Jan. 2 TENNESSEE: Justices Get Case Where Death Row, DNA Collide The major death penalty case before the Supreme Court this year reads like a "whodunit," as one judge put it. But if there is doubt about who did it, should the defendant be on death row? The justices will hear the case Jan. 11. And though they might not solve the murder mystery, the case should give an early clue on whether the high court, now led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is willing to overturn a death sentence if an inmate's guilt is in doubt. Paul G. House was the stranger in town in rural east Tennessee during the summer of 1985, when a young mother was abducted and murdered. House was a paroled rapist. He had been seen walking on a road near where the woman's body was found in Union County. And he lied to police, denying that he had left his girlfriend's trailer the night of the murder. Prosecutors told the jury that House had tricked his victim, Carolyn Muncey, into leaving her house at night with the intent of sexually assaulting her. A semen stain on her nightgown was linked to him, and a blood spot on his jeans matched her blood. House was convicted in 1986 and sentenced to death. New evidence - including DNA testing - subsequently came to light that raised questions about House's guilt. Yet a federal appeals court ruled that it wasn't enough to reopen his case, despite his being on death row. The justices will now decide whether to make it easier to reopen old cases when new evidence - including DNA testing - raises real doubts about the defendant's guilt. It has been a decade since the high court ruled on a case in which a death row inmate claimed that he was innocent. The justices described such claims as "extremely rare." Since then, DNA testing has freed scores of convicted men by showing that hair, blood or semen found at crime scenes did not come from them. In House's case, DNA tests showed the semen sample on Muncey's nightgown came from her husband, not from the man convicted of her murder. A state medical examiner also testified that a blood spot on House's jeans was a result of contamination during testing. Meanwhile, 5 new witnesses came forward to implicate the victim's husband, Hubert Muncey Jr. 2 women testified that shortly after the murder, they heard Muncey drunkenly confess to having killed his wife. Nonetheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, by an 8-7 vote, upheld House's conviction, even though the majority agreed he had presented a "colorable claim of actual innocence." The eight judges in the majority said there remained strong circumstantial evidence of House's guilt. He had lied to police, he was seen near the dead woman's body and he had new cuts and bruises he could not explain. To win a reversal, a convict such as House "must do more than raise questions about the reliability" of key evidence against him, the majority said. The outcome illustrated an old, if unstated, rule of law: While defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, convicts are presumed guilty until proven innocent. 6 of the dissenters were convinced that House was innocent and deserved to go free. The jury was told that rape was the motive for Muncey's murder, noted Judge Gilbert Merritt, and that the semen evidence was crucial to the prosecution's case. "The new evidence disproves the motive the jury accepted as the basis" for the crime, he said. The 7th dissenter said House at least deserved a new trial. All 8 judges who voted to affirm the conviction were Republican appointees. The 7 dissenters were Democratic appointees. Stephen Kissinger, a federal public defender in Knoxville, Tenn., has worked on House's case since 1997. He said he was convinced that no jury would convict his client, who is now in his mid-40s, if they had heard all the evidence. The new evidence surfaced after House had exhausted his appeals in Tennessee courts. "The jury didn't hear the overwhelming majority of the evidence in this case," Kissinger said. "This crime is hard to understand without rape as the motive. Why would he leave his trailer and walk 2 miles at night to abduct Carolyn Muncey?" Much of his brief to the high court is devoted to building a case against Hubert Muncey. Witnesses reported seeing him strike his wife. A local woman reported that on the day after the murder, Muncey asked her to state - falsely - that he had been at her house on the evening of the murder. A security guard disputed Muncey's claim that he was at a dance at the time she was murdered. None of these witnesses testified during the trial. However, a federal judge heard this evidence in a special hearing 6 years ago and refused to reverse House's conviction. Lawyers for the Innocence Project in New York say House's case illustrates the problem posed by "false facts." Juries are especially impressed with scientific evidence that, for example, links the suspect to the crime. This evidence is crucial in circumstantial murder cases, they say. "DNA evidence has revealed a finite but troubling class of convictions tainted by what is best described as 'false facts': forensic evidence that likely carried great weight with the original jury, but which is now known, to a scientific certainty, to have been