Nov. 20 TENNESSEE: State responds to latest Thompson appeal If a federal court wants to stop an execution to have more time to consider the case, it has the authority to do so, but in Gregory Thompson's case, that's not happened. Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers said so on Friday as he countered Thompson's argument that his execution should be delayed because his case is still being considered by a federal appeals court. Thompson, 43, is the death row inmate condemned to die by lethal injection on Feb. 7 for the stabbing death of Brenda Blanton Lane nearly 21 years ago. Lane was a Shelbyville resident who was abducted by Thompson and his girlfriend to get a car so they could go to Georgia. Lane, an employee of the United Methodist Publishing House in Nashville, was a former Shelbyville Times-Gazette reporter and the niece of the police chief here at the time. She was abducted in a parking lot across from the police station and killed in Coffee County. Nearly 2 weeks ago, Michael Passiono, a Nashville attorney filing papers for Thompson, asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to postpone Thompson's execution until after federal court considerations were completed. Passiono said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had directed the state to respond to Thompson's request for a rehearing. Because of that, the attorney claimed, the federal court had not completed its consideration of the case. The Tennessee Attorney General's office acknowledged that assertion on Friday. "He argues that this (state supreme court) should halt proceedings in the state court because the Sixth Circuit has 'maintained jurisdiction over the case' and 'is adjudicating and actively considering Thompson's case,'" according to a response from Summers with Associate Deputy Attorney General Jennifer L. Smith who filed the response with the Tennessee Supreme Court on Friday. Proceedings toward execution should not be halted, the state attorneys said, because "The Sixth Circuit has entered no stay of execution or otherwise taken any action that would necessitate a different course" the attorneys said. Federal law gives federal judges authority to stop any state court proceeding in which the defendant's appearance is required, Summers and Smith said. Therefore, if a federal judge saw Thompson's case as still on-going in their court, or subject to further review, "it could stay Thompson's execution." Nothing had been presented that justifies a delay in the state's steps toward execution, the attorneys said. Passiono had sought a delay in the deadline for arguments, but his motion filed Nov. 7 did not include any justification for a decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court to delay Thompson's execution. "Moreover, this court has already considered and rejected Thompson's contention that the setting of an execution date was premature, given the posture of the federal case," Summers and Smith wrote. "Nothing in the present motion requires a different result and the current motion - should be denied," they said. Passino and other attorneys have argued that Thompson's mental condition has changed and therefore he is not competent to be executed. Tennessee's standard for competency preceding execution is low, according to several attorneys consulted in recent months. It only requires that the condemned know that the state intends to end his or her life, and that it is because of a criminal court conviction. Thompson was convicted by a Coffee County Circuit Court jury, which also decided that he should be executed. (source: Shelbyville Times-Gazette) COLORADO: Snitches: a risky bet There's an old saying among prosecutors and police: "Crimes committed in hell don't have angels as witnesses." Well, meet Ronnie Archuleta. Hes no angel. Hes a five-time convicted felon. He's been a fugitive. He's 31 years old and has been arrested or cited 28 times. He's also been a jailhouse informer - or "snitch" - and despite doubts about his record of telling the truth, he's the kind of person authorities often rely on to convict other criminals. In late October 1998, Archuleta was almost halfway through a six-month sentence at the El Paso County jail for check fraud. More charges were pending, and prosecutors were considering tagging him a habitual felon, which could mean 10 years or more in prison. Though a police detective called Archuleta a "chronic liar," authorities believed the felon when he said another inmate privately confessed to murder. In 1999, he testified in the trial of Kent LeBere, accused of strangling Linda Richards, whose body was found in her burning van in a Colorado Springs carwash. By testifying, Archuleta earned early release from jail and probation in another felony case, and he avoided a habitual felon filing. His testimony helped send LeBere to prison for 60 years. But Archuleta now says he lied in court, that LeBere never confessed. He says police told him what to say and showed him their reports. He testified, he says, to get preferential treatment from prosecutors. It's the main basis for LeBeres fight for a new trial. The case provides a rare glimpse into the shadowy world of jailhouse informers. They often lie - because it can get them out of jail or simply because that's what theyve done all their lives. And that has resulted in a