Jan. 30 USA----death penalty related In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82 Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists. The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees - including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. - and trained more than 3 dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick. "We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast. Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement. In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan administration, that movement was little more than the handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the 1st meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed conservative legal group. Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the court "would have been beyond our best expectations," said Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former secretary of energy under President Bush and now the chairman of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative organizations set up to support judicial nominees. He added, "I don't think we would have put a lot of money on it in a friendly wager." Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement. Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush administration and an adviser to the current White House, sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for the highest court. "It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the Reagan administration. "It is a graduation. These individuals have been in study and preparation for these roles all their professional lives." As each progressed in legal stature, others were laying the infrastructure of the movement. After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him. With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships. During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed school prayer and endorsed abortion rights. During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees. "There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made," said Mr. Abraham, the Federalist Society founder who was a senator on the Judiciary Committee at the time. By 2000, the decades of organizing and battles had fueled a deep demand in the Republican base for change on the court. Mr. Bush tapped into that demand by promising to name jurists in the mold of conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia. When Mr. Bush named Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as the successor to Justice O'Connor, he faced a revolt from his conservative base, which complained about her dearth of qualifications and ideological bona fides. "It was a striking example of the grass roots having strong opinions that ran counter to the party leaders about what was attainable," said Stephen G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and another founding member of the Federalist Society. But in October, when President Bush withdrew Ms. Miers's nomination and named Judge Alito, the same network quickly mobilized behind him. Conservatives had begun planning for a nomination fight as long ago as that February meeting, which was led by Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and informal adviser to the White House, Mr. Meese and Mr. Gray. They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind whomever the president picked, people present said. The plan: first, extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the nominee, steering the debate away from the nominee's possible influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal groups they expected to oppose any Bush nominee. The team worked through a newly formed group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to coordinate grass-roots pressure on Democratic senators from conservative states. And they stayed in constant contact with scores of conservative groups around the country to brief them about potential nominees and to make sure they all stuck to the same message. They fine-tuned their strategy for Judge Alito when he was nominated in October by recruiting Italian-American groups to protest the use of the nickname "Scalito," which would have linked him to the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. In November, some Democrats believed they had a chance to defeat the nomination after the disclosure of a 1985 memorandum Judge Alito wrote in the Reagan administration about his conservative legal views on abortion, affirmative action and other subjects. "It was a done deal," one of the Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the staff is forbidden to talk publicly about internal meetings. "This was the most evidence we have ever had about a Supreme Court nominee's true beliefs." Mr. Leo and other lawyers supporting Judge Alito were inclined to shrug off the memorandum, which described views that were typical in their circles, people involved in the effort said. But executives at Creative Response Concepts, the team's public relations firm, quickly convinced them it was "a big deal" that could become the centerpiece of the Democrats' attacks, one of the people said. "The call came in right away," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and another lawyer on the Alito team. Responding to Mr. Alito's 1985 statement that he disagreed strongly with the abortion-rights precedents, for example, "The answer was, 'Of course he was opposed to abortion,' " Mr. Sekulow said. "He worked for the Reagan administration, he was a lawyer representing a client, and it may well have reflected his personal beliefs. But look what he has done as judge." His supporters deluged news organizations with phone calls, press releases and lawyers to interview, all noting that