Oct. 15 TEXAS----female faces death penalty DA decides to seek death for woman----Alvarez indicted in killing of man, 77, at his home The district attorney's office plans to seek the death penalty against a 30-year-old woman who was charged with capital murder in connection with the death of a 77-year-old man earlier this year. Roxanne Alvarez was arrested days after the daughter of Jesse "Chuy" Cadena Reyes found him dead June 8 in his home in the 4300 block of Vestal Street. He had multiple stab wounds to his body, according to police. Alvarez was arrested at the Corpus Christi Police Department after she went in for questioning. A grand jury indicted her Thursday on capital murder charges. "Things can sometimes change but as of right now we are seeking the death penalty," said Assistant District Attorney Mark Skurka. Police believe Alvarez took jewelry from Reyes' home, making it a capital offense because she was in the act of committing another crime when he was killed, Skurka said. If she is convicted and given the death penalty, Alvarez would be the 1st woman in Nueces County to receive capital punishment. Information about how Alvarez and Reyes knew each other was not available. Alvarez remains in the Nueces County Jail with a $500,000 bond. (source: Corpus Christi Caller-Times) ******************* The essence of judicial temperament It was the kind of notice that makes you feel special to be a Texan. A couple of months ago, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and a few other publications ran stories on an interesting dynamic. A few senators and representatives were pushing on the fast track a bill that would limit the powers of federal courts to reverse state convictions in death-penalty and other major cases. In an editorial, the Post argued that the bill "would be an unmitigated disaster." The Post and other publications noted that opposition to the bill came from a seemingly unlikely source: The Conference of Chief Justices. This is an organization of heads of state appeals courts, as well as some federal appeals courts. You would think that state judges would appreciate a law that would curtail the power of federal judges to second-guess them. But instead, the state judges approved a resolution arguing that "the changes in these measures may preclude state defendants in both capital and non-capital matters from seeking habeas corpus relief in the federal courts, and may deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction in the vast majority of these matters, all with unknown consequences for the state courts and for the administration of justice." 'Death-happy Texas' The chief justices argued that changes made in a 1996 bill that sought to lead to speedier executions were just being fully implemented after years of litigation, and the results should be studied before further changes were made. Several papers noted that the resolution was passed with only one dissenting vote. In the words of the Post, that dissent came from "the chief justice of death-happy Texas." I naturally assumed the "nay" vote came from Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas is 1 of only 2 states that have 2 supreme courts, 1 for civil cases and 1 for criminal cases. As head of the latter, Keller has earned a reputation for lack of sympathy for defense arguments. She's the one who famously, when DNA tests showed the semen in a dead victim was not that of the long-imprisoned appellant, argued that he might have been wearing a condom. (Later, other evidence surfaced that clearly cleared the man.) To my surprise, the "nay" vote turned out to be that of Wallace Jefferson, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Jefferson is a fascinating figure. The great-great-great-grandson of a slave owned by a Texas district judge, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Rick Perry in 2001 and as chief justice last year. He had not served as a judge, but he had earned a reputation in San Antonio as both a gentleman and a very astute appeals specialist. His firm generally represented defendant companies on appeal, putting them in the conservative camp. He had twice won cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. 'We may be at odds' I asked Jefferson about his "nay" vote, and he explained that he was given a copy of the resolution the day before the vote. He said as a longtime civil lawyer serving on a court that dealt only with civil matters, he did not know the issues and intricacies of criminal appeals law well enough to vote on the matter. He said he wanted to study the matter before taking a position. He already had talked to Presiding Judge Keller and was preparing to look at "mounds of testimony." Shouldn't he let Keller determine Texas's position at the national conference, since her court deals with criminal matters? "No, I think I've got an obligation to decide since I have the vote," he said. "I certainly have consulted with Judge Keller. Her position and mine may be at odds." A few weeks ago, Jefferson put his conclusions in a letter to the Conference. "It is an unfortunate fact that some people are wrongfully convicted," he wrote. "Resources for indigent defense are scarce and, while Texas has made great strides in providing counsel in criminal cases, work still remains to be done." He said the proposed law could "create unreasonable obstacles" through "a stringent system of forfeitures of federal constitutional claims." The opinion of state chief justices is now unanimous. But though Jefferson's stance