Dec. 8 ARKANSAS: Longest-serving Ark. death row prisoner dies of natural causes Darrell Wayne Hill, whose 25 years on Arkansas' death row made him the state's longest serving prisoner awaiting execution, died Thursday of natural causes, a state Correction Department spokeswoman said. Hill, 65, was convicted of capital murder in the February 1980 slaying of Donald Lee Teague, an Arkansas Game and Fish Commission officer who interrupted a gas station robbery in Pencil Bluff in Montgomery County. Hill, whose son is on death row in Arizona, died just after noon at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in Pine Bluff. He had been under a stay of execution from the Arkansas Supreme Court since Oct. 2, 1995. Correction department spokeswoman Dina Tyler said Hill had heart problems, liver disease and diabetes. He previously had had a leg amputated and quadruple bypass surgery. Hill was admitted to the hospital Tuesday after complaining of chest pain and nausea. Tyler said the initial suspicion was that Hill had a heart-related episode but bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract surfaced as a more likely cause. "He had some major health issues," Tyler said. An autopsy will be performed to determine Hill's precise cause of death, Tyler said. Hill's son, Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan, is on death row in Arizona. Landrigan was given up for adoption at birth and has never met Hill, but the two have corresponded. Landrigan, who was sentenced to death for strangling a man to death, has an appeal pending. A federal appeals court in February set aside its orginial decision that Landrigan should die and announced it would rehear his appeal and consider claims that the judge who sentenced the Phoenix man did not understand Landrigan's mental state. (source: Associated Press) OKLAHOMA: Court rejects 3 death sentences -- Convicted murderers given life terms in appeals ruling. In a series of 4-1 decisions, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals changed the sentences of 3 men to life in prison without parole. In a 5-0 decision, it also sent a case back to McIntosh County to decide whether another convicted murderer is mentally retarded. In another case, the court denied an appeal by Victor Wayne Hooks, ruling 5-0 that he failed to prove mental retardation. The court also has 2 other similar cases it's considering, said Vicki Werneke, chief of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System's capital post conviction division. Among the cases was a man convicted of stabbing a 9-year-old girl to death during a robbery while her parents slept. Another man was convicted of locking a couple in a truck and setting the car on fire, burning them to death. It left death penalty opponents such as Rep. Opio Toure happy and state Attorney General Drew Edmondson promising to ask for help in the Legislature to overcome what he said is prejudice against prosecutors in rules created by the court. "We plan to seek legislative remedies so that the state's position can be appropriately presented and murderers who have lawfully been found guilty by a jury, found mentally competent by a jury and sentenced to death cannot use a court rule to escape punishment for their crimes," Edmondson said in a prepared statement. It means the Legislature again will take up the issue of executing the mentally retarded, just more than 2 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled executing the mentally retarded violates the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the U.S. Constitution. Just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court decision, then-Gov. Frank Keating vetoed a bill that would have made it illegal to execute the mentally retarded. Generally, ruling the accused mentally retarded requires an IQ of 70 or less that manifested before age 18. It also requires significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least 2 skill areas. Edmondson also will ask the Legislature to consider the rules the state Court of Criminal Appeals uses in such cases. "We believe the court's rules prejudice the state because they do not allow a response, only a simultaneous brief," Edmondson said in a statement. "Essentially, the court's rules do not allow the state to respond to the defendant's appeal. It is impossible to defend against arguments we have yet to see." The Legislature also could revisit rules on how the trial courts decide whether someone is mentally retarded. In 2004, lawmakers considered trial court rules when dealing with the possibly mentally retarded in legislation that was authored by Toure. He said an agreement on such rules is needed between prosecutors and defense attorneys. The legislation died in the House. Among the disagreements on trial court rules is whether one or two juries should decide the mental state of the accused, said Toure, a defense attorney. Also at issue are instructions