Dec. 9 WASHINGTON: Federal court throws out killer's death sentence----Potential juror unfairly excluded, judges say A federal appeals court overturned the death sentence Thursday of a man who had been expected to be the next person executed in Washington. The 3-judge panel concluded that the King County judge in the case of Cal Coburn Brown had unconstitutionally excluded a potential juror who had expressed some reservations about the death penalty. In 1991, Brown carjacked 21-year-old Holly Washa and drove her to a hotel near Sea-Tac Airport. He held her hostage and raped and tortured her there for 2 days. He left her to bleed to death in a parking lot. Brown, 47, turned himself in after he raped and tried to kill another woman in Palm Springs, Calif. He admitted to both crimes. In 1993, a King County jury convicted him and sentenced him to die. But 3 judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that at least 1 of the bases for Brown's appeal, regarding the selection of the jury in his case, was valid. Brown's defense lawyers argued that prosecutors had erroneously objected to 3 potential jurors being removed during jury selection because they were against the death penalty. In 2 of the cases, the appeals judges said, the jurors should have been excluded. But in the case of a man identified as "Juror Z," the judges found that although he agreed that such mitigating factors as childhood trauma or mental illness could be taken into account when deciding a death case, he had "expressed no antipathy toward the death penalty" and had been removed from the panel unfairly. King County Superior Court Judge Ricardo Martinez presided at his trial. He is now a U.S. District Court judge in Seattle. Martinez imposed the jury's death sentence in what he called at the time "one of the most horrible, most brutal crimes" he had seen in his years as a prosecutor and judge. On Thursday, state Assistant Attorney General John Samson expressed disappointment that the death sentence may not stand. Samson, who argued the case on appeal, said the appeals judges had applied incorrect legal standards when reviewing the claim. Samson said the state likely will appeal the ruling to the full, nine-judge appeals court, and to the Supreme Court if necessary. If the state loses all its appeals, another King County jury would be chosen to sentence Brown a second time. The appeals judges were "just reaffirming that the state can't use the jury selection process to stack the jury in favor of death," said Brown's attorney, Suzanne Lee Elliott of Seattle. She added that Juror Z seemed exactly like the type of fair-minded person citizens should want on a death penalty jury. The appeals panel did not address one of Brown's other appeals claims: that his trial lawyers had not argued strenuously enough that he was mentally ill and off his medication at the time of Washa's murder. (source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer) CALIFORNIA: Gov. Quiet on Williams' Fate--Prosecutors and lawyers for the convicted killer make their arguments as his execution date nears. The fate of Stanley Tookie Williams rested in the hands of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday after lawyers for the condemned man made a final plea for his life and prosecutors said his crimes merit society's harshest punishment. After hearing attorneys' arguments during a private, 75-minute meeting, Schwarzenegger made no comment and aides could not say how soon he would decide whether to grant Williams clemency. "He will deliberate as long as it takes to make a conscientious, fair and just decision," press secretary Margita Thompson said. She said Schwarzenegger would release a written statement as early as today or as late as Monday. Unless the governor acts or a court intervenes, the four-time convicted murderer and co-founder of the Crips street gang will die by lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, becoming the 12th man executed in California since 1978. None of the lawyers would disclose details of their presentations during the morning session, which took place in the governor's Ronald Reagan Cabinet Room, nor would they characterize Schwarzenegger's reaction. The governor, seated at the long wooden table that dominates the nondescript conference room, was accompanied by legal affairs secretary Andrea Hoch, advisor Peter Siggins and two other members of his legal team. He did not ask questions, but received a letter from Williams, the contents of which were not disclosed, and viewed some material on a large screen. Williams' attorneys had hoped to present a videotaped plea from the death row inmate, but San Quentin Warden Steven Ornoski denied the request. Tape-recording of prisoners has been restricted since a gun smuggled inside a recording device figured in a bloody uprising at the prison in 1971 that left inmate George Jackson and 5 others, including 3 guards, dead. Asked to assess the chances of clemency, Peter Fleming Jr., the lead lawyer arguing for Williams at the meeting, told reporters, "I'm not an oddsmaker." Fleming, who earlier in the week called the governor "a man of courage and independence," said he is "frightened to death" that his client will be executed rather than be permitted to live out his life behind bars. Los Angeles County prosecutors, meanwhile, said Schwarzenegger was gracious during the hearing. In remarks to the media, Deputy Dist. Atty. John Monaghan said Williams deserved to die for the senseless and brutal shotgun murders of four people during two robberies in Los Angeles in 1979. Monaghan also said that the considerable public support for Williams should "absolutely not" sway Schwarzenegger. "The evidence in this case is truly overwhelming," Monaghan said, and Williams "should pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes." Williams was convicted of killing Albert Owens during the robbery of a 7-Eleven on Whittier Boulevard, and motel owners Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Chen Yang and their daughter, Yu-Chin Yang Lin, who were murdered at the Brookhaven Motel on South Vermont Avenue 12 days later. He has said he is not guilty of the murders, for which he has been imprisoned 24 years. On