Nov. 7 NORTH CAROLINA: ...a case for clemency It's no mystery who killed Mildred and Wesley Adams Sr. in their Surry County home 15 years ago. Mildred's son, Steven Van McHone, 35, is the guilty party, and justice demands that he be punished. But in determining a just punishment for McHone, North Carolina's criminal justice system went haywire. McHone now sits on death row in Central Prison. Many men are serving life sentences for the same sort of crime. Governor Easley can correct this injustice by granting clemency, and he should. Witnesses testified at trial that McHone drank a bottle and a half of whiskey plus a pitcher of beer before the killings. They supported McHone's defense, namely that he was too impaired to have made a conscious decision to kill his mother and stepfather. Regardless, the only eyewitness to the killing, Adams' son Wesley Jr., contradicted the other witnesses when he testified McHone wasn't drunk. That information didn't bear on guilt or innocence, but it could well have influenced jurors' decision during the penalty phase of the trial. In fact, the law reserves death by lethal injection as punishment for the most cold-blooded of killers. In North Carolina, the number of murder cases that culminate in death sentences in a typical year is down to a half-dozen or so. Long after McHone was convicted in 1991 and sentenced to die, his appellate lawyers made a stunning discovery. The prosecution had a statement from Wesley Adams Jr. contradicting his trial testimony about McHone's sobriety. But District Attorney James L. Dellinger Jr. had failed to share it with the defense. It turned out that Dellinger later was forced out of the D.A.'s office over forged signatures on tax documents. And McHone's trial lawyer, Terry Lee Collins, eventually was disbarred as the result of a fake driver's license scheme. Both developments speak to the quality of justice in which these men may have been involved. That's certainly grounds for Easley to set aside the one punishment that can't be reversed and commute McHone's sentence to life in prison. ******************* Capital wrong... If society could have a death penalty that was compassionate as well as fair, victims could waive executions. It can't. One rationale often given for the death penalty is that it offers victims' families a just measure of satisfaction, relief, even peace. Does it follow then that murderers should be spared when victims' families request it? The question arises from the story of four siblings whose father killed their mother. As reported by The N&O's Andrea Weigl, the adult children of Elias Syriani have forgiven him for the fatal stabbing of his wife, Teresa, 15 years ago. Now they're asking Governor Easley to commute Syriani's death sentence to life in prison. The compassionate answer would be to allow the Syriani siblings to hold onto the only parent they have left. But North Carolina can't permit itself to spare this father's life on the basis of compassion alone -- not as long as the state continues to inject lethal drugs into the veins of criminals without such persuasive family advocates. The state must be absolutely fair in administering justice that can't be reversed. That's the imperative behind last week's naming of a state House committee to study issues related to the "accuracy and fairness" of North Carolina's death penalty. What the committee must confront is that with so many inequities built into the justice system, the death penalty always is at risk of becoming a mechanism of unjustified killing. And that, of course, is particularly intolerable when responsibility lies with the state. The governor's role in the capital punishment process is to provide a final fairness check after court appeals have been exhausted. But he also has a strong voice in setting state policy. Ideally, Easley would come around to the view -- shared by more and more North Carolinians -- that the "machinery of death" no longer can be regarded as working in an acceptable fashion in this state. Recent cases of wrongful convictions have undermined public confidence in the fairness of capital punishment. It's become increasingly clear that the criminal justice system which administers the death penalty is subject to errors and excess the same as other human activities. Yet there's no way to undo an execution. Besides, the government carrying out rituals of killing -- the last walk, last meal, last words and such -- sends wrong signals about American society. No longer should government encourage the notion that personal peace for victims of violence comes from another act of violence. As the Syrianis testify, peace is possible without that. (source for both: Editorial, News & Observer) MISSISSIPPI: Public defenders have hands full of cases Attorney Will Bristow has a tough and often thankless job. As one of Lee County's three public defenders, he provides legal counsel for hundreds of people who have been charged with felony offenses and cannot afford their own attorney. The job is not easy, he said, but it has its rewards. "It's never dull," he said. "I go to the courthouse during the term, and there is more drama, more emotion than anything else I know." His clients fight against prosecutors trying to prove their guilt. Bristow said he keeps in mind that he is defending the constitution. "Someone who may be guilty is still entitled to a vigorous defense," he said. "But it wears on you. We are not hired on a case unless there is a problem. If you can't handle problems very well, it will wear on you. ... The presumption of innocence keeps you going." Rowland