to juries for what they can take into consideration when deciding the mental state. "As a practical matter, no legislation or scheme is going to work unless there's an agreement between prosecutors and defense attorneys," Toure said. Life sentences Maximo Salazar: Convicted and sentenced to die in 1988 for the stabbing death of Jennifer Prill, 9. A Comanche County jury found Salazar was not mentally retarded after a four-day trial and a two-day deliberation earlier this year. He was the first in Oklahoma to receive a new hearing after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that execution of the mentally retarded was unconstitutional. Robert Wayne Lambert: A Creek County jury sentenced Lambert to death in a 1996 retrial for abducting and burning to death two Tulsans. He first was convicted of the crimes in 1988. Lambert was convicted of abducting the couple outside a Tulsa bar, robbing them and then locking the pair in a trunk. The car was set on fire. Darrin Lynn Pickens: 2 juries gave Pickens death sentences in 1990 for killings during a string of convenience store robberies. Case returned to trial court Patrick Dwayne Murphy: Sentenced to death for killing a man in 1999 in McIntosh County. Appeal denied. Victor Wayne Hooks: Convicted of 1st-degree murder and 1st-degree manslaughter for fatally beating his common-law wife and her unborn baby. The state's highest criminal court ruled Wednesday that 3 convicted murderers are mentally retarded, overturning their death sentences and ordering them to serve life in prison. (source: The Oklahoman) *************** Court Of Appeals Overturns Robert Lambert's Death Sentence A convicted murderer is ruled "retarded" and won't face the death penalty. Robert Lambert was convicted in the grisly deaths of Michael Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders back in 1987. Lambert confessed on video tape that he and his partner in crime - Scott Hain - locked the two in the trunk of a car, and set it on fire. Now Lambert's death sentence has been overturned and the victims' families feel its a travesty of justice. News on 6 anchor Scott Thompson says the victims' families have already seen justice served for one of the killers. Both families have always pushed for the death penalty. Lambert's partner - Scott Hain - was executed in 2003 for the crime. Judges ruled Hain could still face the death penalty, even though he was a minor when he murdered Michael Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders. Robert Lambert was convicted in the same crime. Still, years of appeals and competency hearings stood between the victims' families and the closure they were looking for. A Creek County jury ruled that Lambert was not retarded just last year, but this latest decision overturns that ruling, Lambert's death sentence, and the victims' families' faith in the courts. Victims mother Delma Houghton: "54 of our peers have sat on that jury and always found him guilty of everything. And with the death penalty, believe me, the jurors had tears in their eyes, it's not easy, but they knew exactly what he was capable of." Lambert will now serve life without parole, barring another ruling from the courts. Friday would have been Michael Houghton's birthday. (source: KOTV News) CALIFORNIA: Tookie: From chaos to consciousness The name Stanley Tookie Williams is both famous and infamous. Infamous because of his multiple murder convictions in California, which led him to death row; famous because of his works while there and the growing movement to spare his life and perhaps achieve his freedom from California's notorious San Quentin prison. Those works include the writing of several award-winning anti-gang and anti-violence books, which have turned many young people away from the perils and pitfalls of gang life. The youth respond to Tookie because they know that he knows what he's talking about. Tookie is one of the founders of the Crips gang, which has spread all across the nation. As one of the founders of Cripdom, his words have a resonance that others, either in government or the church, simply can't match. His life example is also known to us through the acting of the Oscar-winning Jamie Foxx, who portrayed the muscular former gang banger in a tele-drama called "Redemption." Foxx, the man and celebrity, has joined the call to Californias governor, fellow actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to commute Tookie's death sentences to life. Just recently, Foxx was joined by his fellow actor Will Smith and rapper Snoop Dogg, who have echoed Foxx's call. Several months ago, the anti-death penalty publication, The New Abolitionist, published by the Chicago-based Campaign to End the Death Penalty, published a brief letter from Tookie in which he addressed the issues of both his innocence and his sincerity. He wrote: "My detractors in the media and elsewhere have questioned my redemption. Their doubt is driven