Jan. 30 TEXAS: Trial begins in murder of convenience store owner The capital murder trial of a man accused of killing a convenience store owner starts Monday. Christopher Young faces a possible death sentence if he's convicted of shooting and killing the owner of the Mini Food Mart in the 3800 block of E. Southcross Boulevard last May. Officials said Young, 21, went on a crime spree that night, ending with the murder. The trial begins Monday morning with opening statements. (source: KENS 5 Eyewitness News) ******************** Defendants may not get treated Mentally incompetent defendants awaiting trial could be left sitting in county jails for months without required treatment under a policy that begins Wednesday to limit the number of criminal commitments to state psychiatric hospitals. The change could leave counties footing the bill to treat hundreds of incompetent inmates, and it could jeopardize some convictions and lead to the premature release of the mentally ill from jail, officials say. Mental Health Mental Retardation of Tarrant County could lose as much as $4 million this year because the county has already exceeded the $10.5 million set aside by the state for treatment of inmates at state hospitals. And developing a local program to handle a backlog of criminal commitments could cost local taxpayers millions of dollars more. "This looks like another unfunded mandate by the state," Tarrant County Commissioner Marti VanRavenswaay said. "And if we pick up a state's responsibility, they will never take it back." Under state law, a defendant declared mentally incompetent by a judge is required to be treated at a state hospital until he or she is considered competent to stand trial. The state-run mental hospitals, however, have already exceeded their capacity this fiscal year for handling criminal commitments. Although the state has expanded the number of beds dedicated to criminal commitments from 450 to 642 this fiscal year, state facilities are about 80 patients above capacity. Starting next month, the state will accept commitments from counties on a first-come, first-served basis. "We've got to control admissions," said Kenny Dudley, director of state hospitals for the Texas Department of State Health Services. "Everybody knew this plan was in the works since September. Now we've gotten everybody's attention." Counties will be left with few options for treatment. Most mental health facilities do not meet statutory requirements for criminal commitments, including the ability to lock down a patient. In Tarrant County, state hospitals are the only option because local private facilities are not equipped to house such patients. County officials continue to meet to explore options, including using the JPS Health Network, the county's taxpayer-supported hospital district, which does not handle criminal commitments. Potential problems Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson said his department transfers about 10 to 12 defendants a month for criminal commitments. "This is a potential nightmare for us," he said. "It would be a tremendous burden on jail space and our staff, which is not trained to provide that level of mental health care." Inmates get medication and counseling through MHMR staff assigned to the jail while they are awaiting transfer to state hospitals. "We are already seeing these people," said Ramey Heddins, an MHMR program manager at the Tarrant County jails. "But we are not equipped to treat them when they are declared incompetent by a judge." Judges, prosecutors and defense laywers agree, however, that holding inmates indefinitely raises questions about civil rights violations and could be legal grounds to obtain an inmate's release. "Legally, we cannot leave someone in county custody when they are not getting the treatment the judge ordered," said Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Sylvia Mandel, an appellate lawyer assigned to the county's mental health diversion program. "I don't think we can warehouse them indefinitely." The backlog could also lead to inmates' release from jail without ever standing trial, because defendants earn credit for time served. Defendants cannot be held longer than the possible maximum sentence for the crime for which they are charged. "Misdemeanor cases could never be tried because an inmate could remain in custody beyond the terms of their possible sentence," Mandel said. The delays would also prolong justice for victims and could violate a defendant's right to a speedy trial. It could also pose problems for prosecutors and defense lawyers. "When you have long delays in the trial process, witnesses sometimes get lost, and it is more difficult to try a case because witnesses begin forgetting details of the case," Mandel said. Seeking solutions Dudley, with the state health department, hopes to alleviate overcrowding in psychiatric facilities through additional state funding. He said he has requested emergency funding from the Texas Legislative Budget Board, asking for an additional $34 million in state funds and $7 million