on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito had voted to uphold and to strike down abortion restrictions. Democrats contended that those arguments were irrelevant because on the lower court Judge Alito was bound by Supreme Court precedent, whereas as a justice he could vote to overturn any precedents with which he disagreed. By last week it was clear that the judge had enough votes to win confirmation. And the last gasp of resistance came in a Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, joined by Senator John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the party to organize a filibuster. No one defended Judge Alito or argued that he did not warrant opposition, Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. Instead, opponents of the filibuster argued about the political cost of being accused of obstructionism by conservatives. Still, on the brink of this victory, some in the conservative movement say the battle over the court has just begun. Justice O'Connor was the swing vote on many issues, but replacing her with a more dependable conservative would bring that faction of the court at most to four justices, not five, and thus not enough to truly reshape the court or overturn precedents like those upholding abortion rights. "It has been a long time coming," Judge Bork said, "but more needs to be done." (source: The New York Times) CALIFORNIA: Set the bar higher in ensuring all defendants get fair trials -- REPORTS OF ERRANT PROSECUTIONS TOUCH A NERVE IN LEGAL COMMUNITY AND BEYOND The Mercury News' special report on the criminal justice system in Santa Clara County already is having an impact. Discussions about the findings published last week are taking place throughout the community, the county bar association is mobilizing and candidates for district attorney are squaring off on the issues. It's a start. But it will take more than talk to remedy the problems that reporter Fredric N. Tulsky raised in the 5-day series called "Tainted trials, stolen justice." Political and legal community leaders all over the state should be paying attention. Experts say that what was uncovered here, where the system has a relatively good reputation, is surely happening elsewhere. And while attorneys are responding to the concerns, judges' associations and the state's judicial watchdog group -- the Commission on Judicial Performance -- so far have been all but silent. They must come forward with bold plans to weed out jaded or burned-out jurists. The strong local reaction is good news for Santa Clara County, which should lead the way to reforms that will ensure every criminal defendant gets the fairest trial possible. The legal community appears determined to strengthen the sense of ethics that permeates its culture. Last week we wrote that it appeared much of the legal community was satisfied with a "good enough" criminal-trial system. We're happy to be proven wrong. Tulsky's unprecedented criminal-trial review provides strong evidence of a system that lacks the checks and balances every defendant deserves. After reviewing more than 700 cases, Tulsky found failures by all involved: prosecutors, defense attorneys, trial judges and the appellate court. A third of the trials reviewed were marred by questionable conduct and, in a small number of cases, innocent people were convicted. It's fine to be tough on crime, but the integrity of our criminal justice system requires fairness. The Mercury News Editorial Board asked the four candidates for Santa Clara County district attorney to respond to the series (See the opposite page). The current DA, George Kennedy, is retiring after 15 years. Prosecutors are the linchpin of the system because they determine what charges to file, when to plea bargain and when to proceed to trial. All the candidates are or have been prosecutors here. The winner must provide leadership that values high ethical standards more than winning cases. Currently, prosecutors are evaluated on their competence in 10 areas, with each carrying similar weight. "Legal ethics" should become the No. 1 criterion and receive more weight to set the right tone. The new district attorney also must ensure that repeated errors are not tolerated and that prosecutors are subject to disciplinary action, including firing if they don't measure up. New leadership must not shy away from a tough fight to terminate lawyers who don't belong in the office. Christopher Arriola, the new president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association, sums up the challenge for all criminal trial lawyers this way: "Our legal community must seize the opportunity to fairly evaluate our shortcomings and fully assess our institutions to make sure we continue to provide one of the best levels of public safety and justice enjoyed anywhere in the world." His full response to the series is printed below. Arriola also has good ideas for improving the quality of our criminal justice system. He has named two respected attorneys to head up the bar's Professionalism Committee. Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen, a respected defense attorney, and Lane Liroff, a veteran homicide prosecutor, should move quickly and openly to tackle issues presented in the series. The local bar association will also review training for attorneys. Arriola points out that because of budget cuts, much of the lawyer training is done in-house to reduce costs. But this also reduces the interaction of attorneys, diminishing the opportunities to share different points of view outside of the courtroom. The outpourings of letters and phone calls we've received shows that public confidence in the criminal trial system is shaken. The legal community must dig deep for new ways to restore respect. "Innocent until proven guilty" should be more than a cliche. (source: Editorial, Mercury News) ************** Proud defense attorneys rise above the few who sully image I am a criminal-defense lawyer and damn proud of it. I have gotten used to a system where too much power has been given to prosecutors, where too many judges look on my clients with disfavor, if not disdain, and where every politician wants to add a new crime or draconian punishments to existing crimes in order to be elected. I no longer bristle at that cocktail party query, "How can you defend someone who is guilty?" I know nothing about the "facts" in the cases covered by the Mercury News last week in the "Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice" series, but if they are accurate, they speak volumes about the state of the criminal-justice system. Surprisingly, there are no prerequisites, other than a valid state bar card, for the handling of any case -- even death penalty cases. In practice what this means is that unsuspecting people are putting their lives in the hands of attorneys whose long suit is the ability to land clients. They do this several ways. Some use the "jail mail" system. When you are arrested and booked for a criminal offense, that information is public information. Even your address. Several organizations send out pre-formatted letters to all arrestees that seem to come from the lawyers themselves. These letters amount to solicitation letters, although they have to be marked "advertising" somewhere on them. All an attorney has to do is pay to have these personalized letters sent. Others are simply "jail whores." They troll the correction facilities seeking clients, some even going so far as to promise reductions in fees to clients who refer other cases to them that they land. The only requirement for this quite probably unethical technique is the absence of shame. Still others promise the moon. Acquittals or civil judgments for wrongful arrest. They puff themselves beyond belief, with claims that they know all the judges and DAs and this fact alone will get better results. They often get fees not justified by the charges faced by the defendant. Others spend a fortune on misleading advertising that can be paid for only by charging too much or taking on too many cases. Finally, others are what I call Wal-Mart lawyers. Whatever anyone else is charging, they charge less. A little smiling face cutting prices. This, of course, leaves little or nothing for investigation or psychiatric evaluation or other necessary ancillary services. Of course the ancillary services don't get done. Most criminal-defense lawyers are extremely dedicated and hard-working. They put their reputation, hard-learned skills and restful nights on the line for the people they represent. All in exchange for less money than they could earn in any other field of law with the same experience and skills. And they do it enthusiastically, with passion. They recognize what level of cases they can competently handle and turn down ones they can't. They charge a reasonable fee and give a piece of their soul for their clients. They defend their cases ethically and aggressively. All of which brings me to the cocktail party question. I defend people I "know" are guilty because that is my job. Most Americans will say we have the best legal system in the world. That's because the system is an adversarial one. The prosecutor's job is to convict the defendant. The defense attorney's job is to ensure the defendant is not unfairly convicted. It is only the judge and/or jury's job to determine if the evidence warrants a conviction. If any players abandon their role and take on another, the system collapses. I am a lucky man. I have been a criminal-defense lawyer for more than 34 years. I have handled everything from traffic tickets to death penalty cases in Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and all over the state. And I am damn proud of it: We say in America that it is better for 1,000 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be convicted. Especially if that innocent person is your child. (source: THOMAS V. KELLEY is a criminal-defense attorney in San Jose. He wrote this article for the Mercury News) ************* Despite problems, county judges, lawyers dedicated to justice The Santa Clara County Bar Association has been working for the past 90 years to provide training and professionalism to the legal community in our county. In the mid-1990s, the bar instituted a code of professional conduct that asked members to treat each other with respect and courtesy -- in effect a golden rule for lawyers, and a way to better serve the public. I have worked in the criminal justice system in this county for the better part of a decade, and before that worked in the criminal justice systems in other large urban counties, and can say without a doubt that we have one of the best and most reliable systems in the state, if not the country. Additionally, some of the most committed, dedicated and ethical attorneys and judges push through thousands of cases in an underfunded and sometimes harsh system and still achieve justice in small and large ways every day. The Mercury News' series on the criminal justice system this week highlights many of the complexities and problems of our system, and the human fallibilities that can pervade the system at times. What we must realize is that professional responsibility is not something we can snap our fingers and achieve. It is an ongoing struggle to educate and evaluate ourselves and to make our system better. Many of the problems brought out in the articles rightly deserve the attention they received, but many were simply the mistakes of overworked or undertrained attorneys and judges trying to navigate a system that requires snap decisions