string of overturned convictions across the country. Several states have laws or jury instructions to limit the impact of the testimony of informers, who are widely regarded as the least reliable of witnesses. "People who are incarcerated are desperate to get out," said Guss Guarino, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. "Nobody wants to be in jail. Nobody wants to be in prison, and nobody wants to be there a second longer than they have to." By the time LeBere and Archuleta had their alleged nighttime jail conversations - over games of chess played with pieces made from bits of toilet paper - Archuleta had already made a career out of working with police. He got "connected with the Police Department" at an early age through neighborhood beat cops and worked for the Colorado Springs Metro, Vice and Narcotics Unit on minor drug buys. He made $100 to $300 a deal and, he said, felt he was doing something positive by taking drug dealers off the street. He testified to helping police on up to 50 cases. But Archuleta had his own legal problems, most stemming from bad checks he was passing all over town. He had convictions for fraud, domestic violence, bad checks, harassment, theft, forgery and assault. Yet, until 1998, he always got probation or community service, when others received lengthy jail terms. Between arrests, he worked as a bail bondsman and then a truck driver. In jail, court records show, he used his bondsman experience to talk to other inmates, offering to help them set up bail. This was how he got to know LeBere. According to Archuleta's own testimony, LeBere was warned by another inmate when he arrived in jail that Archuleta was a snitch. But he said LeBere confessed to him anyway. When Archuleta told a deputy at the jail he had information on LeBere - not long after his sentence reconsideration was denied - Colorado Springs police detective J.D. Walker met with him and agreed to help. Walker went to the prosecutor and "told her that Ronnie Archuleta was informing on a murder suspect, and I think it was something to the effect of, 'Is there anything that we could do for him?'" the detective testified in a 1999 hearing. Prosecutors offered to drop his charge from a 4th-degree felony to a 6th-degree felony, with a sentence of probation if he could pay restitution. 6 months after the trial, Archuleta called Bobby Lane Daniel, one of LeBere's attorneys, and told him his conscience was bothering him and that he had lied in the trial. "He would lie on a dime or for a dime," Daniel said in a recent interview. "This guy was pretty incredible. He lied to suit his own purpose, whatever his purpose was; and if his purpose changed, he would concoct another story." Legal experts say jailhouse informers have a place in the justice system. "There are times when good law enforcement demands you make deals with unsavory characters to get evidence against even more unsavory characters," said H. Patrick Furman, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Law. But he said prosecutors and police must ensure the informer has details that only the killer would know, and must do their utmost to verify the informer is telling the truth. "You are dealing with people who have flouted the law. They may have a lot to gain if they say the words prosecutors and police want to hear," he said. Rarely are their motives for coming forward altruistic. "In 36 years, I have never had anyone call me because they just felt the need to get something off their chest," said Bobby Brown, a Colorado Springs bail bondsman and former law enforcement officer. "Jailhouse snitches are a dime a dozen, and as a rule I would really question their reliability," said Brown, who often receives tips from the jail about people who have jumped bail. However, Lou Smit, a retired Colorado Springs police detective, said, "Jailhouse informants are used all the time, and they are a good source of information." "If it matches the facts in the case and they have no other way of getting it, it can be reliable information," Smit said. In Colorado, its up to police and prosecutors to make that determination, and a jury is not given any special instructions regarding a jailhouse informers credibility. Jailhouse conversations usually occur with no other witnesses, so it often comes down to the word of one criminal against that of another. And prosecutors acknowledge that, as witnesses, informers are far from perfect. "The use of snitches is something I think those of us in law enforcement are increasingly wary of doing," said 4th Judicial District Attorney John Newsome. Newsome said he is immediately skeptical when someone wants a deal in exchange for information. "You have to start weighing the cost versus benefit in terms of your case, and you have to start weighing if they are telling the truth," he said. When the hammer finally came down on Archuleta, it came down hard. On May 31, 2001, he stood before 4th Judicial District Judge Thomas Kennedy and pleaded for mercy. Hed been picked up in Alabama 5 months before on three felony warrants for check fraud and theft, plus numerous misdemeanor counts of criminal impersonation, forgery, theft, check fraud and violating bail conditions. Prosecutors were no longer interested in making deals. "He's been playing the system for an extremely long time," prosecutor Krysia