Oct. 5 OHIO----new execution date Appeals court upholds death sentence in Cincinnati case A man sentenced to death for killing his 5-year-old stepdaughter lost an appeal of his conviction and sentence Wednesday. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected John R. Hicks' argument that he was inadequately represented by his lawyers at the February 1986 trial. Hicks was sentenced to death for suffocating Brandy Green and life in prison for strangling his mother-in-law, Maxine Armstrong, 56, in August 1985. Hamilton County prosecutors said Hicks killed Armstrong while robbing her Cincinnati apartment to get $300 for his cocaine habit. He returned hours later and killed his stepdaughter because he had seen her at the apartment and knew she could have identified him as the last person to visit Armstrong, police said. Hicks, now 48, is on death row. His execution date has not been scheduled while he appeals; it has now been set for Nov. 29. Hicks said he was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the slayings. He contended that his trial lawyers didn't do enough to inform the jury about how cocaine could have made him psychotic. Appeals judges Eugene Siler Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey ruled that the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and he refused to help his lawyers with his defense. The judges noted that 2 psychologists had testified in court that Hicks could have committed purposeful acts while under cocaine's influence. In a dissent, appeals Judge Eric Clay agreed that Hick's conviction should be upheld but said that he should be granted a new sentencing hearing. Clay said the prosecutor made impermissible statements in court, including urging jurors to serve as the community's conscience by imposing the death sentence. The appeals court has previously ruled this off-limits if prosecutors do it to incite the passions of jurors, Clay said. (source: Associated Press) ********************* Family members upset with death row move Helen Treesh, 64, lives outside the walls of Mansfield Correctional Institution, but a federal judge's decision to allow the transfer of death row inmates from MANCI to the state's supermax prison at Youngstown will affect her. Treesh's son, Fred Treesh, 40, is on MANCI's death row for a 1994 armed robbery and murder of a security guard in an Eastlake, Ohio, adult book store. He was convicted of murder, felonious assault on a peace officer, aggravated robbery and carrying a weapon under disability. Helen Treesh and her husband, Robert, moved to Mansfield so they could keep in touch with Fred. She said the possibility of having to move again would be difficult. "I was in Cleveland for the (federal court) hearing," she said. "We had hoped they would not allow the move but they did so. At our age, it's not easy to pick up and move again." Treesh said she understands the state's request for the transfer but does not agree with the conditions death row inmates might have at Youngstown, such as proposed isolation for 23 hours a day. "I don't see how that kind of isolation could be good for inmates," she said. "I've talked to my son and other inmates about what could happen and they've told me some are already contemplating suicide if it comes to that." The supermax Ohio State Penitentiary houses the state's most dangerous prisoners who have poor conduct records. State corrections officials have said those conditions will not apply to death row inmates. They will be allowed out of their cells 35 hours a week, have 5 hours of outdoor recreation weekly and be able to eat together, prison officials said. Fred Treesh's execution is under appeal. Helen Treesh said her family is resigned to her son's guilt and punishment. "When my son was convicted, his punishment was death, not treatment like an animal," she said. (source: The Mansfield News Journal) USA: Church leaders, legal experts fight bill to speed death-row appeals Current and retired judges and prosecutors are being joined by 2 former heads of the FBI and various religious leaders in trying to stop legislation that would curtail death penalty appeals and speed up the execution process. The Streamlined Procedures Act was to be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee in early October. A House version of the bill was expected to be the subject of an additional hearing by the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on crime. Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya of Pueblo, Colo., said in a Sept. 22 letter to Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., that the bill raises moral and ethical problems by restricting the federal courts' ability to consider appeals from prisoners who claim their rights have been violated or who have evidence of their innocence. The bill demeans the worth and dignity the church teaches each person has "by trivializing a person's right to life and liberty," he said. Bishop Tafoya's letter followed one by the chairman of the U.S. bishops' domestic policy committee this summer that said the bill would increase the chances that the government will execute someone who is innocent. "At a time when there should be more safeguards put in place to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction and to prevent lethal mistakes in death penalty cases, S. 1088 attempts to take away some of the safeguards already in place," said the July letter from Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, N.Y. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Wichita, Kan., also have joined the efforts to fight the bill. "Having listened to the opinions of the state chief justices, numerous other state and federal judges and many former prosecutors, we are convinced that the moral hazards in this matter are grave indeed," said a letter from the order's leaders. "In a just and decent society, in which all human dignity must be protected, the government cannot sacrifice wrongly convicted and sentenced individuals for purposes of alleged efficiency or political expediency," the letter said. Andrew Rivas, policy adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, explained that much of the momentum on Capitol Hill pushing for the Streamlined Procedures Act comes from those who want to end what they see as the delaying tactics of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court, which covers 9 western states and the Pacific territories, has blocked executions through the appeals process. However, a lengthy list of current and former judges and prosecutors, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, former Solicitor General Seth Waxman and former FBI directors William Webster and William Sessions also oppose the bill. "The Streamlined Procedures Act, if adopted, would create serious injustices and systemic delays that will benefit no one -- not the crime victims and their families who will face more frustration and delay as the courts struggle to resolve the new constitutional challenges to the law, not the innocent people who will languish in prison or even on death row because they are unable to seek relief, and not society, as the true perpetrators remain free to prey on our citizens," wrote Sessions and Webster in a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's ranking minority member. Editor's Note: Background information on the legislation can be obtained from the Justice Project at the Web site http://ccjr.policy.net/ (source: Catholic News) ARIZONA: Man acquitted in triple slayings at Tucson pizzeria -- Pizza Hut murder suspect may be retried Prosecutors will press forward with what may be their last shot at keeping a man once convicted of killing 3 people at a Tucson pizzeria behind bars. Jurors on Tuesday acquitted Christopher "Bo" Huerstel of first-degree murder in the 1999 shooting deaths of James Bloxham, 17; Melisa Moniz, 20, and Robert Curry, 44. All were employees of a now-closed East Side Pizza Hut. The jury deadlocked on a charge of second-degree murder and acquitted Huerstel of attempted armed robbery. He cannot be retried on the 1st-degree murder charge. Huerstel was 17 and Kajornsak "Tom" Prasertphong was 19 at the time of the killings. Both were sentenced to death in 2001. Each has accused the other of being the shooter. Huerstel's conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2003 because of errors by the trial judge. Prasertphong lost a bid for a new trial, but his death sentence was thrown out under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Prasertphong faces a resentencing trial, which will likely be complicated by the Huerstel verdict. Prosecutors and defense attorneys struggled to seat a jury to retry Huerstel, who turns 24 tomorrow, because of the enormous publicity surrounding the case that forced the original trial out of town. In this trial, some 125 prospective jurors were sent home before 14 were chosen. "Of the 14, only 10 had been here more than 2 years," said defense attorney Laura Udall. Udall wondered whether there are enough unbiased people in Pima County to seat another jury for Prasertphong's February resentencing. "It's going to be hard," Udall said. Prosecutors will seek to retry Huerstel on the second-degree murder charge, Marcia Nugent, a spokeswoman for Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, said last night. Otherwise, Huerstel would be freed. "They will think of a way to try him for 2nd-degree murder," said Udall, who said prosecutors argued in court that there was no evidence of 2nd-degree murder. Jurors would not comment about the trial as they left court. Deputy County Attorney Kellie Johnson also would not comment. "It's a miscarriage of justice," said Bloxham's father, Daniel. "The prosecution was hamstrung over what the jury could be told so it's difficult for the jury to get to the truth," said Bloxham's mother, Barbara. "He's a monster, an animal," Daniel Bloxham said. "He does not deserve to be alive, let alone let out on a street." The Bloxhams said if Huerstel were freed, they would be afraid to go into a restaurant, "especially late at night around closing," Daniel Bloxham said. Other relatives of the slain workers sobbed after the verdict and left the courthouse without comment. Huerstel also cried when the verdicts were read as his parents clung to each other. Huerstel's aunt, who did not identify herself, said afterward, "I'm excited, just thrilled. "It seems like this has been a very long haul." On Friday, two jury questions signaled an early impasse. Jurors questioned whether they had to be unanimous over guilt and if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision on 1st-degree murder, whether they should immediately consider 2nd-degree murder. Prosecutors could not seek the death penalty for Huerstel's retrial because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning execution for juvenile offenders. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty at Prasertphong's February resentencing. (source: Tucson Citizen) PENNSYLVANIA: Death penalty at issue again The death penalty is once again emerging as a major issue in the race for Bucks County district attorney. Diane Gibbons, the incumbent Republican, has pledged to seek the death penalty in a string of recent murders, including last week's slaying of a Newtown police officer. Democratic challenger Terry Houck is questioning her commitment to seeking the ultimate punishment in those cases, though, saying she's only stressing her pursuit of the death penalty now because an election is looming. "Every time she opens her mouth, the first two words are death penalty," he said. "But you only have to look at her history - you only have to look at what she's done, or more accurately, what she's failed to do." Houck, who raised similar questions about Gibbons' support of the death penalty when he tried to unseat her 4 years ago, pointed out that the incumbent has never argued for the death penalty before a jury. Murder trials are split into two components, the actual trial phase and then a penalty phase where questions about putting a defendant to death are settled. Gibbons has tried homicide cases before, but let other prosecutors argue the death penalty phase to juries. She said she did so because "it's just more effective prosecution" since defendants have different lawyers for the trial and penalty portions of cases. Houck disagreed with that, saying he and other prosecutors handle both phases of the trial. "It's a matter of commitment before the jury," he said. "She's the only one that's ever run from the death penalty phase." Gibbons said she will argue the penalty phase in at least two upcoming trials, in part because crime has been so heavy recently that she doesn't have enough staff to split up the duties. The death penalty "has been pursued and will be pursued" in Bucks County, she said. "It's shameful that he would try to imply there's a problem with the death penalty when there is none. It is not an issue and everybody in Bucks County knows it." Gibbons went on to criticize the cumbersome process it takes to go from a death sentence to an actual execution, but declined to give her personal views on the death penalty. "I'm not going down that road with him - I'm not going to discuss which laws I like and which laws I don't," she said. "The district attorney does not set policy, and I don't expect him to publicly announce what he disagrees with, because it would be his oath as a district attorney to enforce the law." Gibbons also fended off criticism from Houck about her handling of several murder cases in recent years. Houck said Bucks County should have prosecuted John Denofa. Officials say Denofa killed an exotic dancer in 2000, first choking her in his motel room in Bristol Township, tossing her out a second-floor window, then placing her in a pickup truck and throwing her off the Delaware River Bridge, which connects the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes. Prosecutors in Burlington County handled the case, but an appeals court overturned Denofa's conviction and life sentence because the jury was never instructed to consider whether the killing occurred in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. "There's no question about it, the jurisdiction was in Pennsylvania," Houck said. "She was thrown out a window in Bucks County, her body was placed in a truck in Bucks County, her family is in Bucks County." The appeal on jurisdictional grounds means "this family will have to go through this entire horror again," he said. Gibbons said the woman's death actually occurred in New Jersey, though, and prosecutors there were right to take jurisdiction of the case. "He's misleading the public, and that's offensive," she said. "He wasn't part of that investigation." A spokesman for the Burlington County prosecutor's office declined to comment on the matter because New Jersey's Supreme Court is reviewing the case. Houck also said Gibbons should have been more aggressive in the case of John Passmore, who was convicted of 2nd-degree murder in 2003 for the death of an ex-girlfriend. Passmore ultimately told investigators where to find the woman's remains after reaching a deal to avoid the death penalty. "We dealt with the criminal defendant before we even arrested him," Houck said. "She immediately deals away the death penalty ... in order to recover the body." Gibbons said the deal was necessary, saying it was made "with the full agreement of everybody involved," including the woman's family. "At the time those decisions were made, this young girl was still missing and potentially alive; to not act could have cost her life," she said. "I would say it is reckless and horrific that (Houck) would make those comments without knowing the specifics of the case." Houck, who lives in Chalfont, had been a Bucks County prosecutor until he announced he would run against Gibbons 4 years ago, when she fired him. He's now a prosecutor in Lehigh County. Gibbons pointed out that there are currently several unsolved homicides in Lehigh, and criticized Houck for focusing on Bucks County cases. "I'm asking why he isn't solving the homicides instead of concentrating on reviewing Bucks County homicides that have been solved and convicted," she said. Houck said investigators in Lehigh are "solving cases every day," though, and pointed out that prosecutors - including himself - have been earning death penalty convictions while Gibbons has none on her watch. "That's why she's running from it," he said. "She has failed at every turn; she has run from it in her own cases." (source: Bucks County Courier Times)