largely by my open apology (http://www.tookie.com) to Black folks and others who might have been offended by the fact that I helped create the Crips youth gang in Los Angeles 34 years ago. My detractors argue that I could not be redeemed because I have not apologized to the family members of the victims that I was convicted of killing. "But please allow me to clarify: I will never apologize for capital crimes that I did not commit - not even to save my life. And I did not commit the crimes for which I was sentenced to be executed by the state of California. "Being a condemned prisoner, I am viewed among the least able to qualify as a promoter of redemption and of peace. But the most wretched among society can be redeemed, find peace and reach out to others to lift them up. "Redemption cannot be faked or intellectualized. It must be subjective, experienced and shared. In the past, redemption was an alien concept to me. But from 1988 to 1994, while I lived in solitary confinement, I embarked on a transitional path toward redemption. "I underwent years of education, soul-searching, edification, spiritual cultivation and fighting to transcend my inner demons. Subsequently, the redeeming process for me symbolized the end of a bad beginning - and a new start." Stanley Tookie Williams has been nominated several times for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, for his work in support of street peace and in anti-gang efforts. He has written nine anti-gang and anti-violence books, and created the Internet Project for Street Peace, which connects youth globally in support of that end. That said, Tookie has a date with death: Dec. 13! What makes Tookies case doubly disturbing is that the state played fast and loose with jury selection by kicking off 3 potential Black jurors, resulting in a virtually all-white jury to decide both his guilt and whether he should live or die - there were 10 Caucasians, 1 Filipino and 1 Latino. Is racial jury-rigging a "minor" thing? Just recently, in Philadelphia, a man who had been on death row for over a decade for multiple murders had his retrial. His original conviction was tossed because of a violation of the "Batson" rule, which forbids the removal of Black jurors. A racially mixed jury acquitted him of ALL charges. It can be said that Tookie didn't receive a fair trial - by any standard. How then can he face death? The death penalty has been losing steam for years, largely because of cases which were "won" by unfairness. With the support of the people, that may be ending, as the fight for the life of Tookie intensifies! (source: SF Bay View -- Copyright 2005 Mumia Abu-Jamal. Read Mumia's latest book, "We Want Freedom: A Life in the Black Panther Party," winner of the 2005 People's Choice Award, available from South End Press, www.southendpress.org or (800) 533-8478. Keep updated by reading Action Alerts at www.mumia.org and www.moveorg.net) PENNSYLVANIA: Defendant to testify in death-penalty case----Opening arguments expected today in Schlager trial As attorneys in the death-penalty case of Damien Michael Schlager hashed out last-minute pretrial issues yesterday afternoon, defense attorney Gerald Lord told the judge his client will take the stand in his own defense. York County Common Pleas Judge Stephen P. Linebaugh predicted jurors would hear opening statements this morning, perhaps as early as 9:30 a.m. By 11:30 a.m. yesterday, a jury of 12 and two alternates had been seated and sent home for the day. Schlager, 25, of 1051 Sterling Place in Lancaster Township, Lancaster County, is accused of driving his pregnant mistress to Funkhouser Quarry in Peach Bottom Township and killing her. Schlager -- who is married and has 2 young children -- is charged with first-degree murder in the death of 24-year-old Christina Colon of Lancaster and murder of an unborn child for Colon's fetus. Colon's badly decomposed body was found July 29, 2004, after Schlager allegedly confessed to his marijuana dealer that he'd taken her there and fatally shot her, according to charging documents. Colon was last seen alive July 21, 2004. Questions of evidence Yesterday afternoon, Lord and first deputy district attorney Lori Yost argued about the admissibility of evidence, including statements made by Colon to medical personnel about her pregnancy and statements she allegedly made about calling and meeting the father of her fetus the day she disappeared. That includes testimony from a woman who told investigators she called Colon at 5 p.m. July 21, 2004. Colon reportedly told her in a "trembling voice" that "now was not a good time," and that she was with her baby's father, the prosecution alleges. Lord also wants to introduce medical reports that allegedly show Colon told a heath-care worker she drank alcohol and smoked marijuana and cigarettes while pregnant. Linebaugh said those statements "in all likelihood" will be admissible. However, the judge said, he most likely will not allow Lord to introduce a statement Colon allegedly made that there were 2 possible fathers of her fetus. 