Kubiak said at the hearing. "And I'm not saying the DAs office and the Police Department has not been complicit in this abuse of the system, but thats what it is," she said. "He has used his time in prison - in jail - and his sentences as a kind of Monopoly game to work off each other to see if he can get a better deal and if he can get out of all the crimes he committed." Kennedy told him, "You know and I know that you have zero credibility in this building. That anyone that would put you on the stand would have a fool for a lawyer. That you have caused nearly a reversal of a murder conviction next door, that you have had police officers testify in open court that you have no credibility." Kennedy gave him the maximum, 8 years in prison. Archuleta was released this summer after spending most of his prison time in isolation because of his past as an informer. LeBere's appeal is pending before Judge Timothy Simmons. The case has attracted the interest of a congressman from LeBere's native Minnesota, who helped arrange for an international law firm to pursue the appeal for free. David Bergin, the Pueblo prosecutor who tried the case because the 4th Judicial District Attorneys Office had a conflict of interest over Archuleta, declined to comment on Archuleta. Police have said his testimony was a small part of the case against LeBere, who admitted getting a ride home with the victim the night she died. In a recent interview, Archuleta said he regrets being an informer and stands by his claim that he lied in the LeBere case to get a deal. "I wanted to take care of my children. I was at the point where I'd do anything to get out of jail," he said. He recanted, he said, because his conscience was bothering him and he believes LeBere deserves a new trial. Since he has lied so much, Archuleta was asked, why should anyone believe him now? "There comes a time in a person's life when you don't hold their past against them," he said. "We all make mistakes, but people do change." USE OF SNITCHES No firm numbers exist on the use of jailhouse informants in criminal trials, but experts say it is common, especially in high-stakes cases such as murder trials in which prosecutors are under pressure to get a conviction. A report released last fall by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions found that, of 111 death-row exonerations since capital punishment was resumed in the 1970s, 51 of the convictions were based at least in part on informants testimony. Offering people deals in exchange for testifying is "tantamount to bribery," said the center's executive director, Rob Warden. "Anybody who has been given an incentive to testify, other than wanting to see justice done ... This kind of testimony is inherently suspect," Warden said. The center is encouraging states to pass laws requiring electronic recording of any incriminating statements made to informants. No state has done so. RESTRICTIONS In response to problems with the use of jailhouse informants, some lawmakers and courts have increased restrictions on their use by prosecutors: - Illinois: In any capital case in which prosecutors are using a jailhouse snitch, a judge must conduct a pretrial conference to determine if the informant is reliable. - California: Whenever prosecutors have a snitch testify, a judge instructs jurors "the informant should be viewed with caution and close scrutiny" and to consider how much the testimony may have been influenced by favors or leniency from prosecutors. - Courts in a handful of other states, including Oklahoma, Montana, Mississippi and Louisiana, have adopted similar jury instructions. Courts in Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, California and Illinois have determined that credibility of a witness - even an informant - is up to the jury to decide. - The American Bar Associations ruling body in February recommended that prosecutors carefully limit snitch testimony "ensuring that no prosecution should occur based solely upon uncorroborated jailhouse informant testimony." OTHER CASES 1989: Leslie Vernon White, a longtime jailhouse informant in Los Angeles, admitted lying in a dozen cases. A grand jury later found widespread problems with the use of snitches and complicity by police and prosecutors. 2001: Prosecutors in Colorado, Florida, South Carolina and Missouri dropped 26 drug cases because an informant who received $2 million in payments over 12 years lied under oath dozens of times. 2004: A state court in California threw out the murder conviction of Thomas Goldstein because of an unreliable jailhouse snitch, 24 years after he testified. 