Thursday, Fleming said that when he met Williams, he told the inmate, "If you did this, you should confess to it because it will help." According to Fleming, Williams responded: "If my innocence will cost me my life, so be it." Williams has confessed to many robberies and assaults, specifically in his memoir, "Blue Rage, Black Redemption." Williams said he recruited members to the Crips, and that the gang terrorized South-Central in the 1970s. In interviews, he has said that his biggest regret in life was his role in starting the Crips. "Like locusts we swarmed and stripped people of their valuables and then melted quickly away," he wrote. In pleading for clemency, Williams argues that he has transformed himself from a violent thug into a force for social good, one who can dissuade young people from pursuing the destructive life he once led. He has written children's books and taken other steps to warn youths about the perils of the gangster life. "You don't fake that for 13 years," Fleming said of Williams' efforts, which began after years in solitary following an initial period of bad behavior behind bars. "A football player responds best to a coach who has played football. Stanley Williams has been where these at-risk children are." Prosecutors say that because he has refused to take responsibility for the murders, Williams should not be judged a redeemed man deserving of mercy. Law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, have strongly opposed clemency. They call Williams a coldblooded killer and a founding father of one of the nation's most vicious gangs. While the lawyers made their arguments inside the Capitol, about 100 supporters at a rally outside urged the governor to show mercy. The crowd gathered beneath the towering Capitol Christmas tree included Bianca Jagger, the former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger and one of the many celebrities who have rallied to save Williams' life. Chanting "Love life! Save Stan's life!" the protesters waved signs and urged an end to capital punishment. An enormous throng of reporters, including some from outlets as far away as Italy and Japan, were on hand to record the event, illustrating the widespread interest in the case. One large banner reflected hopes that the governor's Austrian roots might make him inclined to spare Williams and read: "Arnold Would You Execute an Austrian?" There is no capital punishment in Austria, and the governor has been harshly criticized there for allowing an earlier execution. Elsewhere on Thursday, surviving relatives of one of Williams' victims spoke out on the case. Lora Owens, Albert Owens' stepmother, said that the campaign to save Williams is "all about manipulation" and "Hollywood hype" and expressed confidence that Schwarzenegger would not grant clemency. Owens' ex-wife, Linda Owens, released a more ambiguous statement, saying she was inviting Williams "to join me in sending a message to all communities that we should all unite in peace." "This position of peace would honor my husband's memory and Mr. Williams' work," concluded the statement, which did not call outright for clemency and was released by Williams' lawyers. State and federal courts have repeatedly rejected Williams' legal claims, but the maneuvering may not be over yet. His attorneys are expected to file a motion with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps today, seeking permission to file a new habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. At San Quentin on Thursday, officials began altering Williams' conditions in preparation for the possible execution, exchanging his clothes for sweats and shackling him and bolting him to a chair during his visits. Guards also removed most personal possessions from his cell, and will allow him only one item at a time - whether it's a toothbrush, a book or anything else - until the execution, corrections officials said. "You plan on killing somebody, and then you go out of your way to make their last days the most miserable, the most humiliating ever," said Barbara Becnel, a close friend who visited Williams. "They stripped everything from his cell." San Quentin spokesman Vernell Crittendon said the changes were standard prison protocol, designed to prevent Williams from concealing items that might pose a danger to himself or others as his scheduled death draws near. "Once we enter a five-day window [before the execution], we take steps to limit his ability to be assaultive," Crittendon said. If Schwarzenegger grants clemency, he would be the 1st California governor to give a condemned man a reprieve since 1967. That year, Reagan - whom Schwarzenegger calls his political hero - spared the life of Calvin Thomas, citing evidence that showed the man suffered from brain damage. Schwarzenegger has said he dreads the decision in the Williams case. In 2 previous instances, the governor found no compelling reason to grant clemency to convicted murderers. One of them, triple murderer Donald Beardslee, was executed in January. The other, Kevin Cooper, who killed 4 people in Chino Hills, was at least temporarily spared when an appellate court ordered a lower court to consider new DNA tests. Schwarzenegger's press secretary said his deliberations on Williams began well before Thursday's hearing. "It's not something you turn on and off," she said, noting that the governor had received written material from lawyers in the case weeks ago. The lawyers fighting to save Stanley Tookie Williams' life: Peter Fleming Jr., 76, is a partner at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, a New York firm that began working pro bono on the clemency petition after being approached by the American Bar Assn. A graduate of Yale Law School and a former federal prosecutor, Fleming specializes in white-collar criminal defense work. He successfully represented boxing promoter Don King on fraud charges. He also served as a temporary special independent counsel for Senate leaders investigating leaks of confidential information in the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Jonathan Harris, 43, a partner at Curtis, is a Stanford Law School graduate. He specializes in complex litigation. Lothlorien S. Redmond, 31, is