and judgments that still significantly affect people's lives. We should accept our failings while instituting ways to deal with them, including proper training and self-examination. However, in this highly competitive environment that modern law is practiced in, it is very easy to become dissociated with one another. As president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association, this dissociation was of great concern to me. To help improve awareness around professionalism training in our justice system, I appointed Professor Gerald Uelmen, former dean of the Santa Clara Law School and prominent defense attorney, and Lane Liroff, a veteran homicide prosecutor in the county district attorney's office, to head up the county bar's Professionalism Committee. They will address issues around criminal justice, and more important, about appreciating each opponent's point of view. Along these same lines, I have also seen a disturbing trend toward relying heavily on in-house training among large law firms, both public and private. This achieves great cost savings, but unfortunately leads to very little cross-pollination and perspective among offices. The problem applies equally to criminal and civil offices. Compounding this problem, training money has been hit hard by budget cuts over the years. For example, the county board of supervisors will not fully reimburse the county bar association dues to county attorneys, despite the fact that professional organizations provide valuable training and insight into the best practices of the profession. To deal with this issue, I have appointed the training officer of the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office to chair the Education Committee of the county bar association. I have also appointed the training officers of the district attorney and public defender's offices to sit on the committee. Hopefully, this committee will be able to establish training programs that address the concerns of everyone involved, including bench officers and private practitioners. Finally, many judges and attorneys have approached me and mentioned what a devastating effect the Mercury News articles will have on the justice system, including jurors, crime victims and the accused. They tell me it will create a crisis of confidence in the justice system. Indeed, our society is growing and changing. Getting the courts to adapt to the diversity within the county is a challenge in and of itself, but to create doubts about our system's fairness in the general public, on top of our everyday concerns, seems almost unbearable to many within the system. And in many ways, such an outcome would be devastating. But instead, our legal community must seize the opportunity to fairly evaluate our shortcomings and fully assess our institutions to make sure we continue to provide one of the best levels of public safety and justice enjoyed anywhere in the world today. The Santa Clara County Bar Association and other professional institutions can and are helping to undertake the training and accountability our system demands and the public rightly deserves. (source: CHRISTOPHER ARRIOLA is president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association and a Santa Clara County prosecutor. He wrote this for the Mercury News) **************** Though series was unfair, let's use it as a rallying point The district attorney's solemn obligation to the people of Santa Clara County is to seek justice in a fair and ethical manner. Any conduct that falls short of that pledge to the people should not be tolerated in any fashion. The people of this county, having placed their trust in the district attorney's office, must feel confident that trust has not been compromised. Over the past week the Mercury News has published a series of articles that question the conduct of the district attorney's office and the ethical standards the people of this county demand. I agree that mistakes in the administration of justice have occurred and that this district attorney's office was a party to those errors. The nature and degree of those mistakes and the effects upon the administration of justice was not fairly portrayed by the Mercury News. However, the response to the articles and corresponding question of trust of the system by the public necessitates action. Every individual and organization should always strive for improvement. Reflecting on the information published over the past week, all of us within the district attorney's office should use this series as a rallying point to further our commitment to the highest ethical standard in our work. The true test of one's self is to stand up to adverse circumstances and better one's self through the process. I believe the men and women of the Santa Clara County district attorney's office, which I have proudly been a member of for more than 20 years, will prove their true character and restore any lost confidence and trust for the criminal justice system. The ethical standards we all hold in the utmost regard will be at the forefront of the restoration. As your next district attorney, I will have the privilege of working with the most professional and ethical prosecutors in the country to make our county safer, more secure and committed to justice for all of the people of this county. My tenure as district attorney will be marked by the highest ethical standard, with fair and just prosecutions. We will continue to aggressively prosecute the guilty and will never sacrifice public safety in the face of unfair criticism. I look forward to joining my fellow prosecutors and law enforcement professionals in protecting the people of our county. Join me as I strive to achieve liberty and justice for all. (source: MARC BULLER is a Santa Clara County