is now in the mainstream, his style is exemplary. He refused to be stampeded. He did not act out of a political orientation. He studied the facts and the arguments, and he came to a conclusion. That is the essence of judicial temperament. A final footnote: The U.S. Senate held hearings last week on the proposed bill. Texas Sen. John Cornyn accused some opponents of trying to "undermine" the death penalty. (source: Houston Chronicle) CALIFORNIA: San Quentin Searches Turn Up Drugs, Weapons KTVU has learned that at least 1 San Quentin prison guard has been relieved of duty in the wake of a prison-wide lockdown and search that turned up contraband including drugs and weapons. Last month, the warden received information that prompted him to lockdown the prison and search it for contraband. For almost 2 weeks, officers searched the entire facility repeatedly. What they found seemed to surprise even long-time prison officals. According to San Quentin spokesman Vernell Crittendon, the searches turned up "all kinds of contraband. Slashing weapons, stabbing weapons, drugs, blow darts and bludgeoning weapons that were basically a lock in a sock or soap in a sock." The search followed a series of troubling events on death row including racially motivated assaults, suicides and two fatal drug overdoses in the last 3 months. The 2 men who OD'd were 27-year old Nicholas Rodriguez and 45-year old Larry Davis Jr. Both had taken heroin. Now the major challenge facing prison officials is stopping the drugs and weapons from getting to inmates on death row. Crittendon explained: "There are methods that those individuals use to introduce contraband into the prison. Was one of your guards here involved in all this? We have at this time, there's no evidence that will support any staff involvement, but that is not something that we are ruling out." In fact, Crittendon confirmed that one guard has been put on administrative leave, but wouldn't give the reasons behind the removal from duty. Drugs and weapons have long been problems inside prisons. Heroin, cocaine, and weapons of all kinds are smuggled into prison facilities. There are 612 inmates currently on death row, and the number who had contraband was surprising. "Was it more than half? Was it? I wouldn't say half," said Crittendon. "It's a good percentage. There were more than 1 or 2 of them. It wasn't just like 2 or 3 people had it." Every vehicle that enters and exits the prison grounds is searched by guards, but officials acknowledge the job of fully eliminating contraband from such a huge facility is a challenging task. Officials also feel they handled this crisis properly. The investigation continues into how so many weapons and drugs got into the prison. Once it's over, officials will decide how to change policy and procedures to ensure it doesn't happen again. (source: FOXReno.com) ************************** Racketeering trial may get under way After nearly 3 years of legal maneuvering, a racketeering case may finally come to trial in Sacramento against an alleged Vallejo drug-trafficking gang implicated in 5 deaths dating back more than a decade. U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. on Friday set a Nov. 14 trial date for 3 of 9 men who once allegedly comprised the so-called Pitch Dark Family, a group prosecutors say sold drugs and committed the slayings in Vallejo and Oakland. Charles Lee White of Vallejo and Shango Jaja Greer of East Palo Alto face charges of committing violent acts in the commission of racketeering and conspiring to commit racketeering, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento. Jason Walker of Vallejo is charged with racketeering conspiracy. If convicted, the sentences each face is unclear. The only potential roadblock to the trial starting next month is whether White is found competent to stand trial. The judge will determine that in a hearing scheduled for Oct. 28. In February 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office charged the nine men in a large-scale indictment that sought the death penalty for some of the defendants. Through a racketeering statute, the gang was charged with the Vallejo slayings of Jewel Hart, Keith Roberts, Richard Garrett and Devin Russell between 1994 and 1998, and the 2000 killing of Larry Cayton in Oakland. Since then, 6 of the defendants have pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy. 3 of the 6 have been sentenced to 5 years or less in federal prison, while 3 others await sentencing. Jan Karowski, an attorney defending Jason Walker, said Friday the government offered plea deals to each of the nine defendants, which indicates the case "fell apart." Karowski, who earlier defended one of the men who pleaded, said the deals did not require cooperating with the government. "Even if you're not guilty of anything, it behooves you to take that deal," Karowski said. "The U.S. Attorney's Office indicts cases that are slam dunks. They have made offers in this case that are low, based on how they were originally charged." Karowski declined to lay out how he intends to fight the charges against Walker or whether he'll advise Walker eventually to take the government's offer. "He asserts his innocence," Karowski said. Karowski did not deny the possibility that a gang called the Pitch Dark Family (PDF) may have existed, but he said proving the men killed to maintain turf control on drug sales will be difficult for the government. "The thuggery they're going to be able to prove," Karowski said. "The murder counts