an associate at Curtis. She is a graduate of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, where she worked at the death penalty clinic. She specializes in litigation. Julie V. Withers, 30, an associate at Curtis, graduated from Fordham University Law School. She specializes in litigation. Jan L. Handzlik, 60, is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Howrey Simon, Arnold & White, which was asked by Curtis to be California clemency counsel in the case. A UCLA Law School graduate and former federal prosecutor, Handzlik specializes in white-collar criminal defense. Sandra Smith Thayer, 33, an associate at Howrey Simon, graduated from Tulane Law School and specializes in complex litigation. Verna J. Wefald, 44, is a former state and federal public defender who specializes in death penalty appeals and other complex criminal cases. She is the only member of the defense team who has extensive experience in capital cases. In the Williams case, she has advised on the clemency petition while concentrating on final court appeals. Wefald, a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, has her own law firm in Pasadena. -- The lawyers arguing that Williams should be executed: Patrick Richard Dixon, 56, has headed the Los Angeles County district attorney office's major crimes division since April 2003 and has prosecuted dozens of criminal cases. A graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law, he joined the district attorney's office in 1976. John Monaghan, 53, assistant head deputy district attorney, was a deputy district attorney in San Bernardino County before joining the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. He made headlines in 2003 when he fatally shot a suspected traffic violator while serving as a reserve deputy sheriff in San Bernardino County. He said he opened fire when Jose Luis Perea, 47, began fleeing on foot and then turned and reached into his pants. The San Bernardino County district attorney's office declined to prosecute Monaghan, saying there was insufficient evidence. Monaghan is a graduate of the San Fernando Valley College of Law. David Walgren, 37, a graduate of the UC Davis School of Law, is a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who has handled numerous major crimes and gun cases. Lisa J. Brault, 44, is a deputy attorney general who specializes in capital appeals and is defending Williams' death sentence in state and federal court. She is a graduate of Southwestern University Law School. James William Bilderback, 42, is a deputy attorney general who specializes in capital appeals and is defending Williams' death sentence in state and federal court. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco Law School. (source: Los Angeles Times) **************** Davis Says Clemency Hearings Toughest Part of Job----Written for the web by C. Johnson, Internet News Producer Just hours before Gov. Arnold Schwarzennegger is set to preside over a clemency hearing for convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams, a former California governor said the hearings are the most difficult part of the job. Ex-Governor Gray Davis was in the State Capitol Wednesday at a ceremony for the unveiling of his official portrait. He was asked about what his successor will face when Williams' attorneys argue against his scheduled execution. Davis said Schwarzenegger must listen to and weigh the facts and evidence of the case. He must determine whether or not he believes the 51-year-old Williams committed four murders in 1979 for which he was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. Williams has never admitted to the killings. During his incarceration, the co-founder of the Crips street gang recanted gang life and wrote several children's books urging young people to stay away from gangs. His case for clemency has been taken up by anti-death penalty activists as well as a number of celebrities, including Snoop Dogg and Biana Jagger. Yesterday, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People left an estimated 56,000 petition signitures from citizens at the governor's office urging Schwarzenegger to stop the execution. Davis said one of the things the governor must keep in mind is the impact of clemency on the families of victims. "I am keenly aware of the pain and suffering that they go to for the rest of their lives," he told News10. When Davis was governor he presided over several clemency hearings, denying the petitions in each case. Today he said it was not his place to either advise Schwarzenegger or second-guess his decision. Schwarzenegger has the authority to deny the clemency petition or commute Williams' sentence to life in prison without parole. Last week the California Supreme Court refused to to intervene in Williams' case. An appeal to a federal appeals court was previously denied. Even so, Williams' attorney hopes they can persuade Schwarzenegger that Williams didn't kill. "We all know over the past decade there have been numerous exonerations of inmates on death rows across the country," said attorney Jan Handzlik. "Evidence that appeared to be airtight at the time of the trial somehow doesn't appear to be as convincing as the years go by." (source: KXTV News) ******************** Redemption-Based Clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams: The Right Action for the Wrong Reason On Tuesday, December 13, Stanley "Tookie" Williams is scheduled to die. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California might still decide whether to extend clemency to Williams by commuting his sentence to one of life imprisonment. Why would Schwarzenegger consider clemency for Williams? Convicted of four robbery-murders 25 years ago, Williams also founded the Crips, a gang whose members have left streets and prisons terrorized and blood-soaked across the nation. According to his supporters, Williams warrants clemency on account of his exemplary behavior over the last dozen years he's spent on death row. Upon emerging from solitary confinement for 6 years, Williams turned over a new leaf, becoming a model prisoner. He's authored children's books and performed outreach (by telephone) to mediate or reduce inter-gang violence and disputes. And, as a result of his apparent transformation, he has since garnered the support of 30,000 people who have signed a petition advocating clemency, including many celebrities. Because of the redemption-based arguments made by his advocates, or the frenzy of celebrity support in favor of Williams, there's a risk that Gov. Schwarzenegger will do the right thing (extending clemency) for the wrong reason (Williams's personal redemption). Here's why. Governors Should Not Be Judging Who Has Been Reformed the Most Governors (or presidents) committed to the rule of law should resist using their clemency power to single out someone like Williams for special treatment, simply on the basis of his personal reform. That's because to extend clemency on that basis alone extends a sentencing discount to Williams that is not practically available to other similarly-situated offenders who may also have exhibited genuine reform and contrition--but were not lucky enough to catch the Governor's attention. That disparity violates our embedded commitment to equal justice under law. Moreover, even if Governor Schwarzenegger promised to consider the redemption arguments of all future clemency seekers, that policy would still be problematic--though, granted, it would be an improvement upon simply bestowing leniency to Williams alone. The problem there is that in a well-working democracy with separation of powers, it's not the executive's role to make the law. That task is for the legislature to perform. The governor's job, instead, is to ensure faithful administration of the law. Thus, a governor who suddenly announces that all offenders who exhibit personal reform are eligible for sentencing discounts - without any prior authorization to do so from the legislature - is creating a policy better left to the legislature to contemplate. Democratic authorization helps ensure - though it does not guarantee - that the reason chosen for extending a sentencing discount is not an arbitrary one (such as, the crime occurred on Tuesday) or a biased one (such as, the offender was also a bodybuilder). To be sure, Schwarzenegger does, through his office, have wide discretion regarding the grant of clemency. But that discretion shouldn't be abused. Instead, the power of clemency should be used to ensure fidelity to bedrock principles embedded in the fabric of constitutional democracy. Williams Should Be Spared - Along With All Death Row Prisoners Extending clemency to Williams is the right thing to do, in my view, but not because Williams reformed himself. Rather, it's because Schwarzenegger, as a state official, has a co-equal responsibility to implement the Constitution, and constitutional values are ruptured through the continued use of the death penalty. In other words, Tookie should be spared from death row simply because death row should be shut down. As Governor Ryan in Illinois observed when he announced his blanket commutation of death row, the administration of the death penalty is infested with the pestilence of error and arbitrariness. Last month, the Houston Chronicle reported compelling evidence that, just twelve years ago, Texas executed an innocent man named Ruben Cantu. And other, similar cases like that are popping up increasingly, most recently in Texas and in Missouri. Overall, over 120 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1976--even after being convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" under the extra procedures the Supreme Court has insisted upon for capital cases. A proper concern with accurately sorting the innocent from the guilty requires the state to punish with sobriety, restraint, and also modesty. When other means are available to advance the goals of expressing social condemnation for the apparent perpetrator's acts, and protecting society from a person found to be dangerous to its members, the state should refuse to impose a punishment that prevents it from later acknowledging--and making amends for--its own wrongful acts to its own unintended victims. In sum, it's becoming clear that if executions persist, so will mistaken executions. An additional reason for intervention, here, is the unfairness that characterizes the use of the death penalty. Statistically, the death penalty is more often meted out on the morally arbitrary basis of the race of the victim, or the geographic location of the crime, than on factors such as the crime's seriousness. In this respect, imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments -- historically understood as barring arbitrary and discriminatory punishments. Knowing what we know about our society, it's hard to maintain the assumption that the death penalty can be both fairly and accurately inflicted. Procedural Injustices Are More Than Sufficient For a Clemency Grant to Williams Williams's case, in particular, presents cause for concern. He was tried during a period when his mental competence was questionable. He has long denied responsibility for the crimes with which he was charged--even though he accepted responsibility and apologized for his role as founder of the Crips. He presented alibi evidence that the jury apparently discounted or ignored. He was convicted largely on the basis of testimony of government informants who had a strong motive to lie in their testimony: reductions in their own sentences. Additionally, the prosecutor in Williams's case, who had been publicly admonished by the California Supreme Court for a pattern of improper jury challenges based on race, had removed all blacks from Williams's jury. Finally, and more recently, Williams has alleged that the government suppressed exculpatory evidence. These reasons do not necessarily mean that Williams was innocent of the heinous crimes of which he was convicted. But, together, they suffice to stay the hand of the executioner - for they show that Williams's trial raises a reasonable possibility that he may be innocent, or at least, unfairly convicted. Schwarzenegger Should Act Justly, and Broadly The broken system that Governor Ryan condemned, when he commuted the sentences of those on Illinois' death row, was not unique to Illinois. Error infests the criminal justice system in California, as much as it