assistant district attorney. He wrote this article for the Mercury News) *************** DA's office needs change of culture, starting at the top This week the San Jose Mercury News made some troubling disclosures about our district attorney's office -- one of the crown jewels of California law enforcement. That jewel has now been tarnished by allegations that a "win-at-all-costs" culture in the office has led to questionable behavior in many instances, and injustice in a few. I have been asked to comment on these allegations. In my view, a few prosecutors acting badly does not mean that 180 hard-working prosecutors are running amok. The rules are not always black-and-white, and reasonable lawyers might dispute some of the claims made in the series. But the message is clear: This office has lost its way. When prosecutors are taught that "anything goes" as long as judges and defense lawyers fail to stop them, then the temptation to do whatever it takes to win will be strong. If the top manager of the district attorney's office says that it is legally "correct" to try to admit evidence that the law deems inadmissible, while acknowledging that this "would not necessarily look good to people outside the office," this person is fostering a culture that encourages unethical behavior. This culture is contrary to fairness and justice. It starts at the top. When management fails to act decisively in case after case of unethical behavior, the inescapable conclusion is that they condone less-than-ethical conduct in pursuit of a conviction. Their willingness to discuss the issues and express concern after the facts have come out is not enough. The series calls the office's leadership and management philosophy into serious question. This culture must be changed. I would establish a system to detect, investigate and discipline unethical behavior. Prosecutors must be forthcoming with judges and defense attorneys instead of trying to slip inadmissible evidence by them. I would encourage judges and defense attorneys to report unethical conduct, and would act on well-founded complaints. I would honor and reward ethical behavior by making it an important criterion for assignments and promotions. The U.S. Supreme Court said it best more than 70 years ago: "The prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones." We can continue to protect public safety without sacrificing ethics or fairness. But we must change course now. (source: DOLORES CARR is a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge. She wrote this article for the Mercury News) **************** Leader can restore trust, but we also need outside help Keeping the people of Santa Clara County safe requires maintaining the public's trust. Without trust, we can't protect victims and secure convictions of the guilty. Without trust, we can't find evidence that exonerates the innocent. Without trust, our most important public-safety agency becomes ineffective. The comprehensive Mercury News series on criminal justice raised serious issues and has shaken the public's trust in our office. Yet the leadership in the district attorney's office provides little more than late apologies and weak excuses. We deserve better. Strong leadership is required to implement the fundamental changes that will make the "win at all cost" culture go away. We can all agree that the best place to protect the innocent is at the front end of the system, to make sure that only the guilty are charged and convicted. As district attorney, I will take immediate action to create an office culture where justice is always the first priority. Among the steps I will take: - Bring in outside experts to review every policy and procedure. I made this outside review a central part of my campaign policy platform before the series ran. Since it is a conflict of interest to have an agency review itself, we need an "ethics audit" conducted by a panel of independent experts. The findings will be published so the public can track our progress. - Dramatically increase the use of support staff to assist prosecutors in discharging their obligation to handle cases fairly and in a timely manner. We must make sure that our district attorney's office is adequately funded and appropriately staffed -- something that has been woefully lacking under the current administration. - Provide ongoing training for every supervisor to ensure that the "win at all cost" culture is eradicated. Regular ethics training will constantly reinforce this new culture. - Show by example that finding out the truth is our only goal. We must banish political considerations from this office. We will seek justice, not headlines. When the leader demonstrates the courage to do the right thing, the example is clear to all others. As district attorney, I will lead by example. I am proud to work with great trial attorneys who are dedicating their careers to making our community safe. They deserve leadership as focused and principled as they are. (source: JIM SHORE is a Santa Clara County deputy district attorney. He wrote this article for the Mercury News) ******************* Isolated mistakes shouldn't outweigh reforms in progress I welcome the Mercury News review of the criminal justice system. Let the sunshine in. For the past 3 years, on behalf of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, I personally worked with reporter Rick Tulsky. I spent hundreds of hours reviewing files, interviewing attorneys and discussing legal rulings. Our office reviewed every case brought to our attention and investigated every claim alleged. Of the case procedures he questioned, in some we agreed; in others we did not. I hold an abiding conviction that prosecutors working in the criminal justice system are ethical and effective advocates. The