erroneous," said Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project. He urged the Supreme Court to rule that federal judges should reopen old cases when new scientific evidence showed that a jury relied on false facts. But unlike the many instances in which DNA has freed a convicted prisoner, the new evidence in House's case does not prove his innocence. Indeed, state prosecutors say they remain convinced they got the right man. "There are cases where new evidence causes doubt, but this is not one of them," said Paul Phillips, the prosecutor. He said House was convicted based on his own actions and by the testimony of his girlfriend. The semen stain was not crucial to the case, he said. After denying he had left the trailer that night, House "told a wild story" about being abducted by 2 men. He returned home without his shirt and shoes. The next day, while neighbors were searching for the missing woman, 2 men encountered House near where her body was subsequently found. Phillips said he believed that House had returned to the scene of the crime hoping to recover his missing shirt. When investigators found his muddy jeans in a laundry hamper, they saw a stain that was later determined to be blood from Carolyn Muncey. That evidence remains disputed, however, because a vial of the woman's blood went missing after her autopsy, at a time when her blood and House's jeans were being tested. At first, investigators saw the woman's husband as a suspect, but they turned their attention to House after the evidence pointed to him, the prosecutor said. "I know with a pretty strong certainty that Paul Gregory House was the murderer," Phillips said. "And if I have to try him again, I will do it." The Supreme Court has generally refused to reopen state cases based on new evidence. "Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence" do not give federal judges grounds for reversing a state conviction, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in 1993. "This rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, not to correct errors of fact." In recent years, the high court has overturned several death sentences, but usually because of a procedural violation, such as racial bias in selecting the jury or a defense lawyer's failure to tell the jury of crucial evidence. By contrast, House's lawyers urge the court to rule for their client based on what they call a "persuasive showing of actual innocence." The Supreme Court will hear the case while a Senate committee is holding confirmation hearings for high court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Alito, if confirmed by the full Senate, might hold the deciding vote. Often, when the court has been closely split on death penalty cases, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has cast the crucial vote. If the 8 other justices are evenly split and Alito replaces her, he could cast the tie-breaking vote. (source: Los Angeles Times) INDIANA: Bill would change execution law ----Families of victims can't usually attend A state senator is proposing to let the families of murder victims witness the executions of their killers. Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said last week he was surprised to learn that the condemned defendant now decides who witnesses his or her execution, and that victims' families have no right to be there. So Wyss introduced Senate Bill 160, which allows up to eight members of a murder victim's family to witness an execution. The bill also would reduce to 5 the number of witnesses the defendant can invite, down from 10. Under current law, the victims' family members or friends can attend only if the convicted killer allows. That has happened, but it's not typical, said Randy Koester, chief of staff at the Indiana Department of Correction. Instead, some families ask the Department of Correction for permission. "We have to tell them because of the current statutory restriction, we can't do it," Koester said. "What we have done is allow the victims' families to be on site -- along with someone from the governor's office and the attorney general's office." That way, they can get immediate information. Most states that have the death penalty allow victims' families to witness the execution if they choose, Koester said. That includes Kentucky, where up to 3 members of the victim's family are allowed to attend. In Kentucky, the Department of Corrections commissioner designates which relatives can attend, choosing from among the victim's spouse, adult children, parents, siblings and grandparents. In Texas, a victim's friends may also attend. "Indiana is one of the few that doesn't" allow victims' families to be witnesses, Koester said. "We'll be supporting this bill." The bill also would require the Department of Correction to establish a support room for use by the victim's family and have counselors on hand. Current state law allows these people to attend an execution: The superintendent of the state prison. The person designated by the superintendent and any assistants who are necessary to assist in the execution. The prison physician and 1 other physician. The spiritual adviser of the convicted person and the prison chaplain. Not more than 10 friends or relatives of the convicted person