2005: A California man serving a murder sentence was granted a new trial when the jailhouse informant who testified against him was found by a judge to lack credibility. (source: Colorado Gazette) FLORIDA: The Secret City: Part II Beyond the miles of razor wire and the watchful eye of prison guards lies a secret community. It's a place where kids roam and so do some of the inmates. Here are people you may not know but should because not only do you fund their paychecks, we've learned you pay some of their bills too. Rent starts at $50 a month. In some cases, taxpayers pay for water and electricity. Here lives Sherri Starling. She admitted to First Coast News she is an employee of the Department of Corrections. When asked what she does, she said, "I'm a secretary." Starling would not answer many of our questions, she wouldn't even tell us how long she's lived in this community. "I'd rather not because I don't want to lose my house." When asked why she would lose her house, she said, "For doing something against the rules." When First Coast News asked her if she was doing something against the rules, Starling said, "By talking to you." According to the Department of Corrections website, secretaries are not on the list of priority for staff housing. Some of those considered priority workers are the superintendent, assistant superintendent and correctional officers. Someone else not on that priority list --sheriff's deputies. We don't know if the sheriff's deputy lives in the community, but on at least three different visits, First Coast News cameras found a Union County Sheriff's deputy's car nestled behind a home, unable to be seen from the main road. The address on the house doesn't exist in public records. So, First Coast News called the Union County Sheriff's Office. They wouldn't tell us who the car belongs to and the Department of Corrections wouldn't either. According to the Correction's website, if there are housing vacancies after the priority personnel are taken care of, non-priority workers are considered. The Correction's website also states housing agreements end automatically if staff housing is needed for a worker on the priority list. First Coast News has confirmed in the Raiford staff housing area, there are 82 correction workers waiting for a home, 32 waiting for mobile homes and 31 waiting for apartments. First Coast News asked the Department of Corrections in Tallahassee to talk with us on camera about staff housing out at Raiford. The Department declined saying it would not interview with us unless we provided them with a list of questions. First Coast News policy is we do not provide questions in advance. We don't afford the privilege to the Governor, the State Attorney General or the First Lady. First Coast News did tell the Department of Corrections in numerous emails and phone calls we needed to know the basics of staff housing. We wanted to know everything from who can or cannot get a house to who is watching over the system. Once again, the Department of Corrections declined. The Department's recent troubles may be one reason why. Corrections is reportedly the target of State and Federal investigations. According to newspaper reports, nearly half a dozen correctional officers have been arrested in a steroid probe. Reports also indicate, a former regional director is under investigation as well. The associated press reports two prison workers were arrested for being involved in a fight. Since Corrections refused to talk, First Coast News asked State Attorney General Charlie Crist. He turned us down too. First Coast News then went to Governor Jeb Bush's office requesting an interview on Department of Corrections staff housing. We talked with two different people in Bush's press office. That was a week and a half ago. Our numerous calls have never been returned. And so, Sherri Starling continues to call this secret community home. A home where only those who live behind the razor wires seem to know who can and can't live here. (source: First Coast News) ALABAMA: A challenge to King and Beason: Address issues raised on death penalth For the sake of argument, I cede to state Attorney General Troy King the point that many victims' families will find no peace until the guilty are executed (this in spite of last Sunday's "My Turn" by Wilton Bunch). Also, for the sake of argument, I cede to state Rep. Scott Beason that, for many, justice is defined by an eye-for-an-eye approach, and only the death penalty meets this criterion in the case of murder. Now, can we move the discussion on to the issues that dominated The News' editorials on the death penalty? King totally ignored them, and Beason quickly bypassed them by saying "the idea that an innocent person may be executed, that the death penalty is improperly applied, or that execution is not truly a deterrent to crime ... I'll be glad to fight them out with The News' editorial board any time, any place." How about now? I challenge King and Beason to address these very issues by way of another contribution to The News. Please consider the following questions: When The News lays out statistics that demonstrate the arbitrary and racist application of the death penalty, are the data being improperly reported or interpreted? Or do you have an alternate explanation for the data? If not, are the current system the best we can hope to achieve, and is an imperfect system better that no system at all? Do you believe the compensation for defense lawyers prior to 1999 - $20 per hour for out-of-court work and $30 per hour for in-court work - was sufficient to provide an adequate defense for indigent defendants? Would you have been satisfied if you or a family member were so defended? Regarding the question of innocence in the Hinton case, can you explain the state's claim that he traveled 15 miles in four minutes? If there is a chance an innocent person might be executed in Alabama, is this injustice simply the price we pay to have the death penalty? If not, do you support a moratorium? Scott McGinnis, Vestavia Hills (source: Opinion, Birmingham News)
