Dec. 8
KANSAS:
State rejects death row inmate's claim for $499
Death row inmate Jonathan Carr received little sympathy today when his
claim for $499 against the state went before a legislative committee.
The panel rejected his claim, and the $52 that the Department of
Corrections recommended be paid due to a mistake by one of its officers.
Carr filed the claim Aug. 16 for an incident that occurred Oct. 1, 2004.
He says -- and the department concedes --that an officer escorting inmates
to and from showers put another inmate into Carr's cell.
That inmate, Carr claims, trashed his cell, destroying clothes, food,
personal hygiene products, two books of stamps, a hot pot and his copies
of three law books: Black's Law Dictionary ($59.95), Kansas Statutes,
Annotated ($40) and Kansas Court Rules and Procedures ($37.60).
The big-ticket item was eye glasses. Carr submitted a $266 bill for an eye
exam, frames, lenses and scratch-resistant coating.
Corrections offered to provide $52 state-issued glasses.
Not one dime, said the Special Committee on Claims Against the State,
which rejected Carr's claim on a voice vote.
"The heinousness of his crimes, the lack of remorse at his sentencing -- I
don't think he could ever repay his debt to society," said Rep. Dale
Swenson, R-Wichita.
Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, chairman of the committee, said it was
"certainly a difficult situation because of the nature of the crime."
Carr and his brother, Reginald, were convicted of killing Jason Befort,
Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander and Heather Muller in a snowy northeast Wichita
soccer field on Dec. 15, 2000.
A Sedgwick County jury sentenced both Carrs to death on Nov. 14, 2002.
Their appeal is pending.
Wednesday, Attorney General Phill Kline will argue before the U.S. Supreme
Court that the state's death penalty law should be upheld. The Kansas
Supreme Court overturned it a year ago.
(source: Wichita Eagle)
PENNSYLVANIA:
A Tainted Trial?----A Stunning Win for Mumia Abu-Jamal
In a startling new development, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia has agreed to hear arguments on 3 claims by Pennsylvania
death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal that his 1982 trial and state appeal
were tainted by constitutional violations.
Any one of those three claims, if upheld by the three-judge panel, could
lead to a new trial for one of America's most famous and long-standing
death row prisoners, a Philadelphia-based journalist and former Black
Panther activist who was convicted of the 1981 shooting murder of a white
Philadelphia police officer.
The decision came as a surprise because the appellate court was only
required to consider an appeal from the defense on a single guilt-phase
issue-the claim that the prosecution had illegally removed qualified
jurors from the case on the basis of race. That claim, while rejected in
2001 by Federal District Court Judge William Yohn, had been certified by
the judge for appeal to the Third Circuit. Appellate courts do not have to
even accept arguments from defense attorneys on claims that have not been
certified for appeal by a lower court, so the fact that the judges agreed
to accept the other 2 claims is a major victory for the defense.
The 2 additional claims are that:
1. The prosecutor, Joe McGill, improperly sought to weaken any sense of
Responsibility and accountability among jurors considering the case, and
undermined the constitutional requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt,"
when he told them in his final summation that they need not worry overmuch
about voting for conviction since Abu-Jamal would have "appeal after
appeal," and
2. The judge in the case, the late Albert Sabo, who also sat at the 1995
Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing, where determinations of fact, and
crucial new evidence, were presented (or where the defense attempted,
unsuccessfully to present it), was biased against the defense.
Abu-Jamal's claim of racial bias in jury selection is well documented. In
his habeas appeal to the Federal District Court, his then attorneys,
Leonard Weinglass and Daniel Williams, submitted 4 academic studies of
jury selection practices by both the Philadelphia district attorney's
office and of assistant DA McGill, himself. Both demonstrated clearly that
the DA's office under then DA Ed Rendell, and McGill in the murder trials
he prosecuted, rejected roughly 3 out of 4 potential black jurors who had
already agreed that they could vote for capital punishment. This was a
rate of peremptory rejection of qualified jurors 3 times higher than for
potential white jurors, and is prima facie evidence of illegal racial
bias. But Judge Yohn, in a serious judicial error of both fact and
judgment, rejected all that evidence. As I exposed in my book on the case
("Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia
Abu-Jamal," Common Courage Press, 2003), Yohn had confused the studies,
and incorrectly assumed that they did not cover the time period of Jamal's
trial, when in fact the studies even included Jamal's trial in their data
sets. If the appellate court looks at that same evidence, the judges would
be hard-pressed to find it fair in a city 44 % black that the jury
selection process in Abu-Jamal's trial resulted in his having just 2 black
jurors ruling on his guilt and sentence.