are exceptionally weak." The 6 defendants who entered pleas during the past year are Elliott G. Cole, Arnando Villafan, Louis Walker, Eric Jones, Oscar Gonzales and Marc Tarver. Cole was sentenced Friday to 43 months in prison. Jones is serving 5 years, and Villafan is serving 52 months. Louis Walker, Gonzales and Tarver await sentencing. A sister of one of the slain men said Friday that "justice is not being served" by the plea deals. "You take someone's life and serve 5 years or less, where is the justice? It's a hard thing to swallow," Larry Cayton's sister said in a phone interview. The sister, who asked that her name and location be withheld for security reasons, said she and her parents wrote letters to the court in support of the death penalty but "it doesn't seem like it mattered." (source: Vallejo Times Herald) USA: Prejean: Drop death penalty -- Sister believes U.S. will leave practice behind Death-penalty opponent and author Sister Helen Prejean said Friday during a lecture at Southeastern Louisiana University that she believes the execution of criminals in the United States eventually will be eliminated. Prejean, who gained international attention with the publication of her book "Dead Man Walking," and the subsequent release of a motion picture with the same title, said the nation ultimately will get rid of the death penalty because there are so many things wrong with the practice and because it violates the U.S. Constitution. She would not, however, predict how much longer the death penalty will continue to exist in the United States. Prejean said of the future of the death penalty, "executions in this country will continue as long as we tolerate it as a society. The Supreme Court is not going to act quickly on this. "When people realize that they are safe from criminals and that those who commit capital crimes will be kept out of society for very long periods of time, then I think the tide will turn against the death penalty," Prejean said. Also in her address, part of SLU's Social Justice Lecture Series sponsored by the department of sociology and criminal justice, Prejean said one argument in favor of the death penalty -- that it gives consolation and closure to family members of the victims -- is essentially flawed because so few criminals actually are executed. Asserting that only about 2 percent of all criminals convicted of murder ever get put to death, Prejean said, "Those who favor the death penalty say that it gives the families retribution and closure. "Well, if that is true, then are we cheating the families of the victims of the 98 percent of all murderers who are never executed out of their closure and retribution? Is the death penalty utilized on a fair, impartial basis? Absolutely not," Prejean said. She also questioned the length of time it takes the criminal justice system to actually execute a convicted criminal and how the usually lengthy process affects the victim's family. Prejean said many people find the execution of criminals is dehumanizing even to those who must carry out the sentences. She each of the six executions she has witnessed took a toll on the executioners themselves. At one execution, a guard whispered to her, "We've got to stop this thing - some of us can't take this anymore." Prejean called the death penalty unfair on the grounds that the courts cannot, no matter how hard they try, absolutely guarantee that all who are condemned to death actually are guilty. She said 121 wrongfully condemned inmates who were facing the death penalty have been released from prison in the past few years because new evidence showed that they were not guilty in the first place. She said the poor are most often the victims of miscarriages of justice because they are not able to adequately defend themselves in a court of law. Prejean said the death penalty is a racial and geographical reality -- 80 % of all executions are performed in the states that allowed slavery before the Civil War. Prejean, a native of Baton Rouge who left a teaching job to dedicate her life to the poor of New Orleans, said she chose to become involved with poor people when she realized that Jesus Christ had identified with the marginalized -- the sick, the hungry, the poor and the dispossessed. She said scenes of poor people trapped in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath reinforced something that she knew, that thousands of low-income New Orleans residents had no way of escaping the rising waters that followed the hurricane. "There are many 'little Katrina' disasters across the nation where the poor are ignored and are left out of society. Society deems poverty a stigma - but those trapped in poverty don't have choices," Prejean said. "They cannot move out of the whirlpool of poor education, poor employment opportunities and prevalence of crime in their neighborhoods." Prejean said she understands and sympathizes with those who have doubts about capital punishment. "Most people do not reflect deeply on the death penalty, and if you suffer doubts, you are not alone," Prejean said. "Outrage is a legitimate reaction and moral response when someone is murdered. "But it is our responsibility to learn whether or not killing someone because they killed is really a moral thing to do." (source: The Advocate) FLORIDA: Chip Carter receives 2 death sentences A Jacksonville jury recommended Friday night 2 death sentences and life imprisonment against Chip Carter, convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend, her new boyfriend and