paper's project focused on isolated flaws. Sensational headlines exaggerated the degree of imperfection that exists. In fiscal years 1998 to 2003, the DA filed 60,244 felony cases. The Mercury News reviewed 1.2 % of those and questioned less than 1/2 of 1 % of total cases filed. Let's keep the Mercury News story in a proper prospective. The project was the most microscopic examination of any prosecutor's office in our state's history. The criminal justice system is imperfect -- judges and attorneys are only human. I have a proven track record of discovering problems in the criminal justice system and fixing them. When I was assigned the homicide unit, I learned of Rick Walker's claim of innocence and led a complete reinvestigation. As a result, he was exonerated. When a toddler's murder could not be solved, I created a countywide best practices child abuse protocol. Some of my innovations, such as requiring electronic recording of suspects in violent crimes (to guard against false confessions) and revamping the lineup procedure (to guard against mistaken cross-racial identifications) were initially resisted by law enforcement, yet both have proven effective. Our Innocence Project (the only such unit in California) has undertaken an audit of pre-DNA convictions (to validate those convictions). As district attorney, I will ask the county board of supervisors to create a full-time position for an in-house legal ethics specialist, as well as a training officer who will provide legal updates to attorneys and law enforcement. I have championed victims' rights and will continue to do so. I will always cherish open government and innovation. No other candidate can match my record of fixing problems in the criminal justice system and creating innovative solutions. I agree with the Mercury News on one point: We need a broad debate on how to further improve our justice system. So let the light shine in. (source: KARYN SINUNU is Santa Clara County's chief assistant district attorney. She wrote this article for the Mercury News) ILLINOIS: States 6-year death penalty moratorium to be revisited The Campaign to End the Death Penalty will hold a panel discussion Wednesday to mark the 6th-year anniversary of the moratorium on executions in Illinois. The "Perspectives on the Death Penalty: How the Illinois Moratorium Was Won" discussion, held at University Church-Hyde Park at 5655 S. University Ave., will include attorneys, activists and a former death row inmate, among others, who will comment on the movement that abolished the death penalty in Illinois. Some of the speakers scheduled to take part of the panel discussion are: Thomas Sullivan, senior partner at Jenner & Block LLP and former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Edwin Colfax, executive director of the Death Penalty Education Project; Madison Hobley, former death row inmate who was pardoned by former Gov. George H. Ryan in 2003; and Marlene Martin, national director of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. On Jan. 31, 2000, Ryan declared a moratorium on the death penalty based on "grave concerns about our state's shameful record of convicting innocent people and putting them on death row." Ryan also formed a commission to study the death penalty. That commission offered 85 recommendations to improve its administration, but ultimately concluded that no death penalty system could guarantee that innocent people wouldn't be put to death, based on human nature and frailties. The Illinois General Assembly enacted 1/3 of the commission's recommendations, but 8 people still sit on death row in the state, and death penalty cases are still tried, according to information provided by the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. "The system is broken, and I'm living proof," said Hobley in a prepared statement. He sat 13 years on death row until Ryan pardoned him based on evidence that showed he was tortured at the hands of rogue police officers working under former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge. African-Americans represent about 13 % of the overall U.S. population, but 34 % of death row inmates in this country are Black, according to statistics provided by the CEDP. "6 years after the moratorium on executions, the death penalty is still dead wrong," said Martin in a prepared statement. "The death penalty is racist, and you can't reform away a racist system." For more information on the panel discussion, contact the Campaign to End the Death Penalty at (773) 955-4841. (source: Chicago Defender) NEW YORK: Brother of Unabomber speaks in Hastings against death penalty In Hastings-On-Hudson,David Kaczynski yesterday detailed how his personal experience with the criminal justice system led to a larger crusade against the death penalty. "I never imagined that the death penalty would come knocking at my door," Kaczynski said as he stood before a crowd of perhaps 50 people at the First Unitarian Society of Westchester. "I have confronted, in a very personal way, the contradictions in the death penalty." Kaczynski's ordeal began in 1995, when he and his wife suspected that his older brother, Theodore Kaczynski, may have been the domestic terrorist known as the Unabomber. As their suspicions intensified, David Kaczynski alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and eventually led agents to his brother's Montana cabin. There, agents found homemade bombs and other incriminating evidence. Theodore Kaczynski was arrested and convicted and is serving life without the possibility of parole for killing 3 people and injuring 23 over 18 years. When speaking about the trial, David Kaczynski said he felt betrayed by government prosecutors who pursued the death penalty against his brother. He also felt disgusted, he