does in Illinois or Texas. Schwarzenegger, like Ryan, should be brave enough to say that a broken system - one that leads to the imposition of the death penalty on morally arbitrary or discriminatory grounds -- offends constitutional values. So it is a time for action. Some have suggested that Williams should receive clemency to demonstrate Schwarzenegger's courage or capacity to be merciful. As I've elaborated elsewhere at greater length, I disagree. Mercy is the proper prerogative of God and punishing mothers--not the state. Instead, Schwarzenegger should simply be modest and just. Not by sparing Williams alone, but by commuting the sentences of all those on California's death row. And not in the name of mercy, but in the name of justice. (source: FindLaw - Dan Markel teaches criminal law at Florida State University College of Law and is the founder of Prawfsblawg, a blog by law professors about law, politics and culture) ******************** Death penalty - deterrence or revenge? The death penalty is back in the headlines. Our nation recently executed its one thousandth person and we read daily of the pending execution of Stanley Williams. From what I read, the death penalty remains popular - upwards of 70 percent of Californians support its use. The death penalty is rooted in a longstanding principle of retribution. If you take what is mine, I should be able to take something of yours - an "eye for an eye." Historically, this principle was meant to limit the extent of revenge - if you take my eye, I get yours but nothing more - but it has become a central principle of justice. Modern arguments for the death penalty are rooted in the concept of deterrence, but if you listen to families and friends of victims, it is not a matter of deterrence, but of vengeance. This is understandable. If someone killed my wife or son, I would indeed be angry and would demand justice. I understand the emotional need for vengeance, for leveling things out, but I also oppose the death penalty on principle. I could and will enumerate some practical reasons why the death penalty may not be a good idea, but my reasons are theological, not practical. Practical arguments must begin with the admission, that no justice system is perfect, even ours. Every study of the death penalty suggests that its imposition is often arbitrary and falls hardest on the poor and on ethnic minorities. The discovery that a significant enough number of death row inmates were innocent led the former governor of Illinois to put a moratorium on executions. Death precludes a new trial, so from a practical perspective I'd rather err on the side of mercy for the guilty than to prematurely end the life of the innocent. With regard to deterrence, the evidence is mixed, so we come back to the question of vengeance and whether an execution brings closure. I cannot answer that question, but it must be raised. My argument against the death penalty is a theological one. It starts with the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. He was executed in the cruelest of fashions, because he was a "rabble-rouser." Because I serve one who was deemed by his peers to be a criminal worthy of death, that reality gives me pause when I consider passing judgment on another person. The Hebrew Bible counsels us not to take revenge, but to love our neighbor instead (Leviticus 19:18). St. Paul counsels us not to repay wrong with wrong, but instead to leave vengeance to God's hand. Instead of doing evil to those who mean us harm, we should do good to them. If your enemy is hungry or thirsty then feed them and give them drink "for by doing this you will make him burn with shame" (Romans 12:17-20). As you can see, Paul believes in the power of the conscience and the possibility both of conversion and reconciliation. I find very poignant, the picture of Jesus standing beside the adulterous woman. According to the law she was guilty and deserved to be stoned to death. Jesus turned to the crowd who had gathered to stone her, and said, "Let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone." Everyone dropped their stones upon the ground and left, and Jesus, who our tradition says was without sin, offered forgiveness (John 8:1-11). Jesus canceled the law of retribution - the eye for an eye - and said instead, "Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you," but rather love your enemies (Matthew 5:38, 43-44). These scriptural provisions do not preclude justice, but they caution us against taking the most drastic of measures to attain justice. They remind us that death cannot be undone and that such matters should be left to the hand of God. I do not advocate letting dangerous criminals free to roam our streets, but can we who claim to follow Jesus support or encourage or undertake the execution of another - even if that person is "guilty as sin"? I will leave that to the reader to decide. (source: Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); The Lompoc Record) ****************** The Byrne Report----Crack of Light The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between 2 eternities of darkness.--Vladimir Nabokov, Speak, Memory The heated public debate around the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams shows us to be a divided people. While tens of thousands of decent folks protest the state-sanctioned murder of Williams--a black man who has spent half of his 51 years on San Quentin's death row--Clear Channel's talk-radio station, KFI in Los Angeles, features the daily "Tookie Must Die" hour. And then there are people in the middle, who don't like the death penalty but can't get past the horror of the crime. Witness the Nov. 30 column by Chris Coursey in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. In it, Coursey argues that all death row prisoners should receive executive clemency, or none should--especially Williams. Coursey's bottom line is that because Williams was convicted of blowing away 4 people while robbing a 7-11 convenience store and a motel in 1979, he is therefore guilty. "[I]f Schwarzenegger commutes Williams's death sentence, the governor will send the wrong message." Huh? Is killing Williams sending the "right" message? The problem here is obvious, and