from other sources. The money would add 100 civil and 98 criminal beds to the state hospital system. "This population is continuing to grow significantly for reasons we don't know," Dudley said. "We can either keep throwing money at it or try to limit the number of criminal commitments that we take on." Local officials are scrambling for a solution as the deadline looms. One solution being discussed would leave mentally incompetent inmates in the Tarrant County Jail, where officials could provide the so-called "restoration" treatment -- a treatment regimen to help defendants understand the crime for which they are accused and to understand the trial process. Harris and Lubbock counties have developed their own restoration programs, but Tarrant County officials say they still have questions about providing that service in a jail setting. "State law says restoration treatment has to be done in a mental health facility," Dudley said. "That could mean a local hospital that takes court commitments." But Tarrant County has no such facility. The JPS Hospital has a mental health ward that can accommodate up to 38 adults, but those beds are usually filled with its own patients and some civil commitments. JPS might not meet the criteria, and "that's not a business line we've ever done," said Drenda Witt, spokeswoman for the JPS Health Network. "It would require creating a whole new program, and we would have to reconfigure our facilities to deal with the capacity issues." Susan Garnett, chief operating officer for MHMR of Tarrant County, said local officials plan to visit Lubbock County soon to review their program. "We've never examined if there was another way to deal with restoration programs in jail settings," she said. "That option is going to create a serious funding issue because the community mental health system has historically been under-funded." Local concerns State District Judge Sharen Wilson said Tarrant County judges are concerned about the legal fallout from incompetent inmates remaining in jail indefinitely. "If we can do something in-house, it might speed up the trial process and cost less to the taxpayers," she said. "There are already delays in the system now. We declare someone incompetent, they wait in jail, then they get sent to the state and we don't see them for several months sometimes. Then we can restart the trial process again." Defense lawyer Reagan Wynn, president of the Tarrant County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said he would be opposed to jail staff providing restoration treatment. "The criminal justice system is not very well equipped to deal with people with mental illness," he said. "The problem is that it's not going to be all mental health staff dealing with the defendant." State District Judge George Gallagher said a local program could be costly to taxpayers. "As a judge, I don't care where they are getting the treatment, just as long as they are getting the treatment," he said. "But the state hospitals are the best place for it. If these inmates are still sitting in our jail, we are bearing the financial cost." ******************* Colleagues vie to be presiding judge on top criminal court In the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' official portrait, Judges Sharon Keller and Tom Price are sitting next to each other. Everyone is smiling. Those smiles could disappear -- along with the collegiality among the judges at the state's highest criminal court -- when Keller and Price square off again in the March 7 Republican Party primary race to be court's presiding judge. Keller defeated Price in her 1st bid to be presiding judge 6 years ago. During the race, Keller's judicial experience and Price's work ethic were questioned. Since then, the gulf between the 2 has grown wider, with Price saying he has moderated his views on the death penalty and on providing legal counsel to the poor while Keller has continued to represent the court's tough-on-crime approach to the law. "I'd like to take the court in a different direction," Price said. "Judge Keller is still far to the right and unbending." Keller defends her tenure as the court's top judge, saying that she has chaired a statewide task force on indigent defense and that she hopes to start a project to help the mentally ill who are trapped in the criminal justice system. To make sure the scales of justice are balanced, she said, the court recently pushed for more money to support those looking into innocence claims, including establishing an innocence network at the state's law schools. "I am on the conservative end of the court, but it is not a deeply divided court," Keller said. "It is not as divided as it used to be." Price, a former Dallas County judge, was elected in 1996 and won another 6-year term in 2002. Judges on the court of criminal appeals earn $150,000 a year, and the presiding judge is paid $152,500. Price opposes the execution of the mentally retarded and those who committed crimes when they were under 17. Price also said he supports nonpartisan election of judges and a