said, that the government would seek capital punishment against a man suffering from what was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. "Reasonable people can disagree about the philosophical problems of the death penalty," said Kaczynski, who has spoken out often in the last few years as the executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty. "But reasonable people can't look at how the death penalty in this country is applied and feel comfortable with it." Gov. George Pataki reinstated the state's death penalty in 1995, but New York's highest court effectively suspended it in 2004. The audience yesterday was sympathetic to Kaczynski's plight, with some congregants wiping tears from their eyes as he spoke. Cynthia Reynolds, chairwoman of the congregation's Social Action Committee, said Kaczynski's story was "eye-opening." "It absolutely swayed me to say that I'm against the death penalty, and I wasn't when I walked in here today," she said. Although Gabriel Shaikh was only about 6 when the Unabomber was making headlines, he nevertheless said he remembered hearing about the case on television and in magazines. Kaczynski's talk yesterday served to confirm Shaikh's opposition to the death penalty, he said. (source: The Journal News) NORTH CAROLINA: Detective defends actions in death row inmate's case The lead detective in the case against death-row inmate Charles Walker defended his actions this week after a judge granted a new trial over evidence withheld by police. Lee Walker Jr., a retired Greensboro homicide detective, said he believes he didn't tell prosecutors about an unrelated shooting involving a key witness against Charles Walker because it wasn't relevant. The witness was only a suspect in the shooting and was never charged, said Lee Walker, who retired in 2003. The judge's ruling suggests that in every homicide police should research all cases in which a witness is named as a suspect and give it to prosecutors, "which would be absolutely ridiculous," he said. But it was that very omission that helped persuade a judge to overturn Charles Walker's death sentence last weekend. Walker, 40, was convicted in 1995 in the death of Elmon Tito Davidson Jr. three years earlier. Though he was scheduled to die in 2004, a last-minute stay of execution led to appeals that finally paid off. Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III, of High Point, determined Jan. 21 that Walker's constitutional rights were violated. He sided with the defense, who argued that the suppressed information could have bolstered the defense and probably led the jury to a different verdict. How an unrelated shooting turned the tide in Walker's favor is an unusual story of coincidence or potential wrongdoing depending on which side you ask. On its face, the torture and slaying of Davidson on Aug. 12, 1992, seems to have little to do with the assault and shooting of Ben Simmons Jr. 9 days later. According to witnesses' testimony, Walker ordered Davidson's death after he was told that Davidson, 20, tried to rob his girlfriend's apartment in what was then the Morningside Homes public housing community. At Walker's bidding, 2 men bound, beat, cut and shot Davidson in that apartment before wrapping up his body and tossing it into a trash bin, where it disappeared, witnesses testified. Police have never found Davidson's body. Simmons, then 27, was also attacked by three men in the same neighborhood on Aug. 21, 1992. He told police the assault was over a $60 drug debt and that, after 2 of them beat him, a 3rd man -- who drove a black mo-ped -- shot him 3 times as he ran away. The link? Antonio G. Wrenn. Wrenn, then 22, drove a black mo-ped. He also sold crack for Walker, a New Yorker who dubbed himself "Supreme" and took over Morningside as his drug turf, witnesses testified. Though Wrenn denied any involvement in the Simmons shooting, he told police he believed the guns used on Simmons were the same ones used to kill a man thrown in a trash bin. That man, police would come to learn, was Davidson. About a week later, police got a visit from Sabrina Wilson. The then 20-year-old mother sold drugs for a rival dealer, she told the News & Record recently, but she hung around with Walker's crowd. She had been afraid to summon police when Davidson was tortured and killed in a nearby apartment. Instead, 20 days passed before she walked into the community's satellite police office and talked -- telling officers her conscience bothered her. That day she told Officer Mark Minner not only about Walker's involvement in Davidson's killing but about the Simmons shooting, according to a police report. Wilson, who had lived with Wrenn and his girlfriend, told police that Wrenn had confessed to her about shooting Simmons, the report said. She now says she can't recall the Simmons shooting. At the time, Minner split her statement, putting part in a file related to Davidson. The rest went with reports on the Simmons shooting. Later that fall, police arrested and charged Walker and 4 others in connection with Davidson's death. Wilson was not among them. Lacking forensic evidence, police linked Walker to the crime through the words of the accomplices. To prepare their defense, Walker's lawyers requested all information the state had that was favorable to their client. After Walker's conviction in 1995, his appellate lawyers asked for the complete investigative file. But Wilson's statement implicating Wrenn in the Simmons shooting -- and the possible use of the same gun in the Davidson killing -- was never turned over. Prosecutors didn't even know about it. Police kept that to themselves. As to why that happened, retired Detective Lee Walker said this week that he can't remember specifically. But he said it makes sense now