Geddie, assistant district attorney, praised Bristow and other public defenders. "I'm a rooter for the people we've got," he said. "I wish they weren't quite so good. That makes our job harder. ... They are very talented and very knowledgeable and they work hard for their clients." Growing caseload Geddie was once a public defender himself. At that time, he said, he may have been assigned 30 cases on the circuit court docket. Bristow said he handles roughly 250 cases at once, and about half are scheduled per court term. Bristow blamed the growing caseload on the increasing popularity of crystal methamphetamine use and manufacture. "It seems we can't dispose of the cases fast enough," he said. "We're talking to the judges about hiring a 4th public defender." He estimated that 90 % of the cases on the docket are drug-related, whether direct possession or sale charges, or "spinoff" charges like burglary or larceny. "The toughest ones are the capital murder cases, when the state is seeking the death penalty," he said. "The victim's family wants justice. Someone will leave the courthouse sad." Lori Basham of Fulton and John Helmert of Abbeville are Lee County's other 2 public defenders. Assigning cases Lee County's public defenders are assigned to cases after indictments are issued by a grand jury. On arraignment day, anyone without an attorney who meets the financial requirements is assigned a public defender to represent him or her. The cases are randomly assigned. James Davis, president of the Mississippi Public Defenders Association, said the assignment process varies county to county. Davis lives in Harrison County and is a public defender in Stone County. "We have 3 or 4 counties that have full-time public defender offices: Hinds, Sunflower, Jackson and Washington," he said. "The offices vary. Hinds county only handles felonies. Misdemeanors are handled on a case-by-case basis, and youth court is separate. Sunflower and Washington counties handle everything." The majority of Mississippi counties do per-case assignments, he said. The public defender then stays on the case until it is disposed of in circuit court. He estimated that 90 % of felony cases are assigned to public defenders. Question of money Public defenders are paid by the counties, and District Attorneys' Offices, court administrators and court reporters are all paid by the state. "It's kind of crazy," Davis said. "The state, which has a larger tax base, is paying prosecutors. Public defenders are paid by a smaller tax base. When some counties get into financial trouble, there is not somewhere else to look for income to pay public defenders." The issue of whether the state should pay public defenders has come up several times over the years. This issue has been especially pressing in Quitman County, which sued the state in 1999 after it borrowed several hundred thousand dollars to defend 2 men convicted of killing four members of a local family. The county argued the Legislature's failure to fund a statewide public defender program violated the U.S. Constitution by not providing defendants with attorneys. The Mississippi Supreme Court in July ruled the state is not obligated to pay lawyers that the counties hire for indigent criminal defendants. Chris Klotz, an attorney representing Quitman County, said an appeal through the federal courts remains a possibility, as does the filing of a new lawsuit in another county. Let's make a deal With such a large caseload, Geddie said sometimes the best result you can get is through a trial, but more often, is a plea bargain. "With pleas, you want to work out something in the best interest of the victim, the sheriff and the best deal you can get for the client," Geddie said. "Now, we're not going to let (offenders) just walk away. But the best negotiators get the best deal." Bristow said there is a lot of give and take in the plea process. "The prosecutor is the adversary of the public defender," he said. "They're on the other side, but you have to work with them to reach a favorable resolution to the case. Public defenders know what the standard offers on a case will be. Then we bring out the facts to support our case or point out problems with the case on the prosecutor's side to get a better deal." It's all about relationships, he said. The public defender has to represent his or her client, and fight, while trying not to burn bridges. "The judges understand where we're coming from, our caseload and clients," Bristow said. "They are very reasonable." (source: Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal) USA: GOP closer to breaking up left-leaning 9th Circuit appeals court Republican lawmakers have tried for decades to split the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sometimes called the "nutty Ninth" by its detractors. Each time, the nation's largest and most controversial court had done something to tweak a conservative nerve, with rulings on fishing rights in Alaska, timber harvesting in the Northwest or death sentences in California. And, of course, there was the decision 3 years ago to find the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." But after failing over and over to break up the court, congressional Republicans now appear closer than ever to achieving their goal - in the last two weeks, House committees have approved legislation to split the court in 2, and a similar proposal in the Senate was heard by a key subcommittee. "I think the 9th Circuit is in the fight of its life," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and a leading expert on the court. As Republicans in