos gloves would place the still smoldering bodies of those sentenced to die in the electric chair. He also spoke of going to Rwanda in 1994, right after the genocide had been carried out. After visiting a church where Tutsi men, women and children had been hacked and burned to death, and smelling the still sickly sweet air, the horror kept replaying in his mind all night. "This holy place --- and it literally was that to those who sought refuge here --- was now a new testimony to the unholy," he observed. Farrell quoted from the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Clarence Darrow, H.G. Well and John Steinbeck on the goodness mankind was truly destined to become. He read a letter written by a friend named Joe Giarratano, an inmate at Red Onion State Prison in Virginia. The prisoner had been on death row until Farrell joined with the Virginia Coalition on Jails and Prisons to petition the governor, who commuted the man's sentence hours before his scheduled execution. All of these people and experiences had gone into Farrell's own commitment to fight injustice, a struggle he stressed was needed now more than ever in American society. A climate of fear, he reported, has given rise to articulate, persuasive and seductive voices on AM radio and television, from the halls of Congress, and even the pulpits of some churches that gave people permission to hate. "For me, the answer is understanding that we're all on a journey --- a journey from the caves to the stars," Farrell said. "There will always be those who want to live in fear, and they will find everything imaginable to go back to the caves and drag as many of us as they can with them. "But the stars are where we belong, and it only requires a little courage to reach them. It is the courage to step forward, even though we break new ground on a path not yet visible. We have to be willing to stand up to their slander, to listen carefully and renounce their lies wherever and whenever we hear them." Then the actor, who had portrayed the compassionate physician, witty friend and concerned humanist on "M*A*S*H," urged, "Support truth, oppose wrong. Protect innocence. Promote good. We can stand for what's right and better. We can know that the answer isn't fear, but love." (source: The Tidings)