who are invited by the convicted person. (source: The Courier-Journal) ************************* Lawmaker: Permit victim's relatives to witness killer's execution A state lawmaker wants to change Indiana law to allow the families of murder victims to witness the executions of their loved ones' convicted killers. Sen. Tom Wyss said he was surprised when he learned that condemned defendants currently decide who witnesses their executions, and that victims' families have no right to be there. The bill drafted by Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, would allow up to 8 members of a murder victim's family to witness an execution, and reduce to 5 - down from 10 - the number of witnesses the defendant can invite. Under current law, the victims' family members or friends can attend only if the convicted killer allows. Although that has happened in the past, it's not typical, said Randy Koester, chief of staff at the Indiana Department of Correction. Some families ask the agency for permission, only to learn it can't help them. "We have to tell them because of the current statutory restriction, we can't do it," Koester said. "What we have done is allow the victims' families to be on site" at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, where condemned inmates are executed by lethal injection. Most states that have the death penalty allow victims' families to witness the execution if they choose, Koester said. In Kentucky, up to three members of the victim's family are allowed to attend. That state's Department of Corrections commissioner designates which relatives can attend, choosing from among the victim's spouse, adult children, parents, siblings and grandparents. In Texas, a victim's friends may also attend. "Indiana is one of the few that doesn't" allow victims' families to be witnesses, Koester said. "We'll be supporting this bill." Wyss' bill also would require the Department of Correction to establish a support room for use by the victim's family and have counselors on hand. Last year, Indiana executed 5 people - the most since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s. The next execution is set for Jan. 27, when Marvin Bieghler, who was condemned for the 1981 shooting deaths of a Russiaville couple, is scheduled to be put to death. (source: Associated Press) OHIO: Number of inmates on Ohio's death row declines in 2005 The number of killers on Ohio's death row fell last year, reflecting a national trend in which the number of inmates on death row has gone down for five straight years. But Ohio broke with the trend by imposing more death sentences in 2005 than 2004, putting 7 inmates on death row - including a man convicted of robbing and fatally stabbing an 86-year-old widow from Newark in July 2000. There were 4 death sentences in 2004. A suicide, an overturned murder case and deaths from natural causes contributed to the decline in the number of killers on Ohio's death row - moved from Mansfield Correctional Institution to the Ohio Penitentiary at Youngstown - to 194 from 205 in 2004. It peaked at 212 in 2003. 4 people were executed in Ohio in 2005, 3 fewer than 2004. Texas led the country with 19 executions in 2005. Nationally, the number of death sentences in 2005 totaled fewer than 100, the lowest number since the death sentence was reinstated in 1976 and down from 125 in 2004, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. The decline comes as the number of killings has remained about the same nationally in recent years and juries look at other options for sentencing. "The year 2005 may be remembered as the year that life without parole became an acceptable alternative to the death penalty in the U.S.," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "More states are adopting this alternative as death-penalty problems persist." Joseph Wilhelm, chief counsel of the death penalty section for the Ohio Public Defender, said life without parole is reducing the number of death sentences in Ohio. There were 81 death sentences in Ohio between 1990 and 1995, an average of 13.5 per year, Wilhelm said. In 1996, the law allowing a sentence of life without parole was adopted. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of death sentences fell nearly in half to 42, he said. "The trend is a reduced number of death sentences," Wilhelm said. "As some of the older cases wind their way through, there'll be occasional executions." James V. Canepa, deputy chief attorney general for criminal justice, predicts a "steady, if not consistent, number of executions for a number of years to come. "Overall, systemwide, you could see a decrease." John Spirko Jr. is the 1st inmate set to die in 2006, but the attorney general's office said his execution could be delayed while the state conducts DNA tests on several items in the 1982 slaying of Betty Jane Mottinger, a northwestern Ohio postmistress. The next execution is set for Feb. 7 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville. Glenn Benner, 43, was sentenced to death for killing 2 women, 1 in 1985 and the other in 1986. He has no legal appeals remaining. (source: Associated Press) ************** John Spirko is scheduled to be executed on January 19. He was sentenced to death in 1984 for the