her 16-year-old daughter in 2002. Jurors voted 9-3 in the death of Glenn Pafford and 8-4 in the death of Liz Reed for a death sentence. They voted for life imprisonment in the death of Courtney Smith. The same jury found Carter, 51, guilty of 3 counts of 1st-degree murder 2 weeks ago. Carter admitted the killings and said they were motivated by jealousy over Reed's new relationship. After the murders, he fled to Mexico but was caught last year in Kentucky. (source: The Times Union) OREGON: Stubborn defendant vexes court -- Legal strategy Robert Paul Langley Jr.'s "no defense" strategy may serve to defeat the system trying him for murder On trial for his life, Robert Paul Langley Jr. apparently had no intention of defending himself. "I have chosen to not participate," Langley told Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Ochoa on Friday, the 1st day of jury selection in his capital murder trial. Although there have been instances of capital defendants "volunteering" for execution by abandoning their appeals, Langley's case appears to be more of a power struggle. A former death row inmate, Langley has had three death sentences overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court. Prosecutors were ready to retry him 2 years ago when Langley's attorneys announced they needed more time. Another judge, suggesting they were stalling, fired both attorneys against Langley's wishes. Since then, Langley has objected to the lawyers assigned to him, filing Oregon State Bar complaints against 4 of them. Faced with yet another postponement request last summer, Ochoa gave Langley a choice: Keep the latest lawyers he'd been assigned or defend himself "pro se." When Langley refused to choose, Ochoa said Langley would have to represent himself, along with a legal adviser. Faced with that task Friday, Langley sat silently at the defense table, not looking at the attorney assigned to advise him while the judge interviewed potential jurors. Observers say that if Langley continues to do little to defend himself, and another jury sentences him to death, the case could be overturned again if Ochoa did not take all the proper steps to protect Langley's constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer. In the end, the case raises a fundamental question: Can a defendant defeat the criminal justice system by delay and lack of cooperation? Langley's case is one of the most convoluted in Oregon history. In 1988, he was charged with killing Anne Louise Gray and Larry Richard Rockenbrant in separate incidents. Gray's body was found buried in a Salem backyard. Rockenbrant's body was found underneath a cactus garden on the grounds of the Oregon State Hospital, where Langley lived while he took part in a program for mentally and emotionally disabled prison inmates. Langley's therapist had approved his request to plant the garden as a way to relax. Both 1989 trials resulted in death sentences. But the Oregon Supreme Court overturned them -- the Gray case because the jury was not allowed to hear mitigating evidence and the Rockenbrant case because evidence from the Gray murder should not have been admitted. In the retrial of the Rockenbrant murder, Langley was sentenced to life in prison with a 30-year minimum. In the Gray retrial, he was sentenced to death. The Oregon Supreme Court again overturned his death sentence in December 2000, saying that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider life without parole as a sentencing option. Nearly five years later, the latest retrial is poised to unfold unlike any other death penalty case in Oregon since voters reinstated capital punishment in 1984. None of the 29 men on Oregon death row went to trial without a lawyer. Defendant's goal unclear The first glimpse of just how different Langley's case could be came when he walked in the courtroom Friday. Criminal defendants typically wear regular clothes during their trial because jurors are more likely to think they are guilty if they are wearing prison garb. On his first day, Langley would not respond to an offer by Ochoa to get him some clothes, so he faced prospective jurors in his white Oregon Department of Corrections jumpsuit. The big question is whether Langley will continue to refuse to participate. If he does, jurors would hear opening statements only by the prosecutor. The only witnesses would be those for the state. In the end, the jury would hear only the prosecutor's argument in favor of putting Langley to death. At this point, it is unclear what Langley is trying to accomplish. Is he protesting Ochoa's refusal to give him new lawyers? Or is he gambling that by refusing to cooperate, he can cause another reversal and eventually wear down the prosecutor's determination to put him back on death row? Stephen Kanter, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, cautioned that no matter how difficult defendants get, judges must take very specific steps before sending them to trial without a lawyer. "Otherwise it's ripe for reversal," Kanter said. Although not familiar with Langley's case specifically, Kanter said the criminal justice system can -- and does -- function even when defendants try to gum up the works. "A judge doesn't have to allow a defendant to play games with the court," Kanter said. "This happens all the time around the country. There are ways to handle it." A final jury is expected to be selected by Oct. 28. Opening statements in what is expected to be a 3-week trial are scheduled to begin Oct. 31. (source: The Oregonian)