Equally compelling is the claim that McGill's summation was
unconstitutional. As I wrote in "Killing Time":
Right from the outset, McGill tried to convince the jury that, far from
following the dictum "innocent until proven guilty," and making sure that
they didn't convict an innocent man, they should be careful not to free a
suspect who might well be guilty. Such an argument risked providing
grounds for a successful overturning of the verdict. Appellate courts,
including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a case, ironically,
involving McGill saying the same words), had already held that telling a
jury in a summation that their verdict would not be final was grounds for
a mistrial. In defiance of that ruling, McGill probably calculated that
the politics of this case-a black radical convicted of killing a white
police officer-would make such a reversal unlikely. The calculation would
prove to be correct, as we will see later. He went ahead and tried the
tactic again, telling them, "If your decision of course were to acquit, to
allow the Defendant to walk out, that is fine. There is nothing I can do
and there is nothing that the judge or anyone could do that would affect
that in any way. If you find the Defendant guilty of course, there would
be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case,
or whatever, so that may not be final."
It could still be that my political analysis back then will prove correct,
and that after hearing the defense's argument on the claim, the Third
Circuit judges will reject it, but they if they did, they'd be going
against earlier precedents where such statements have been made by
prosecutors in the same circuit.
Finally on the judicial bias claim, there are so many examples of Sabo's
bias, particularly at the PCRA hearing, where he was the one making the
rulings regarding the validity of evidence, and the admission of new
evidence, that the appellate judges' decision in favor of the defense
claim of bias should be clear. Again, though, there is bound to be
enormous political pressure brought on the court not to support the claim.
The Third Circuit has put Abu-Jamal's appeal on a "fast track," setting
January 17 as the date for the defense to file its brief on the three
claims. At that point, according to a lawyer for the Third Circuit court,
the DA would have 30 days to respond and to file its own brief on the
sentencing claim, after which the defense would have another 30 days to
respond. The DA would have a final 14 days to file a final brief
responding to the defense's last arguments to the court. At that point,
the Appeals Court judges (who do not get identified publicly until 10 days
before a hearing on the case, or a decision), would decide whether to hold
a public hearing on the case, or simply decide based upon the submitted
briefs.
There are a number of possible outcomes in the Third Circuit. The
worst-case scenario for Abu-Jamal would be for the appellate court to
reverse Judge Yohn's ruling on the death sentence, and to reject all the
guilt-phase claims, which would put him back on track for execution.
On the guilt-phase claims, there are a number of things that could happen.
If the jury selection race bias claim, called a Batson claim, is upheld,
the court could order a new trial or could, as is more likely given Yohn's
errors, send the case back to Judge Yohn for reconsideration based upon
the evidence he had wrongly dismissed as irrelevant. Yohn could then order
a new trial if he found evidence of race-based selection of jurors.
The claim of prosecutorial error in the summation to the jury could also
lead to an order for a new trial, though again another option would be to
send the matter back to Yohn's court for a rehearing.
Finally, the judicial bias claim, because it involved the PCRA hearing in
1995, not the 1982 trial itself, might not lead to a new trial but rather
to a new or reopened state court PCRA hearing. There the defense would
likely have the opportunity to bring back key trial witnesses as well as
call new witnesses. That, in turn, would give the defense new avenues of
appeal, in both state and federal courts, and possibly another chance for
a new trial.
A clearly elated Robert Bryan, who took over Abu-Jamal's case as lead
attorney over a year ago after several years of chaos and divisiveness in
his defense following his firing of Weinglass and Williams, and his hiring
of two death-penalty novices, Marlene Kamish and Elliott Grossman, said of
Tuesday's Third Circuit decision to hear arguments on three claims, "Today
we achieved a great victory in the campaign to win a new trial and the
eventual freedom of Mumia."