recent weeks have managed to use their political clout to generate momentum for a 9th Circuit split, opponents and backers of the new legislation have traded shots over splintering a court that interprets law for California and 8 other western states. Supporters of a split argue the 9th Circuit has simply grown too large and unwieldy to administer justice, while opponents say the legislation is a thinly veiled attempt by Republicans to stock the federal bench with more conservative judges and diminish the influence of what has long been regarded as the country's most liberal court. The 9th Circuit last year decided more than 15,000 appeals, an imprint on public life that reaches the average citizen with far more regularity than the U.S. Supreme Court. With 28 members, it dwarfs the nation's 11 other federal appeals courts and covers a much more vast territory. If the plan succeeds, legal experts and the judges themselves say the long-term impact is uncertain. The same pool of judges would be sprinkled throughout both courts, and much would depend on the character of new appointments, the president who chooses them and the types and number of cases that flood each circuit. The legislation to split the court, backed by House judiciary chair James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, would create two appeals courts and essentially isolate California in a 9th Circuit joined only by Hawaii, Guam and the northern Mariana Islands. The rest of the states in the current 9th Circuit would shift to a new 12th Circuit. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Ensign of Nevada have co-sponsored nearly identical legislation in the Senate. "It would be irresponsible for us not to act," Murkowski said after recent hearings on the subject. The latest movement is considered an unprecedented threat by those who favor keeping the 9th Circuit intact, which includes the vast majority of judges on the 9th circuit, Democrats and much of the legal establishment. Foes of a split argue the court is efficient and any division would eliminate consistent application of federal law for 58 million people in its orbit. "We're taking this very seriously," said Arizona-based 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder, a leader of opposition to the split. There are a number of reasons for their concern. Republicans have made reshaping the judiciary a priority, and the 9th Circuit is considered a plum target because it is the only appeals court left dominated by Democratic appointees. Unlike past attempts to divide the court, the House and Senate versions not only call for splitting the 9th Circuit but also for adding new federal judges to courts around the country. The House version would add more than 60 federal judges nationwide, including seven to a newly formed 9th Circuit. Finally, the House legislation was attached last week to a budget spending-reduction bill, making it tougher for Democrats to torpedo in the Senate, where the split effort has run aground in the past. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., vowed to resist the maneuver, but everyone involved in the debate views the House approach as proof Republicans are pulling out all the stops to break up the court. "You'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to say this has nothing to do with politics," said Judge Alex Kozinski, a conservative Reagan appointee who testified against the split in Senate hearings. "You would be breaking up what is essentially a very good, well-working machine for smaller, less efficient pieces." The 9th Circuit has long been viewed as a liberal renegade, primarily because of the continuing impact of some of its more maverick judges, such as California's Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson. A Google search of "9th Circuit" and "liberal" turns up 730,000 hits. Some of the 9th Circuit's rulings have inspired a backlash, notably the decision 3 years ago to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The Supreme Court later overturned the ruling on procedural grounds, but not before the 9th Circuit was vilified from Sacramento to the White House. And the court has had a shaky track record in the Supreme Court, which overall reverses the 9th Circuit a higher percentage of the time than other federal appeals courts, a factor often cited by supporters of a split. Yet despite its liberal reputation, the 9th Circuit for the past few years has widely been considered a court in transition that already has moved to the center. As one 9th Circuit conservative put it, "This court is much less of a lefty, liberal court than is in the popular imagination." Bush has already named four new judges to the court, 3 of whom have consistently aligned with the court's conservative bloc on issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty. And there are 4 vacancies on the court that could further tilt the balance. Opponents of a split note that the court has the ability to rein in renegade rulings, such as when an 11-member panel of the court unanimously overturned 3 of the court's liberal members who'd temporarily postponed the 2003 recall election. Many of the court's judges say it would damage the court - and particularly California - if the varied backgrounds and philosophies of judges from other states such as Washington, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon no longer examined issues that cut across state boundaries. "If we have the split they are talking about, we lose the regional attitude," said San Francisco-based Judge Carlos Bea, a Bush appointee. The court's critics say the time is ripe for a split because the caseload keeps rising, preventing judges from dispensing speedy, consistent justice. "I think the numbers have just made it even more compelling," said Portland, Ore.