not limited to newspaper pundits: Anyone who believes that a guilty verdict in America means that the accused actually committed the crime needs to review the data on the scores of death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA testing in recent years. Remember Ruben Cantu, who was arrested on murder charges when he was just 17 and executed by Texas six years later, in 1993? As reported in the Nov. 20 edition of the Houston Chronicle, the lone witness who sent Cantu to the needle has recanted, saying he was pressured by police to give false witness. Additionally, Cantu's co-defendant David Garza, who was just 15 at the time of the killings, has sworn in affidavit that he allowed Cantu to be falsely accused of the crime and that Cantu was not with him on the night of the murders. But perhaps the best argument against capital punishment is the story of how the judicial system mistreated Williams, according to the discovery motion his attorneys submitted to the California Supreme Court in November. You would think that no ruling body would refuse to postpone a man's execution in order to review possibly exonerating evidence. Yet the court did exactly that on Dec. 1, when it denied the motion to reopen Williams' case. For a quarter century, Williams has maintained that he is innocent of the murders. The discovery brief shows that Los Angeles police bungled one crime scene. The crime lab screwed up the ballistics test on the murder weapon. The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Robert Martin, inveigled two career criminals to finger Williams. The main witness against Williams, James Garrett, was a prime suspect in the motel murders. The murder weapon was found under his bed. Garrett, who was not prosecuted, had considerable incentive to lie and to throw the blame on Williams, who, as a founding member of the Crip gang, was on the LAPD's short list. Another witness, Alfred Coward, admitted he participated in the 7-11 murder. He was given immunity for testifying against Williams. (Garrett continued to lead a life of violent crime until he died in 1996. Coward is doing time for murder in Ontario, Canada. After implicating Williams, both men were treated with extraordinary leniency by the Los Angeles judicial system for commission of subsequent crimes.) The discovery brief further details that, while awaiting trial, Williams' jailers tranquilized him with psychotic drugs, rendering him a self-described "marionette" of the prosecution, unable to competently defend himself. Williams' attorneys point out that Martin illegally eliminated potential jurors solely because they were black. Martin also illegally withheld evidence from Williams' lawyer, they say, that could have discredited the testimony of the witnesses. In front of a mostly white jury, Martin compared Williams to a Bengal tiger in a zoo. But he could not doubtlessly place Williams at the scene of the crimes, nor could he prove that Williams--a trophy defendant if there ever was one--fired the murder weapon. Society has nothing to lose by granting Williams the rest of his life to convince us of his innocence or continue writing socially redeeming children's books inside his concrete coffin. But we will surely kill the quality of mercy and the future of human compassion if we kill Williams because we think he did it. Williams and the rest of us share that brief crack of light. We need not rush to beckon the darkness. We must keep him alive to see ourselves. ********************* Clemency case will speak volumes about governor - and all of us There are people who don't believe in miracles, but I am not one. In matters of life and death, anything can happen. And the outcome is often - as it should be - out of our hands. But in this state that still supports the death penalty, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finds himself facing today what surely will be the toughest decision of his tenure: whether Stanley "Tookie" Williams will live or die. Williams, 51, is the co-founder of the murderous Crips street gang whose petition for clemency is being heard today by the governor, who has already rejected 2 clemency requests from death row inmates. But Williams' case comes packaged with different bells and whistles as celebrities, civil rights leaders and others around the world argue that the man convicted in 1981 of 4 shotgun murders should be spared the needle. Williams, they say, is a changed man - an inmate who did not languish on death row, but authored children's books and tried to steer other youths away from crime. With California's death chamber revving up for three executions, including Williams' on Dec. 13, will the governor deliver his own Christmas miracle? Passions are running high on both sides, but in the middle is a whole sea of Californians suddenly grappling with death penalty politics. What the Williams case has done, with all its murkiness and shades of gray and overtones of redemption, is turn the debate back onto us, forcing each of us to ask: Is this really what we want? For Williams? For any of the 650, waiting to die on California's death row? "We have seen a lot of new people taking a look at the issue of the death penalty and re-evaluating their position on it," said Stefanie Faucher, program director for the San Francisco-based Death Penalty Focus, a nonprofit group opposed to the death penalty. Granted, a majority of California voters, 68 %, still support capital punishment for serious crimes - 54 % of Democrats and 87 % of Republicans, according to a March 2004 Field Poll. While support peaked in the mid-1980s at 83 %, it had dropped to 63 % by 2000 before slightly rising 4 years later. A June 2000 Field Poll also showed that 73 % of Californians favored halting all executions - similar to the moratorium imposed by then Illinois Gov. George Ryan - until a study on death-penalty fairness could be done. There are other signs of change. The new California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, created last year by the state Senate, has begun its examination of whether innocent people are being convicted and sentenced to death in the state. Assembly Democrats have drafted a measure to suspend all executions in