September 2


ILLINOIS:

Death penalty an option in slaying of Elgin student


Kane County prosecutors will be allowed to seek the death penalty against
one of two men charged with kidnapping and killing an Elgin Community
College student, a judge ruled Thursday.

Kane County Circuit Court Judge Grant Wegner granted the request of
prosecutors who sought to bring capital murder charges against Robert
Guyton, 24. Guyton would face a possible death sentence if convicted in
the slaying of David Steeves, 19, of Elgin.

Guyton and Armin Henderson, 25, were arrested in April by Elgin police and
accused of robbing Steeves before stuffing him in the trunk of his
mother's car. Both men are charged with armed robbery, kidnapping and
1st-degree murder.

The car containing Steeves' body was discovered in Rockford, 8 days after
he made a frantic 911 call from the trunk.

In court Thursday, Kane County Circuit Judge Phillip DiMarzio ordered
Henderson to provide authorities with samples of his blood, hair and
saliva.

***************************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-death-penalty defense dashed----Murder defendant's motion is tossed
out


A Cook County Criminal Court judge has denied a motion filed by lawyers
for Paul Runge that tried to block capital punishment if the man accused
of being a serial killer is convicted.

Runge's defense argued he should be exempt from the death penalty because
Runge has been diagnosed with personality disorder and
obsessive-compulsive sexual sadism, which can be likened to mental
retardation.

Assistant Public Defender Woody Jordan noted that in the landmark U.S.
Supreme Court case of Atkins vs. Virginia, which banned the execution of
the mentally retarded, the high court found that such defendants don't
have the capacity to process information or learn from mistakes.

"That's exactly what [Runge] suffers from," Jordan told Judge Joseph
Kazmierski, who denied the motion without a full hearing. "He can't
control his actions."

Runge, 35, is awaiting trial for the slayings of six women and a girl in
Cook and DuPage Counties between January 1995 and March 1997.

He is accused of sexually assaulting victims and in some cases
dismembering them, including Stacey Frobel, 24, whose scattered remains
were found by a dog near the Wisconsin border in 1995.

(source for both: Chicago Tribune)






OHIO:

Parole board is fast, loose in death case


Ohio's parole board has recommended no leniency for John Spirko, no delay
in his Sept. 20 execution date so that a federal judge in Toledo might
have adequate time to sort out troubling questions about his guilt.

Clemency review is supposed to be a safety valve, a procedure designed to
make certain the state doesn't commit an egregious mistake when it
delivers a lethal injection. The process in Ohio, in fact, is slipshod and
lax. The parole board doesn't appear to recognize, much less enforce,
basic formalities that help ensure fairness.

One of the parole board's nine members, for example, conducts an in-depth
interview with the inmate. This is the only face-to-face meeting with the
condemned prisoner.

But no video or audio tape is made. No transcript is kept. Thus, the
decision on whether to spare a life depends, in part, on one person's
recollection and impressions.

This failure also leads to public misinformation. Attorney General Jim
Petro wrote in the Dayton Daily News last month that Mr. Spirko had told
the parole board member during his interview that he was "wrongly
convicted" of another murder - a statement Mr. Petro mocked as part of a
"continuing pattern of self-serving deception."

The defense lawyer who attended the interview said Mr. Petro was wrong,
that Mr. Spirko had said his earlier conviction was "just." The parole
board backed the defense lawyer's account, but not before the attorney
general's damaging misstatement was published.

The parole board doesn't just fail to keep an essential record; it also
has a loose attitude toward secret communications with prosecutors - the
kind that are absolutely prohibited in a court setting.

The lead assistant attorney general in the Spirko case, for example, gave
a private "heads up" in an e-mail to Parole Board Chairman Gary Croft this
summer when the media asked about the parole board interview.

The communication (obtained under the Ohio Public Records Act) creates the
offensive appearance of a prosecutor and parole board coordinating their
public-relations efforts. It reveals a climate that's so informal the
prosecutor even felt comfortable taking a shot at Mr. Spirko's lawyers.

He told the parole board chief that defense "attorneys are already
misrepresenting to the press what he (Mr. Spirko) said."

None of this was disclosed to Mr. Spirko's lawyers, who appeared at the
clemency hearing unaware that their integrity had been maligned in a
private communication between top state officials.

The parole board initiates these private communications itself - including
this summer, when it asked the attorney general's office (again via
e-mail) for a summary of the Spirko case so one of its members could
prepare for the interview with Mr. Spirko.

Mr. Spirko's lawyers were never informed of the request, or the attorney
general's response.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office says the parole board only
was sent a written summary prepared by the Ohio Supreme Court, a public
record in the case. But that can't be confirmed because the e-mail
exchange has been deleted from the attorney general's records. Since they
were left out of the loop, Mr. Spirko's lawyers had no chance to suggest
what else the parole board member might review for a balanced view of the
case.

Parole board members were unwilling to be interviewed about these
practices, referring questions to the attorney general.

A clemency process that's run in so careless a manner doesn't deserve the
confidence of Gov. Bob Taft - or the public.

(source: Editorial, Dayton Daily News)






MASSACHUSETTS:

Clash over death penalty threatens clergy outreach


Boston police and other local law enforcement officials often turn to
ministers and community activists whenever there is a spike in crime, but
that relationship may erode.

Several ministers well-known for their outreach efforts in their
crime-ridden neighborhoods say they may be reluctant to work with
authorities in the future because two reputed gangbangers from Dorchester
are in federal custody and facing the death penalty if convicted.

"I have never known the federal government to be accurate in their
administration of the death penalty, and many of us have been fighting
behind the scenes for many years against it," said the Rev. John M.
Borders, pastor of Morningside Baptist Church in Mattapan.

Darryl Green, 28, and Branden Morris, 22, were indicted on murder charges
for allegedly gunning down a rival gang member in 2001.

On Tuesday, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley predicted that the
decision by the feds to seek the death penalty may have a chilling effect
on the relationship between local law enforcement officials and clergy,
most of whom are vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Boston police
declined comment.

The Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church, said
Conley is accurate in his prediction.

Wall said there is a benefit to gangbangers facing federal charges, but no
benefit in their facing the death penalty.

"We do need the federal authorities because in that system there are much
bigger stakes. The criminals need to know that if they are caught, they
will do some hard time," Wall said. "Facing the federal system is a
wake-up call and that is definitely a deterrent. But we shouldn't be
killing these felons."

Leonard Alkins, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP, said federal
charges are a "loophole for states that don't have the death penalty."

He added, "We hope they would take caution when deciding on the death
penalty. I don't agree with it because there are too many circumstances
and fallacies. If they're 100 % guilty, let them spend the rest of their
lives in prison, providing some remuneration to the family for their
loss."

(source: Boston Herald)



Reply via email to