-based Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, 1 of 3 members of the court who has publicly endorsed a split. "A court of appeals has limits to growth. You can't just grow forever." (source: San Jose Knight Ridder News) ******************* Court to hear Honduran, Mexican killers' appeals----Supects say they weren't told they could call consulates The Supreme Court on Monday jumped back into the issue of the rights of foreigners in criminal cases, agreeing to consider the appeal of two men from Honduras and Mexico. Mario Bustillo of Honduras was convicted of killing a Virginia teen with a baseball bat, but was never told of his right to seek legal help from the Honduran consulate. His new lawyers are trying to win another trial. Moises Sanchez-Llamas of Mexico was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for wounding a Medford, Oregon, police officer in a 1999 gunfight. Sanchez-Llamas claims his pretrial statements to police shouldn't have been allowed as evidence in his case because he wasn't told of his right to contact the Mexican consulate. Under the Vienna Convention, foreigners arrested in the United States are to be told they have a right to get help from their home country. Americans are entitled to the same rights in other countries that signed the treaty. Earlier this year, justices considered another case involving a Mexican national on death row in Texas, but dismissed the case without a ruling after President Bush ordered a new state court hearing for the man. Bustillo is serving a 30-year prison sentence in the 1997 slaying of 18-year-old James Merry outside a Popeyes Restaurant in Springfield, Virginia. Bustillo's lawyers say that witnesses mistook their client for another Honduran man who committed the crime. The government of Honduras is willing to track down the man, who returned home after the killing, the attorneys said. "It's hard to imagine a case where the denial of consular assistance could be more prejudicial," justices were told by Jeffrey Lamken, one of Bustillo's lawyers. (source: Associated Press) FLORIDA: Florida taped abduction trial opens----Prosecutor says DNA, videotape link man to girl's slaying There is overwhelming evidence Joseph Smith raped and strangled 11-year-old Carlie Brucia after an abduction that was captured by a surveillance camera, prosecutors told jurors Monday. But the defense said alternate suspects weren't properly checked out. Attorneys presented their opening statements in the trial of Smith, a 39-year-old former auto mechanic and father of three daughters. Smith could be sentenced to death if he is convicted in Carlie's slaying, which rocked this community and attracted wide attention after her apparent abduction was shown on TV around the world. Prosecutor Debra Johnes Riva told jurors how investigators discovered the videotape at a car wash as they retraced the route Carlie would have taken home from a friend's house on February 1, 2004, and how it was used to link Smith to her abduction. Carlie's body was found 4 nights later on the grounds of a nearby church after Smith told relatives where to find it, Riva said. DNA found on her body came from him, she said. Smith, who had a drug problem and a long rap sheet, was identified by people who contacted authorities after the 10-second video was shown on television. "Carlie's body will tell you the rest of the story," Riva told the jury, describing how the girl's decomposed body was clad in a red shirt "pushed up over her chest ... naked from the waist down." As Riva spoke Monday, he sat nearly motionless, looking at her or occasionally looking down at the defense table. Smith's attorney, Adam Tebrugge, told jurors that investigators got the names of numerous suspects after the videotape was shown, including a man who lived at the friend's house where Carlie had spent the previous night. But even though the man had told investigators he had discussed sexual topics with Carlie, Smith became their primary suspect almost immediately. "Once the (Sarasota County) Sheriff's Office and the FBI decided that Joe was the person, none of these other leads was investigated," he said. Tebrugge also raised questions about the DNA evidence that Riva mentioned, saying steps must be taken to reduce the possibility of contamination. "Modern-day DNA testing is so sensitive that even a few nanograms of DNA will show up on the test," he said. The opening statements came after attorneys spent two weeks screening prospective jurors and seated a panel Friday. Tebrugge had asked Circuit Judge Andrew Owens to move the trial, arguing that too many people in the community had seen the video. But Owens denied the motion. After Smith was charged with Carlie's slaying, news that he had recently violated probation prompted an outcry among those who felt he should have been in jail. He had been arrested at least 13 times since 1993, mostly on drug offenses, but twice on charges of committing violence against women. Yet he served only one short prison sentence. (source: Associated Press) MISSOURI: Experts: Too few 'learned counsel' to handle death penalty cases One day in April 1995, attorney Joanne Descher learned she had been appointed to represent a Missouri prisoner in his federal appeals of 1st-degree murder convictions that carried a death sentence. Descher, practicing securities law at the time, didn't know anything