Bryan said all three claims "are of enormous constitutional significance
and go to the very essence of Mumia's right to a fair trial, due process
of law, and equal protection of the law under the Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution."
Asked for comment on the Third Circuit's decision to her three defense
claims, a DA's office spokeswoman said, "We haven't heard about their
decision yet."
(source: CounterPunch - Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an
Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of
CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by
Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by
Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net)
OHIO:
Appeals court removes death penalty in Ohio trooper slaying
A federal appellate court today threw out the death sentence of a man who
killed a State Highway Patrol trooper in 1996, but upheld his aggravated
murder conviction.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sentence was improper
because of a jurors bias in favor of the death penalty against Maxwell
White in the Jan. 19, 1996, slaying of trooper James Gross after a traffic
stop on Interstate 71.
The court gave the state 180 days to hold a new penalty phase before
Whites death sentence is set aside.
Attorney General James Petro said he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to
overrule the decision, seek a full-court review in the 6th Circuit or ask
the Ashland County prosecutor to hold a new sentencing hearing.
(source: Associated Press)
MARYLAND:
Death penalty stirs debate----7 await execution, but issues remain
Several of Maryland's inmates sentenced to death are late in the legal
process of trying to stave off execution and one could face a death
warrant soon, although defense attorneys say significant issues still need
resolution before another inmate is put to death.
After Monday's execution of Wesley Eugene Baker, 7 men await execution,
including 3 who committed their crimes more than 20 years ago. Two
inmates, Heath Burch and Vernon L. Evans Jr., had execution dates set,
although those orders were postponed to give them time to file extra
appeals.
Baker, 47, was put to death by lethal injection Monday at the Metropolitan
Transition Center in Baltimore. He became the 5th person to be executed in
Maryland since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s.
3 other men have been on Maryland's unofficial death row longer than
Baker, who was sentenced in 1992. Anthony Grandison, Evans and John
Booth-el were all sentenced to death in 1984. All 3 had their death
sentences overturned but later reinstated.
Earlier this year, a judge signed an execution warrant for Evans setting
the week of April 18 for him to be put to death. Evans was convicted along
with Grandison of the 1983 shooting death of 2 people at a Pikesville
motel. That warrant was stayed and eventually expired after the Court of
Appeals gave Evans more time to argue an appeal based on a University of
Maryland study of race and geography in the state's use of capital
punishment.
But last month, the Court of Appeals denied that petition, as it had a
month earlier with a similar Baker appeal. Evans' attorneys plan to ask
the court to reconsider that decision and have a motion to correct an
illegal sentence pending in Baltimore County Circuit Court.
S. Ann Brobst, an assistant state's attorney in Baltimore County, said
prosecutors would wait to see the outcome of those appeals. If those are
not decided in Evans' favor, there would "be no legal impediment" to
prosecutors seeking another death warrant, she said. Brobst would not
comment on whether or when they would ask for a new warrant.
Lawrence Borchardt, who was sentenced to death in 2000 for killing an
elderly Anne Arundel County couple, was granted a new sentencing hearing
this year, and arguments on an appeal of that ruling are scheduled for
February.
2 other inmates, Jody Miles and Jamaal K. Abeokuto, are still in the
relatively early stages of their appeals process.
(source: Baltimore Sun)
*******************
A fatal injustice
On Saturday, 120 people rallied outside the Supermax prison facility in
downtown Baltimore to ask Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich to spare the life
of death row inmate Wesley Eugene Baker. They chanted in the cold beneath
the shadow of the expressway, using a bullhorn to trumpet arguments
against capital punishment.
Baker was put to death Monday night for murdering Jane Tyson in front of
her young grandchildren in a mall parking lot.
His execution came the week after a North Carolina man was the 1,000th
person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed 28
years ago, heating up debate in Maryland and around the nation.
The arguments against capital punishment are compelling.