'Critical witness': Lord asked Linebaugh to allow the jury to hear about April Gray, a Lancaster woman who told police she saw Colon with a man named Larry Harcum the day she disappeared. "We believe her to be a critical witness for the defense," Lord said. Harcum is the purported drug dealer who wore a wire for police and obtained a confession from Schlager, according to charging documents. However, Gray is a fugitive from justice and can't be located, Lord said, which is why he wants to introduce her statements to Lancaster Police. Yost said if the judge allows jurors to hear about what Gray said, they should also hear about the "extreme inadequacies of her statements." Linebaugh said he anticipates the statements will not be allowed into evidence because they are hearsay. However, he said, if prosecution witnesses testify in depth about Gray's statements, "I'm willing to revisit that issue." Lord maintains Lancaster Police told Harcum he was seen with Colon, giving him a motive "to do and say what he did." (source: The York Dispatch) USA: High court hears arguments on two death penalty cases----Decisions may affect Texas on the issue of 'cruel and unusual punishment' The U.S. Supreme Court, which has been closely divided on death penalty issues, debated Wednesday what evidence jurors should consider in deciding between life in prison and a death sentence - and what should happen if they conclude that either punishment would be just. Decisions in the cases from Oregon and Kansas, expected next year, could affect Texas if the court finds that a defendant's Eighth Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" is violated when a jury says evidence for and against the death penalty is equal and a state's law says the tie requires a death sentence. In Texas, once the state proves a defendant poses a "future danger," he is sentenced to death unless he is able to prove why he should be spared. "Texas' law is really different from Kansas' law," said David Dow, a death penalty expert at the University of Houston Law Center. "But like Kansas, Texas does create a presumption in favor of death once the jury has answered the future dangerousness question 'yes.' If the court says that's an Eighth Amendment violation, that could have very significant implications for Texas." Closely watched On the other hand, Dow and other analysts said, the court could decide the cases on other grounds and never reach the constitutional question. The cases will be closely watched as the 1st indication of where the court is moving on the issue of capital punishment as centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retires and John Roberts decides his 1st death cases as chief justice. O'Connor often has provided the decisive vote in capital cases and, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, has voiced concern that death penalty defendants are not getting adequate legal representation. O'Connor is expected to leave the bench early next year as soon as a successor can be confirmed. President Bush has nominated a conservative federal appeals judge, Samuel Alito, to replace her. In Kansas v. Marsh, the high court is considering whether the Kansas Supreme Court correctly struck down that state's death penalty law last year. The lower court said the law was unconstitutional, because it required jurors to sentence a defendant to death if they found that the factors weighing against a death sentence were equal to those favoring it. At issue in the other case, Oregon v. Guzek, is whether jurors can consider any lingering doubts they may have about the defendant's guilt once they have actually found him guilty and moved on to the sentencing phase of the trial. The Oregon Supreme Court said they can. Citing the Eighth Amendment, it ruled that in a new sentencing trial, Randy Lee Guzek, convicted in the 1987 killings of his former girlfriend's aunt and uncle, should be able to present alibi testimony to counter testimony from his 2 co-defendants, who identified Guzek as the mastermind of the crime. Rejecting winning argument But Oregon Solicitor General Mary Williams told the justices that allowing Guzek to offer testimony that he was somewhere else during the killings would force prosecutors to prove his guilt all over again. Guzek's attorney, Richard Wolf, struggled to convince the justices that they need not even consider the broader Eighth Amendment argument that helped his client win in the Oregon high court. Instead, he said, his client could win on state law jurisdictional grounds. Roberts appeared astounded by the argument. "You win on the Eighth Amendment, and when you leave the courthouse, you say, 'I don't want it anymore. It's moot,'" he said. O'Connor suggested that if the case was to be decided on Eighth Amendment grounds, the court would need