about the highly specialized body of law and procedure known as habeas corpus, the crux of her client Marlin Gray's federal appeal. Few lawyers know this odd hybrid of civil and criminal law, which is complex, time-consuming, and not at all lucrative. "It's an expertise that's hard to come by," said James Woodward, federal court clerk for the Eastern District in St. Louis, which assigned Descher the case. In fact, few lawyers volunteer for defense in death penalty trials or appeals because they are economically and emotionally demanding and not financially rewarding, said Sean O'Brien, one such defender since 1983. O'Brien heads the nonprofit Public Interest Litigation Clinic and is a visiting professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school. O'Brien said it's a "horrible idea" for civil law practitioners to be thrown into habeas corpus, where federal courts examine state court proceedings for constitutional problems. He said it is a complex specialty fraught with procedural land mines that trip up even skilled lawyers and may cause a client to lose a case. And they are up against seasoned specialists in the attorney general's office. "There are a thousand ways to accidentally lose a case," he said. Legal experts in Missouri and around the U.S. say a 1996 federal law left prisoners with even fewer avenues for habeas corpus relief as Congress responded to calls to speed up the death penalty process. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 severely restricted the legal basis for arguing that lower court proceedings should be reviewed for constitutional errors. It shortened deadlines and limited what federal courts could consider for a second look at a case. "People think there's all these legal loopholes in getting a conviction set aside, but the reality is it is government that has all the loopholes and procedural barriers," said Richard Sindel of St. Louis, one of a small pool of Missouri attorneys considered to be the caliber of "learned counsel" required in a 1988 law for federal death penalty cases. "You rarely are able to present the issues of the case. The law sets up all these barriers." The Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 also permits states to speed the flow of death penalty cases by opting into an expedited litigation schedule - but only if the states improved the level of defense at capital trials. O'Brien said Missouri has tried to become an "opt-in" state but so far hasn't produced the needed reforms. "A lot of these cases have real problems with proficiency of counsel. Arguments are not made, leads are not followed through, objections are left out," said David Elbaum, a New York civil lawyer appealing the murder conviction and death sentence of Reginald Clemons, Marlin Gray's co-defendant in the 1991 murder of 2 young women at an abandoned Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. Elbaum and two other attorneys, including a former federal prosecutor, were recruited for Clemons' pro bono defense by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Ronald Tabak, pro bono coordinator for the Skadden firm of New York, said civil attorneys should do habeas corpus petitions in capital cases "only if" they are extensively trained and mentored by experts in criminal and capital law. Descher got Marlin Gray's case because she had agreed to take some pro bono cases as a condition of being admitted to the federal court bar here. Federal clerk Woodward said most federal judges in St. Louis are impressed by civil attorneys' vigorous representation of their criminally charged clients. Descher said she dove into the Gray case, found mentors and speed-learned the law. She also leaned on co-counsel Kent Gipson in Kansas City, who had experience in federal habeas corpus petitions. "I realized the magnitude of the appointment, that it was a life and death situation," she said. "I had to try the best I could." After a 10-year haul, the appeals were unsuccessful, and Gray was executed on Oct. 26. On Monday, spokesman Scott Holste said the Missouri Attorney General's office was within weeks of asking the Missouri Supreme Court to set an execution date for Clemons. His attorneys said they will continue his appeals. Descher, who now practices civil, commercial and family law, isn't sure she would accept another death penalty case. "Professionally it was challenging, but it changed me as a person," she said. "I got a firsthand look at what the process is of trying to rectify wrongs that occurred at trial and found it so very, very difficult to do, so difficult to achieve justice." She said so many points were barred from consideration that she found herself less ambivalent and more opposed to the death penalty by the time it was all over. "I have no confidence in how the death penalty is administered," she said. "There are too many mistakes made, too much room for error." (source: Associated Press) NEW JERSEY: QUESTION: Would you support legislation that replaces the death penalty with life without any possibility of parole? CORZINE: Yes. My position on the death penalty has always been clear - I oppose the death penalty. I support life imprisonment - without the possibility of parole - for certain heinous crimes, such as murder or terrorism. FORRESTER: Because of problems highlighted recently with the accuracy of the judicial process, I am considering such an option. >From The Record: Monday, October 24, 2005 Marilyn Flax won't be voting in this year's governor's race because neither Jon Corzine nor Doug Forrester will promise to execute her husband's murderer. "New Jersey