"The death penalty is racist," said Rayyor Ghuma, a freshman government
and politics major who went to Baltimore to urge Ehrlich to commute
Baker's sentence to life without parole.
But for those who support the death penalty, it isn't about the arguments.
It's about justice.
Supporters of capital punishment realize it doesn't deter future criminals
from committing crimes; criminals don't think about the death penalty when
they rob students in College Park. Some supporters of capital punishment
have admitted death sentences are handed down arbitrarily and it costs
more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life.
They acknowledge there is a disturbing racial disparity on death row.
Black men who kill whites are the most likely to be sentenced to death in
Maryland, according to a study by university criminology professor Raymond
Paternoster.
And death penalty proponents know there is no guarantee the state wont
execute a wrongly convicted person. Kirk Bloodsworth was exonerated from
Maryland's death row in 1993 after spending 8 years in prison for a crime
he didn't commit.
But all the statistics in the world aren't enough to change the minds of
those who believe that justice must be served. "Killing someone is the
ultimate crime, so it deserves the ultimate punishment," said senior
government and politics major Josh Berman, who worked on a capital case as
a Justice Department intern. When someone commits murder, "the only just
thing is to take their life," Berman said.
The two sides of the debate are talking past one another: one focusing on
the flaws of the death penalty and the other on justice. But capital
punishment itself is unjust. When Baker's mother was impregnated with him
after being raped at the age of 12, the state wasn't there. When 2
neighborhood girls sexually abused him, the state wasn't there. When his
moms boyfriend beat him up, the state wasn't there. When Baker was living
on the streets before age 10 and when he turned to drugs, the state wasnt
there.
But as soon as these circumstances culminated in Baker committing murder,
the state was there to execute him. That's not justice.
The death penalty "is just wrong," said Bonnita Sparks, an activist from
Beltsville whose husband was murdered 11 years ago during a botched
robbery in New York. She feels justice would not be served if her
husband's killer were executed. "It should be up to no human to decide who
lives or dies," Sparks said while discussing her idea of justice. "Killing
is killing, and killing is wrong."
Lt. Gov. and Republican senatorial candidate Michael Steele is publicly
opposed to the death penalty. He promised to work on the issue with
Ehrlich, who lifted his predecessors moratorium on capital punishment when
he took office in early 2003. Messages left with Steele's office were not
returned. The Maryland General Assembly, the state's legislature, reneged
on its plans to appoint a committee to study the racial disparity on death
row highlighted by university professor Paternoster's study.
Wesley Baker was executed, but 6 more men wait on Maryland's death row.
Our political leaders should do more than just make promises and end
executions in the state.
(source: Diamondback Online - Alex Csicsek is a senior government and
politics and history major; University of Maryland)
******************
Repeal the death penalty
The facts are there: Racial bias mires death penalty sentencing in
Maryland.
Black people who kill whites are 2.5 times more likely to be sentenced to
death than whites who kill whites and 3.5 times more likely than blacks
who kill blacks. More broadly, white victim cases are twice as likely to
draw the death penalty.
These discrepancies were revealed almost three years ago when the
University of Maryland - College Park released its state-commissioned
study of racial and geographic disparities in death sentencing in
Maryland. The study also found the state's attorney of Baltimore County,
where about 7 percent of state homicides happen, is 13 times more likely
to seek a death sentence than its counterpart in Baltimore City, where
most Maryland homicides happen.
Former Gov. Parris Glendening had imposed a moratorium on executions. Gov.
Robert Ehrlich lifted that moratorium as he entered office in 2003, saying
he simply did not believe there was a problem with race and the death
penalty.
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who personally opposes the death penalty, pledged
to conduct a review but has not done so.
Yet, Maryland conducted another execution Monday evening, that of Wesley
Baker. Baker's case typifies what is wrong with the death penalty in our
state: He was a black man convicted of killing a white victim in Baltimore
County. The courts refused Baker's appeals, which raised the UMD study.
One need only look at Maryland's death row to see the problem. 7 out of 8
death row prisoners were sentenced for the murder of a white person, even
though every year black people are the victims in about 80 % of Maryland's
homicides. There's something wrong.