California until Jan. 1, 2009, while the study's under way. None of this will matter, really, for Tookie Williams, whose fate lies in Schwarzenegger's hands. So what will the governor - who admits he is dreading this decision - do? Some experts insist the Republican governor wouldn't dare risk alienating his political base, or victims rights and law enforcement groups, by granting clemency to Williams, who has never admitted to the 1979 murders. At least some relatives of the victims have said they want to see him executed. I'm not so sure Schwarzenegger will oblige. If he is really dreading this decision, then he has wrapped his mind around the moral gravity of the issue. After all, it was a Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, who granted the state's last clemency in 1967. Nationally, Republican politicians like Illinois' Ryan have moved to halt or suspend executions - in Ryan's case, he emptied his state's death row by commuting the death sentences of 167 prisoners. "It may be that Schwarzenegger is in a position, given his image as a tough guy, to withstand the political cost of granting a clemency to someone like Tookie Williams," said Austin Sarat, a professor of law and politics at Amherst College and author of a new book on clemency, "Mercy on Trial: What It Means To Stop An Execution." "... It's a totally discretionary power, so it's as much about Arnold Schwarzenegger as it is about Tookie Williams. ... It's about who Schwarzenegger wants to be and what he wants to say to the citizens of California about the place of mercy and compassion and charity." Today, yes, it is all about Arnold. What happens from here on is all about us. (source: Sacramento Bee) ****************** What would it cost to keep the 'Tookie' Williamses alive? ----A legal observer notes state pays through the nose for its citizens' ambivalence toward the death penalty. Seriously, Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Crips co-founder and murderer, should be spared lethal injection. Last week the state Supreme Court let his final appeal die. So unless the governor does a thumbs up, and he may have by the time this runs, 51-year-old Tookie dies. Tookie, don't we all know, reformed during his 24 years at San Quentin. Which is precisely why state prisons were set up in the do-good first place. Inside, bad people are supposed to perform penance and come away changed. Or in Tookie's case, never come away at all because he's never getting out. What's amazing is how he actually did change. Or at least he's writing children's books and extolling straight life to gang members who are apparently too stupid to read or listen. Now he's being praised by black leaders and white actors as a shining light of reform and redemption. Tookie himself said as much in a verbose full page newspaper ad this week, writing: "If the governor grants me clemency, I will accept it as an obligation to society to spend the rest of my life working to reverse the cycle of youth violence." Great. But then I started thinking about Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin working at that motel near Gardena when in comes Tookie toting a shotgun. Only taking their money wasn't enough. He had to take their lives and the life of a convenience store clerk murdered separately. Truth is, if these were my kin, I might be wishing for the day he gets an artery full of juice. But they weren't. So lacking the burden of revenge, I can't see myself pushing the plunger on a man who pulled a marvelous turn, becoming what he might have become had he grown up with hope. In short, I am conflicted. Or as conflicted as any weak-kneed soul who finds murder of any kind horrific. I've seen death, even sat in the Florida electric chair once, and am still haunted by it. It's also an expensive process. Twenty-seven years ago Californians voted to reaffirm the death penalty. In that time we've executed a grand total of 11 convicts. That leaves a mere 640 inmates, 20 % of the national total, more likely to die from old age than state action. Only maintaining these dirtbags costs us $114 million a year more than maintaining the same number of lifers, not counting many millions more spent on capital cases, post-conviction hearings and appeals. Then comes the politics, with those who favor the death penalty accusing death penalty opponents of prolonging appeals with the intent of making the whole process ruinously expensive. Well, it worked, using a creaking system that takes four years to hook a condemned man up with a notoriously short list of willing lawyers for a first appeal. Then there's the 9th Circuit U.S. District Court of Appeals, which is a tad more liberal than the hanging judges of Texas. On average, a condemned man gets 20 years worth of appeals, which is why 222 of our death row residents are over 50. And I'd bet that many of them are changed men, too. Which brings us to a point. Are we going to get serious about this wildly expensive and dysfunctional process or, as one Berkeley law professor put it, just continue paying through the nose for, "our ambivalence about capital punishment." By paying, I mean the $90,000 a year it costs for private cells and extra guards for each death row con. That's $70,000 more than it costs to send a kid to Berkeley for a year! But what does execution get the people of Texas, where they have done in 355 people since 1979, or Virginia with 94? Not public safety and certainly not an end to crime. But they do get revenge of the kind we may or may not finally take on Tookie, the famous $2.5 million or so (not counting legal and court expenses) killer with a heart of gold. If not Tookie, then on the next burdensome creep. Or should we at last take our ambivalence as a sign, and let all these condemned criminals die on a budget, one crawling minute at a time? (source: The Daily Breeze) ************** Execution vigil gets at least one person to think about it He came driving up in his SUV. His outward appearance and demeanor match the vehicle he drives. Though less than 6 feet tall, he is well muscled, burly and compact like a fire hydrant. "What's goin' on?" he asks in a voice that is used to getting an answer. Perhaps the scene that unfolds before his eyes