politicians are a bunch of cowards," Flax said. "Why even have a trial by jury if you're not going to do what the jury says after they have heard all the evidence in the case? Might as well not even have a jury, not have a court, just let the governor decide." The death penalty was reinstated in 1982, but for decades it was largely an academic issue because death-row inmates kept filing appeals and courts kept refining the rules for how capital trials should be conducted. There's a possibility, however, that the next governor could be faced with having to enforce the penalty because three death-row inmates have nearly exhausted their appeals, including John Martini, 71, who killed Irving Flax of Fair Lawn in 1989. "I had hoped my husband's name would be in the law books as the victim of the 1st man executed in New Jersey" under the new death penalty law, Marilyn Flax said. "If [Martini] just dies in jail, my husband's name won't live on forever and ever, it will just be swept under the carpet." Opposition to capital punishment has been growing around the country, however, and both Corzine and Forrester are sympathetic to those who question whether having a death penalty provides any benefit to society. "There are certain facets about having a death penalty that warp the whole decision-making process of justice in New Jersey," Forrester said. "I would be willing to consider a moratorium." Corzine has co-sponsored a bill in the U.S. Senate that would impose a moratorium on death sentences nationwide until a commission could study the way the death penalty is carried out. "The federal and state systems of capital punishment ... [are] so riddled with errors that for every eight people executed in the modern death penalty era, one person on death row has been found innocent," Corzine and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., wrote in an opinion piece submitted to newspapers around the country in May 2002. "No one would buy a particular car if the brakes failed in one car for every eight cars that came off the lot, and we should never accept that level of error when people's lives hang in the balance," he said. Spokeswoman Ivette Mendez said Corzine supports sentences of life without parole instead of the death penalty. But while it's clear both candidates question the need for a death penalty, it is the law of the land in New Jersey today and it's hard to pin them down about how they would deal with cases like Martini's that might come up while they were in office. Under state law, death warrants are issued by trial judges and the Department of Corrections is required to carry them out. The governor may intervene to commute a sentence or order a postponement to review some new aspect of a case. Or the governor can do nothing and allow the lethal injection to be applied. When asked if they would block Martini's sentence from being carried out, both Corzine and Forrester said they would have to examine the facts at the time. "If somebody is already through the process and at the very end, it may be a different question depending on the facts of the case," Forrester said. "Anything I would do with regard to the changing of justice going forward wouldn't have an impact on [Martini's] particular case. I consider them to be separate and distinct problems." Corzine spokeswoman Mendez said, "Because it is a hypothetical question, we would not be able to tell you what we'd do. I would need to emphasize, though, his opposition to the death penalty." The next governor could use a back door to avoid making this decision. All death sentences in New Jersey are on hold because death penalty opponents convinced an appeals court in February 2004 that the Corrections Department's policies for carrying out executions were flawed. The court did not strike down the death penalty itself, just the way the state was going to carry it out. One issue involved whether to have a defibrillator in the execution chamber, even though prison officials say they would not be able to revive someone after they receive the injection. These issues could be addressed if the state wanted to do so. But if the governor were to tell the corrections commissioner to take his time responding to the ruling, then the court order would remain in place, and death-row inmates would just grow older. That may be happening now, in fact. The department issued new draft regulations in September 2004, which death penalty opponents criticized as inadequate. The regulations have not been adopted, and a lawyer for the death penalty opponents said state law requires that regulations be adopted within 1 year of proposal or they have to be re-proposed. None of this makes Marilyn Flax any happier. The way she sees it, Martini is not the kind of poor, minority defendant railroaded by the system and sloppy cops and prosecutors that death penalty opponents prefer to highlight. He killed 2 people in Arizona and 1 in Pennsylvania before he came to New Jersey and kidnapped her husband and shot him in the head because he could identify his assailant. "The law was designed for this type of killer," she said. "I keep thinking of his words, he said that they don't kill anyone in New Jersey. He's made a mockery of the system, and we've allowed him to do that." Whether you call such talk a cry for vengeance or justice, this much is true: She's simply asking the state to enforce the laws it adopted. And there's no guarantee it will. >From the New Jersey Catholic Conference, as published in the Monitor on September 29th (source: New Jerseyians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty)