kidnap and murder of Betty Jane Mottinger in August 1982. He denies carrying out the murder and no physical or forensic evidence links him to the crime. Concerns about Spirko's guilt have been raised by the courts considering his case and by members of the Ohio Parole Board considering a clemency petition. Spirko had 2 execution dates postponed by Governor Taft in 2005, each time only days before he was due to be put to death. The 1st time was in September at the request of the Ohio Parole Board, which wanted more time to consider a clemency petition; the 2nd was in November, to allow time for DNA testing of evidence from the crime scene, after the Board had voted against a clemency recommendation. The DNA testing is now in progress, and Spirko's attorneys are attempting to get more information on this. The state has now found fingerprint evidence from the crime scene, which it had lost, and Spirko's attorneys are urging the authorities to check these prints against the national database of criminal suspects' fingerprints. Prosecutors at John Spirko's trial are alleged to have knowingly presented a false case against him, linking him to the crime through the involvement of a co-defendant, Delaney Gibson, who they had evidence to suggest was 500 miles away at the time of the crime. Delaney Gibson was charged but never tried in the crime, and all charges against him were dropped in May 2004. One of the original state investigators was recently reported to have stated that he told prosecutors at trial that he believed Delaney Gibson did not take part in the murder. Spirko's attorneys have argued that this casts doubt on John Spirko's conviction and warrants reopening of the case. An appeal to review the case in US District Court was denied in October 2005. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is now considering a further appeal. The Ohio Parole Board voted 6-3 against making a clemency recommendation to the Governor in October 2005. The 3 dissenting members reportedly concluded that there was too much doubt to allow the execution to go ahead, expressing concerns about these issues. Writing a dissent to the majority opinion in May 2004 which dismissed John Spirko's appeal for an evidentiary hearing on claims that the prosecution at trial knowingly presented false evidence, federal judge John Gilman said that "the case against Spirko was far from overwhelming" and left him with "considerable doubt as to whether he has been lawfully subjected to the death penalty." He noted, "a striking fact about the record in this case is the complete absence of any forensic evidence linking Spirko to the crime," and said that the state's case against John Spirko was built on "3 shaky pillars" with "a foundation of sand." Former federal judge William Sessions, who has been active in an initiative to promote procedural safeguards in death penalty cases, 2 retired federal judges and a former federal prosecutor have reportedly raised concerns about John Spirko's conviction and death sentence. Betty Jane Mottinger, the postmistress of Elgin, a small town in Ohio, was kidnapped and murdered in August 1982. John Spirko contacted police 2 months later, offering to trade information about the murder in exchange for help with charges he was facing in another, unrelated case. He reportedly gave a series of differing accounts of the murder, according to one of which his best friend and former cellmate, Delaney Gibson, had admitted to him that he had carried out the murder. Prosecutors at trial argued that Gibson and Spirko committed the crime together, saying that the information John Spirko had provided could only be known by the murderer, and relying on the testimony of an eyewitness who testified that she was "100 % sure" that she had seen Delaney Gibson outside the post office the morning Mottinger disappeared. The prosecution allegedly had evidence that Gibson was actually 500 miles away at the time. Take action on this issue (source: Amnesty International USA) ILLINOIS: Trial of former Gov. George Ryan offers much intrigue Critics of the death penalty worldwide have hailed George Ryan as a prophet. Admirers say Ryan should get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping executions in Illinois and using his power as governor to commute the sentences of 167 prisoners on death row. But for weeks now, the former governor has been sitting in a federal courtroom during his racketeering and fraud trial, listening to prosecutors paint him as a liar and a crook who swapped millions of dollars in state contracts for freebies ranging from vacations in Jamaica to repairs on his leaky roof. "He worked his whole life to be governor - it was his dream in politics and it turned out to be a nightmare," says political scientist Paul Green who has known and liked Ryan for decades. In 13 weeks, prosecution witnesses have spun out a tale of cash stuffed in envelopes, hidden in desk drawers and laundered to evade taxes. Ryan's outer office has been described as crowded with lobbyist pals lounging on sofas, smoking cigars, watching TV, talking sports and putting in their 2 cents on big-money issues. The 71-year-old Ryan has remained stoic through most of it. "I feel fine," he said recently, wolfing down the