to know more. (source: Houston Chronicle) ************** Death Penalty is Major Contributor to Anti-American Sentiment in Europe The uproar in Europe over the execution of double murderer Kenneth Lee Boyd in the United States last week came as no surprise to students of anti-American sentiment throughout the world. Boyd was the 1,000th prisoner executed in America since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. In a recent survey of European public perceptions of the United States, Consensus Research Group found that 53% of European publics hold less favorable impressions of the United States today than 5 years ago. While other survey sources have suggested that negative perceptions of President Bush, the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and U.S. support for Israel are the reasons for anti-American perceptions among European publics, Consensus data confirms that the observed erosion in America's standing among European publics extends beyond those headline issues. In a January 2005 survey among 1,000 persons across l9 European countries, a number of other public perceptions of the U.S. and Americans emerged as significantly damaging. The top 10 underlying reasons for anti-American sentiment among European today included: * Racial prejudice in the U.S. 74 * U.S. military effort in Iraq 70 * Gun ownership in the U.S. 70 * Re-election of George W. Bush 66 * Genetic modification of foods by U.S. companies 66 * U.S. government rejection of the Kyoto agreement on global warming 65 * Corporate corruption 65 * The death penalty 64 * Non-participation in International Court of Justice 59 * American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 57 (source: PR Newswire) KANSAS: Court grills Kansans over death penalty law Kansas' death penalty law went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, and both sides of the argument faced tough challenges from justices trying to decide whether the law is constitutional. "Other things being equal, this (Kansas law) is a presumption in favor of death," Justice David Souter said to Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. Kline argued on behalf of the state that it isn't. "I have no idea what that means," Judge Antonin Scalia replied when Lawrence public defender Rebecca Woodman tried to explain the role that mercy plays as a factor for a Kansas jury to weigh when it decides on a sentence of life in prison over death. And so went the hour of argument before the nation's highest -- and perhaps toughest -- court. The court's decision could affect the sentences of Kansas' 8 death row inmates and a dozen current cases. Kline maintains it could also touch death penalty laws in perhaps a dozen other states. A decision won't be known for months. Kansas' death penalty law was overturned by the Kansas Supreme Court in December 2004. The state court said the law unfairly tips the scales in favor of the death penalty. The law says, in effect, that if factors favoring the death penalty, such as the heinous nature of the crime, are equal to factors weighing against the death penalty, juries must sentence a defendant to death. The state disagrees with the Kansas Supreme Court's opinion. Kline argued Wednesday that Kansas' law gives jurors enough leeway to decide for or against the death penalty. "The Kansas death penalty statute is one of the most narrow in the nation" and does not unfairly encourage death sentences, he said. Woodman responded that Kansas' law encourages jurors to impose the death penalty when the weight of aggravating or mitigating factors behind a capital crime is undecided. Woodman successfully made that point in the 2004 Kansas Supreme Court case in which she represented Michael Lee Marsh II, a Wichita man convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1998. That decision prompted Kline's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Marsh case itself is awaiting a new trial for reasons unrelated to the Supreme Court case. Woodman and Kline also disagreed over whether the Marsh case should even have gone before the Supreme Court. Kline argued for the case's relevance because of its connections to the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Woodman said the Marsh decision was based on state law and thus should be left to the state. Both lawyers said afterward that they were pleased with their time before the court, which tends to question lawyers harshly. Both were arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court for the 1st time. Kline readily cited previous cases and effortlessly quoted other documents throughout his half-hour before the court, prompting Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston, who came to Washington to support Kline, to call his performance "extraordinary." Woodman called the experience "nerve-racking." "I feel good about the argument," she said. "We'll just hope for the best. (source: Wichita Eagle)