4 other men have been executed since Maryland reinstituted the death
penalty, all for the murders of white victims. There's something wrong.
No state has a larger percentage of blacks on death row. 6 out of
Maryland's 7 death row prisoners are black. There is something wrong.
Recent polling indicates a majority of Marylanders think life in prison
without parole is an acceptable substitute for a sentence of death.
Perhaps they see how the death penalty falls unevenly on the backs of
blacks and the poor and fails to serve its intended public safety purpose.
Capital punishment in Maryland accomplishes only one thing: the
perpetuation of a system driven by racial iniquity.
No Marylander wants the death penalty to be unfairly applied. We all want
our justice system to function fairly and even-handedly. The death penalty
is, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, a penalty different from all
others. If it cannot be applied fairly, as certainly seems the case in
Maryland, it should not be applied at all.
Hence, I sponsored legislation to repeal the death penalty during the 2005
legislative session. I will introduce such legislation again next year and
until we are rid of the death penalty in our state. I believe that the
imposition of the death penalty discourages respect for life. As a former
federal law enforcement officer, I have never been "soft on crime." Nor do
I care more for the accused than the victim. And I will continue to
support initiatives which I believe help keep law enforcement out of
harm's way. In ridding ourselves of the death penalty, I am convinced we
will gain a subconscious increase in the respect for life among our youth
and our citizens, thereby reducing homicides.
At a time when the death penalty seems to be falling out of favor, I
believe it is incumbent upon me as an elected official to push for it's
reconsideration as punishment.
Ehrlich and Steele should take seriously how the death penalty falls most
heavily on blacks. In the 21st century, we should be long beyond a system
where race plays so heavily.
(source: Washington Examiner -- Del. Darryl A. Kelley, D-Prince George's,
represents Maryland's 26th legislative district)
UTAH:
Supreme Court hears oral arguments in death row appeal
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the appeal of a
death-row inmate who has chosen to be executed by firing squad.
Ralph LeRoy Menzies was sentenced to death for the 1986 kidnapping and
murder of 26-year-old Maurine Hunsaker.
Menzies maintains that he's innocent and believes a court-appointed lawyer
botched his earlier appeal.
That attorney, Ed Brass, testified in court last year that he did not
investigate Menzies's case or respond to several motions from prosecutors,
including one that asked a judge to reject Menzies's appeal.
Menzies's new attorney, Elizabeth Hunt, argued Tuesday that a ruling by
3rd District Judge Pat Brian refusing to allow Menzies to reopen his
appeal should be thrown out.
Brian was upholding a January 2002 ruling rejecting Menzies's challenge to
his conviction. Brian recognized Menzies's former attorney did a poor job,
but said Menzies should have told court officials he wanted a new lawyer,
as he had done with former attorneys.
But Hunt said because Brass didn't adequately research Menzies's case,
Menzies was unable to provide new material for his appeal. Hunt also
accused Brian of letting his emotions get the best of him in the interest
of appeasing family members, who were tired of Menzies's case dragging on
in court for nearly 2 decades.
Brian's ruling was issued one day after the anniversary of Hunsaker's
death.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Brunker argued that Menzies never told
court officials that he wanted a new attorney and there's no reason to
reopen the case. Brunker told judges that Menzies said he preferred Brass
to other attorneys, and that Menzies complained to everyone about Brass
except for the one organization, the court, that could help him.
He said the victim's family has a right to a speedy resolution.
"Society has an interest in finality and not dragging this case out any
longer," Brunker said. The court did not set a date for a decision.
Hunsaker was a mother of three who was kidnapped from the Kearns gas
station where she worked. Her body was later found near the Storm Mountain
picnic area of Big Cottonwood Canyon. She had been strangled and her
throat was slashed.
Menzies is 1 of 4 death row inmates who have chosen to die by firing
squad. Last year, former Gov. Olene Walker signed into law a bill that
eliminates the firing squad option in Utah but allows those convicts who
had already selected that option to proceed with it.
Taberon Dave Honie, Troy Michael Kell and Ronald Watson Lafferty are the
other three inmates who have chosen to be executed by firing squad.
(source: Daily Herald)