last of his lunch before heading back to the courtroom where he faces charges of racketeering, mail fraud, tax fraud and lying to the FBI. The trial before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer begins its 14th week on Tuesday after a long holiday break. Prosecutors say they may rest their case by the middle of the month, but defense attorneys say it could be March before the case finally goes to the jury. Conviction could send Ryan to federal prison for years. As Ryan left for an 11-day holiday break at the family home in downstate Kankakee where he started his career behind a drug store counter, he told reporters about his plans for a traditional Christmas with his grown children and grandchildren around him and a visit from Santa Claus. "It's important to have Santa Claus every year," he said. Prosecutors say Ryan played Santa Claus to an elite circle of lobbyists and business friends, including co-defendant Larry Warner, by steering major contracts their way. Both Ryan and Warner say they did nothing illegal. Prosecutors say the 67-year-old Warner, who launched his lobbying career following Ryan's election as secretary of state in 1990, landed a $26.8 million state computer contract for International Business Machines Corp. Warner pocketed $1 million in lobbying fees from the computer giant, prosecutors say. Retired lobbyist and Ryan political adviser Donald Udstuen says Warner shared the booty with him. Udstuen testified that he hid it in his desk at the Illinois State Medical Society after laundering it through a business consulting firm. Udstuen has pleaded guilty to tax fraud conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing. Government insight The trial's stories of ruse and intrigue keep coming. "It gives us a great deal of insight into the way government does business," says political consultant Don Rose. "Whether or not you find Ryan guilty, you see the relation of lobbyists to government contracts and how the process of spending the people's money is determined." Udstuen says that former state Sen. Ron Swanson, a longtime Ryan crony, slipped an envelope stuffed with $4,000 in cash to him in the basement men's room of a Ryan administration hangout. The 78-year-old Swanson, now awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to lying to a federal grand jury, allegedly described the money as a thank-you to Udstuen for getting a group of Wisconsin utility executives who were having dinner upstairs to hire Swanson as a lobbyist. Udstuen says he told Swanson that it was Ryan who picked Swanson to lobby Ryan's Environmental Protection Agency in favor of the power plant the executives wanted to build. "You know I always take care of George," Udstuen quoted Swanson as saying in reply. But Ryan isn't charged with taking bribes. Instead, he's accused of defrauding the state by denying it his honest services, for eight years as secretary of state and later as governor. The charge is that he did favors for friends and they showered him with goodies. Ryan, his wife and an entourage of pals and staff aides spent a week or two every winter for a decade at the Jamaican oceanside villa of currency exchange mogul Harry Klein. As secretary of state, Ryan also raised fees that currency exchanges can charge customers for license plate services and rented a Klein property for use as a driver's licensing center. Defense attorney Dan K. Webb says Ryan did nothing illegal. Webb and a small army from the high-powered Chicago law firm of Winston & Strawn say Klein was merely being a friend to Ryan by serving as his host. They say currency exchanges deserved a fee hike after years of going without and the state got its money's worth from landlord Klein. Winston & Strawn has mobilized star litigator Webb and a host of others to try to dig Ryan out of legal trouble for free because Ryan ran out of money to pay his legal bills long before the trial started. Crain's Chicago Business recently estimated that the firm is losing $10 million to provide a deluxe criminal defense to the state's one-time most powerful Republican and do it pro bono. Webb says that number is too high. But the cost is certain to be hefty. The reason is most likely rooted in Ryan's longtime friendship with the head of Winston & Strawn, former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson. They go way back. Ryan was his lieutenant governor. Decade of problems For Ryan, his problems began on Election Day 1994. While he was winning a 2nd term as secretary of state, 6 children in 1 family were burned to death in a Wisconsin car-truck accident. The death of the 6 children of Chicago minister Scott and Janet Willis, formerly of Batavia, horrified the state and eventually triggered an investigation of bribes exchanged for Illinois driver's licenses. More than 70 former state officials, truckers, driving instructors and political figures have been convicted in what evolved into a full-blown political corruption probe, and prosecutors have traced $150,000 of the payoff money to the Citizens for Ryan campaign fund. Jurors have heard little about the driver's license scandal. Ryan isn't charged with it. But there has been no shortage of other scandals laid out during the trial. (source: Associated Press)