moratorium on death penalty cases out of Harris County because of the troubled testing from its crime lab. "The evidence from that lab can't be trusted," Price said. "We shouldn't execute people who are innocent, and if there is any question about the evidence in court, there should be a moratorium until the system corrects itself." Keller, a former Dallas County prosecutor, became the first woman elected to the court in 1994. She said she doesn't think it is "good for the court for one of the judges to try and unseat the other." She said it makes the operation of the court "uncomfortable." Previously, Keller had upset Price when she unofficially kept track of his absences from the court. Price, who until recently lived in Dallas to take care of his son and father, filed a complaint with the State Judicial Conduct Commission. Keller also has borne the brunt of national and statewide criticism over the past few years for the court's decisions on execution of the mentally retarded, the racial makeup of juries, actual-innocence claims and what some say is the "results-oriented" approach of the court to bend the law to meet a desired outcome. The presiding judge said she supports granting relief on innocence claims when the record supports it. She said the court also does its best to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's lead on issues such as the death penalty. "I think the court has been unfairly criticized in the past," Keller said. "We do our best to follow the decisions from the Supreme Court when they rule on a case. If they change their mind, we can't predict that." The winner will face Democrat J.R. Molina of Fort Worth in the November election. (source for both : Fort Worth Star-Telegram) MARYLAND----impending execution Evans' Lawyers Argue For Stay Of Execution Attorneys for death row inmate Vernon Evans are scheduled to be in court today. Lawyers plan to argue in Baltimore City Circuit Court that Maryland's lethal-injection process is illegal under state law. They say the procedure was never made available for public comment, as required by Maryland law, before it was instituted. The lawyers contend the process creates a risk that Evans will not be sufficiently anesthetized during the execution, which is scheduled for next month. Attorneys also plan to deliver a petition for clemency to Governor Robert Ehrlich on Evans' behalf. They say they're making the petition available after the hearing in Baltimore court. Evans was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two motel clerks in Pikesville in 1983. (source: Associated Press) INDIANA: Sides debate merits of witnessing executions ---- Bill seeks change for victims' families Dale and Connie Sutton's 18-year-old daughter, Kelly Eckart, was abducted, raped and murdered in 1997. Eckart, a Franklin College freshman from Boggstown in Shelby County, was abducted heading home from her job at Wal-Mart. After days of searching, her body was found in a Brown County ravine. Dale Sutton said that for him and his wife, part of the grieving was attending the trial of the man charged with Kelly's murder. That man, Michael Dean Overstreet, was convicted and is now on Indiana's death row. Sutton said he's not sure if he and his wife would want to witness Overstreet's execution, if it ever occurs -- but they do want the option. Current Indiana law allows condemned inmates to decide who witnesses their executions. Relatives of victims are not allowed to attend unless the inmate grants them permission. The General Assembly is considering a bill that would allow relatives to witness executions -- something Sutton said could help bring some closure to some people. "I think victims deserve that choice," he said. "There's a hole in your heart that never heals. The sharp edges get a little smoother over time, but that hole is always there." Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, is sponsoring Senate Bill 160, which would allow up to eight members of a murder victim's family to witness an execution without asking permission from the prisoner. Inmates could select five witnesses instead of the 10 they are now allowed to choose. Wyss said murder victims' families should not be victimized again by having to ask permission from the killer. Randy Koester, an aide to Correction Commissioner J. David Donahue, has said that witness space is limited at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, where inmates are executed. The witness room -- a long, narrow space with a picture window -- would be divided, if the bill passes, so families of inmates and victims could be separated. But opponents of the bill, including the Indiana Catholic Conference, said condemned inmates deserve privacy during their final moments. "Even those who may have committed heinous acts deserve that dignity," said Glenn Tebbe, the group's executive director. "Death is one of those very personal and sacred moments which should be respected." Most of the 38 states that have the death penalty allow victims' witnesses at executions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has