why he didn't think it was relevant. Police records indicate that Lee Walker tried to follow up with the victim, Simmons, but the man refused to contact him. The detective then cleared the case because Simmons wouldn't cooperate. "It was relevant if Simmons comes forward to prosecute," he said of the reports. "It didn't seem relevant in regards to the murder case at hand at the time to me." In a court hearing earlier this month, Simmons disputed that the detective ever tried to contact him. The Simmons shooting reports only came to light during a court hearing last spring. Craig, the judge, ordered the state to turn them over after prosecutors confirmed their existence. "This just blows their own witnesses out of the water and we didn't get it," defense lawyer Jonathan Megerian told the judge then. "That's not right." In a later court filing, Charles Walker's lawyers argued that Wilson's statement coupled with the police reports could have shredded Wrenn's credibility during their client's 1995 trial. Wrenn testified that he and Walker bought trash bags to wrap up Davidson's body after the killing. But Wrenn denied any involvement in the Simmons shooting. Prosecutors have argued that adding another crime to Wrenn's resume wouldn't have swayed jurors, who already knew about his lengthy criminal history. Megerian contends that Wrenn got a pass from police on the crime in exchange for his cooperation against Walker. Wrenn allowed police to record phone calls with Walker before the New Yorker's arrest. Lee Walker, the detective, said that idea is ridiculous because Wrenn was ultimately convicted of being an accessory to the murder and went to prison. Minner has also faced criticism from the defense. The former officer kept a copy of the Simmons shooting report with him during Charles Walker's trial. But when asked on the stand to relay Wilson's statement, Minner never mentioned anything about the split statement or the Simmons shooting, Megerian said Friday. Minner left the police department in 1995 and became a pastor. Reached by phone at his Gibsonville home Friday evening, he couldn't explain why he didn't reference the Simmons shooting statement on the stand. He referred questions to Howard Neumann, the chief Guilford assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case. The prosecutor couldn't be reached for comment about Minner's comments but in earlier conversations declined to talk about a possible retrial. It remains unclear if the state will appeal the judge's decision to the state Supreme Court. If a retrial occurs, Megerian said that a 1997 charge against Minner regarding misconduct while he was on the force could affect the former officer's credibility. Minner was charged with willfully failing to discharge his duties as a police officer in connection with items taken during official searches. When asked about the charge, Minner said that was between him and God. "I've taken care of that," he said. "All that's been cleared." (source: News-Record) ************** Another case of evidence withheld points to the need for a moratorium on executions. Walker was hours away from execution on Dec. 2, 2004, when the state Supreme Court stopped the death penalty from being carried out. Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III began looking at the case in more detail, and last week found a reason to call for a new trial for Walker. In recent cases where new trials or releases were ordered, prosecutorial conduct was the issue. Evidence had been withheld. But this time, its police error. Greensboro police didnt release evidence that could have helped Walker. Two officers testified at a hearing that they dont know why the defense never received the files. The evidence missing from Walkers trial 11 years ago isnt strong enough to clear him outright. But the Constitution is concerned as much about process as with guilt, and requires that trials be fair. Walkers wasnt. A jury cannot arrive at a fair conviction without all available evidence being presented. In Walkers trial, no physical evidence linked him to the murder of Tito Davidson. In fact, there wasnt a body to prove Davidson died. No blood or DNA from Davidson was ever found in Walkers apartment, although co-defendants said the victim was shot and his throat slit. What wasnt presented in Walkers defense was information that could undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness and that Walkers lawyers also say could identify someone else as the possible killer. Once again, North Carolina has a case that shows how perilously close the state could come to wrongly executing an inmate. Even if Walker was guilty of the crime, his execution would have been wrong if it was the outcome of an unfair trial where evidence had been withheld. A committee in the state House was created last year to study "the accuracy and fairness" of the death penalty. Walker, his lawyers and Judge Craig have just done some of the research for the panel. (source: Fayetteville Observer) PENNSYLVANIA: WAITING FOR A PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM D.A.'S OFFICE I'm outraged, yet not surprised, that the Philadelphia district attorney's office did not offer a public apology to Alfredo Domenech and Ivan Serrano, the 2 men finally set free 2 months ago after serving 18 years in prison. According to the Daily News, the "evidence" against these 2 men was flimsy. Despite this, you forged ahead and sought 1st-degree murder convictions. Although this was not a death-penalty case, it is one more reason that capital punishment needs to be abolished. Too many prosecutors are needle-happy these days, and mistakes occur frequently in the criminal-justice system. Rob Boyden, Drexel Hill (source: Letter to the Editor, Philadelphia Daily News)