allowed victims' witnesses since 1995. In 2004, relatives of victims were present at all 16 executions. Michelle Lyons, a spokeswoman for the Texas department, said it's an important step in the healing process for some families. "Many of the victims' family members say that this is the closing of a very painful chapter," she said. "It's like they're able to see the whole process through until the end." Some relatives of victims weep at the executions, while others watch solemnly, said Lyons, who has witnessed many executions. Once, witnesses gave each other high fives, she said. Lyons said those relatives who choose not to view the execution at least have the choice to make for themselves. "In so many cases, they have had no control over the situation," she said. "This is something they didn't ask for. All of a sudden a loved one is taken from them. It allows them to have a little control back to decide whether or not they want to be there to see the execution take place." The Indiana Catholic Conference said witnessing an execution will not bring real healing and closure. "True peace of mind comes from reconciliation," Tebbe said. (source: Associated Press) FLORIDA: Case May Slow, Stall Execution Of Inmates By agreeing last week to hear the case of a Florida man condemned to die, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide an issue that could slow down executions nationwide. The court agreed to review whether death row inmate Clarence Hill can challenge lethal injection through a civil rights claim. While that is a technical and procedural issue, a victory by Hill could give death row inmates everywhere an avenue to challenge lethal injections as unconstitutionally painful and cruel. If Hill wins, he could argue the cruelty issue in front of a lower federal court, giving him months of additional appeal time. "I don't have a lot of confidence that he will prevail," said O.H. "Bill" Eaton, a SeminoleBrevard circuit judge who teaches other circuit judges about the death penalty. "But he may. This U.S. Supreme Court has been surprising in its rulings on a lot of criminal issues." A Hill victory also could allow other condemned inmates to make the same argument and could force the court to rule on the constitutionality of lethal injection. That could temporarily block or slow executions, a point of frustration among death penalty supporters. The average time on death row in Florida, for instance, is just under 13 years. But some experts suspect some justices agreed to hear the case so they can clamp that avenue of appeal, which capital defense lawyers have been using with greater frequency in recent years. "I suspect there may be some members of the court who want to take this case to say this is definitely not an avenue" of appeal, said Robert Batey, a professor at Stetson University's College of Law. "And there may be others who say there may be an argument here." A loss by Hill could solidify lethal injection as an accepted means of execution. "Not only will it mean this inmate will very likely be executed, but it also would make it much harder for other inmates to challenge executions based on the method of execution," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law and political science professor at Duke University. Arguments are scheduled for April. The court said it will issue a ruling this summer. Executions in other states have gone ahead. Texas executed a man Wednesday night, and Indiana carried out an execution Friday. Less clear is how the court's decision will affect pending executions in Florida. Death row inmate Arthur Rutherford is scheduled to die Tuesday for a 1985 murder in Santa Rosa County. Rutherford's attorneys said they will file the same appeal as Hill's lawyers did, which they believe will result in a stay. But Gov. Jeb Bush, who was in Washington, D.C., this week, said he didn't believe Rutherford's execution would be called off because of the Hill case. Chemerinsky, the Duke law professor, disagrees. He suspects a federal appeals court will block Rutherford's execution while the Hill case is decided. Hill, 48, was sentenced to die for the 1982 murder of Stephen Taylor, a 26-year-old Pensacola police officer. Hill shot Taylor in the back during a bank robbery. Hill has exhausted all of his appeals in the 23 years since his sentence. Death penalty cases travel through 9 steps from trial to execution, including an automatic appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and appeals to the U.S. District Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Each of those steps takes months or years. Judges must review the records of those cases, which are thousands of pages long, said Eaton, the Seminole Brevard circuit judge. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have streamlined the appeals process, though capital cases still take years to wind through the courts. Hill was strapped to a gurney and had IV lines running into his arms Tuesday night when the execution was halted by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Family members of the officer Hill killed were prepared to watch the execution, then were sent home. "It fuels into the wider concern of whether the death penalty is really worth all this hassle," said Michael Radelet, a University of Colorado sociology professor who has studied Florida's death penalty, noting that support for the punishment has fallen recently to around 50 percent of the population. "Whatever the benefits are, can we achieve the same results by not spending so much money and putting people in prison for life?" (source: St. Petersburg Times) CONNECTICUT: Area attorneys go to bat for poor clients The sun streamed through the windows into the long hallway at Bantam Superior Court where 30 or more people waited for their name to be called. Above the hum of their conversations, attorney Paul Summers yelled a name and motioned for a young man wearing a baseball cap to follow. "Hi, how are you? I am Attorney Paul Summers, and I will be representing you," he said. Summers is 1 of 7 attorneys employed by the state Office of the Public Defender in the Litchfield Judicial District to represent indigent defendants. Every day, defendants who cannot afford private attorneys apply for the assistance of a public defender to advise and advocate on their cases. They help defendants from the courts in Bantam and Litchfield, the juvenile court in Torrington, and statewide, representing incarcerated clients on appeal, death row, and under the custody of the Psychiatric Review Board. The fee for a public defender is about 60 times less than an attorney in private practice, but their abilities are as good or better, they say. "We are experts at criminal law, because that is all we do, and we are in court every day," said Carol Goldberg, who heads the Bantam public defender office. The office employs Summers and two other attorneys, James Longwell and Larry Peck, as well as a social worker, an investigator and an office assistant. The four attorneys receive over 100 cases every 3 months. Between July 2004 and July 2005, they received 420 new cases, said Gerard A. Smyth, the states chief public defender. Statewide public defenders represent more than 80 % of the criminal caseload, employing about 200 attorneys, and a number of investigators, social workers, and staff, with an annual budget of $38.8 million from state funding and federal grants, Smyth said. Prior to 1961, indigent defendants had no constitutional right to legal representation, and oftentimes were left to defend themselves at trial, a nearly impossible task. But the case of a 50-year-old Florida man, Clarence Gideon, who was serving a 5-year sentence for stealing some change, beer and Coca-Cola, changed all that. Gideon was convicted after being denied a court-appointed attorney at trial. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in 1961 that Gideon was entitled to representation. The case established that all indigent defendants have a right to court-appointed counsel. Connecticut was the 1st state in the country to establish a statewide public defender system in 1917. Each countys public defender was appointed by a judge, until the legislature decided in 1975 to allow the public defender system to have its own governing board. "The client is our boss, as it should be," said Goldberg who has been an attorney for 27 years, and spent 23 of those as a public defender. "We do not answer to a judge who appointed us, as in some states, but we only answer to our clients." For a statutory fee of $25, public defenders represent clients accused of misdemeanors or capital felonies, even if they plead guilty or go to trial. "Believe," is what the sign above Christopher Cosgroves desk says. Cosgrove heads the Litchfield office, which employs another public defender, Damien Tucker, as well as an investigator, part-time social worker and support staff. "Its what I have always wanted to do," Cosgrove said. His late father was the first chief public defender in this state. Since he joined the Office of the Public Defender in 1985, Cosgrove has represented hundreds of clients first in Hartford, and then during his appointment in the Litchfield judicial district. "Its a team effort," Cosgrove said. All cases are arraigned in the Bantam Superior Court but, if the case is a higher-level felony, it is transferred to the Litchfield court. Cosgrove and his staff meet with clients at their office, between court sessions in the halls of the Litchfield courthouse and at the states jails. Public defender salaries are comparable to prosecutors, but what is not reflected in each paycheck is the appreciation of the clients. Outside the courtroom on Friday, the family members of a young Roxbury man smiled at Cosgrove and shook his hand. Cosgrove argued that the man, who had been in custody for the past year, needed a drug treatment program instead of further incarceration, and the judge agreed. "It is a badge of honor to represent our clients," Goldberg said. "You have to believe in what you are doing every day to do this." (source: Register Citizen)