is a bit incongruous. A middle-aged couple sits on folding chairs in front of the county jail at 11:15 at night. The gray Central Valley weather is chilly as a few flickering candles illuminate the sign in front of them. It says in bold letters, "NOT IN MY NAME." My wife pauses from her crocheting. "There's an execution tonight at San Quentin." She explains that a previous governor justified the use of the death penalty by saying he was doing it on behalf of the people of the state of California. She took exception to his remarks. The sign was the result. Our new acquaintance turns toward the open doorway to the visiting room, then wheels around and says, "I don't know about the rest, but anyone who kills women or children should be executed as soon as the judge pronounces them guilty." With that declaration, he ends our conversation and heads for the open door. Such remarks are not unusual. But as professing Christians, we take seriously Jesus' reply to at least one planned execution: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Modesto is not exactly the center of dissent on the issue of the death penalty. While we have been associated with the peace community for many years, it is strangely quiet on this issue. Both of us have grown up in a church tradition that historically is opposed to war. Yet few within its affiliation offer much support. I muse on how the followers of an executed leader stand very much in the forefront of legitimizing executions. Little has changed since the duly constituted authority executed Jesus with the encouragement of the religious establishment of his day. So we stand vigil, at times with others but usually alone, any time there is an execution. It is not a protest. It is simply a reminder to us. Surprisingly, our friend returns several times. We talk about Scott Peterson, Saddam and Osama. We share that life is not made more sacred by the taking of it no matter how cheaply others may hold it. I have misjudged this man. Not that he is persuaded to share what we believe. But he is at least open and willing to talk. It is growing colder, and I wish I had worn my other knit hat. A man has just been executed tonight (Jan. 19), and I wonder if we will sleep more comfortably as a result. Or has one more body been added to the mountain of our indifference? Perhaps it is not as cold as I thought. Another man has been willing to consider his own suppositions. For me, on this night, that has made all the difference. (source: Commentary, Philip Franklin, Modesto Bee) ************** U.S. COURT UPHOLDS DEATH PENALTY OF "CRIME SPREE" DEFENDANT A federal appeals court in San Francisco today upheld the death penalty of a man who killed a University of Southern California student librarian in 1978. Stevie Lamar Fields was convicted of murdering Rosemary Cobbs, 26, and committing 3 rapes, 3 kidnappings and 4 robberies during a so-called "crime spree" over a 2-week period in 1978 after he was paroled from a prison sentence for manslaughter. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his claim that his trial was unfair because a juror brought biblical quotations for and against capital punishment to jury deliberations on what penalty to give. A 3-judge panel of the appeals court said the Bible verses, including "an eye for an eye," were common knowledge and there was no evidence they had a substantial effect on the jury's deliberations. The court also rejected Fields' claim that a juror in his Los Angeles County Superior Court trial was biased because the juror's wife had been kidnapped and raped in circumstances similar to Fields' alleged crimes. The panel upheld a finding by a federal trial judge in Los Angeles that the juror was honest when he said during jury selection that he would not be biased. Fields took his case to the federal courts after losing appeals in the state court system. The state Supreme Court upheld his death sentence in 1983. David Olson, Fields' lawyer on appeal, said he is considering asking an expanded panel of the appeals court to review the case. Olson said, "I think the case raises some very serious questions under the constitutional Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial." (source: Bay City News Wire) ************** Should 'Tookie' go free? This month, California Arnold Schwarzenegger is faced with a difficult decision. The Crips gang co-founder Stanley "Tookie" Williams is due to be executed, and many are hoping that Schwarzenegger will commute Williams and allow him to simply live out his life in jail. This issue touches at some of the core issues of Christian forgiveness versus modern justice. Williams is in jail for the murder of 4 people and is undoubtedly responsible for many more. Yet, he represents exactly the reason we seek for the reformation of prisoners, as he has become an outspoken critic of the gang lifestyle, written childrens books, converted to Christianity since his conviction, and even been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. One of the factors that many people seeking his death cite is the fact that Williams has never actually admitted to the crime he was convicted for, and still holds to his innocence. However, he has definitely shown remorse over the lifestyle he was leading at the time. I feel that as Christians, we owe this man our forgiveness. He has turned his life around, and given some of the details surrounding his trial, it is entirely possible that he did not, in fact, commit the crime that he is accused of. However, Christ calls for us to forgive people even if they do not ask it of us. This does not mean that we cannot carry justice to its ends. The death penalty is beyond justice and reaches into revenge against the convicted. If all we seek is revenge, then justice has no real meaning. Justice seeks for people to pay for their crimes, but is the cost of any crime as valuable as someones life? No! Life is precious and must be preserved. Murder, whether a man killing four people while knocking over a convenience store, or a man injecting a prisoner to punish him for crimes committed against the state, is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is hypocritical of our nation to do so What keeps the death penalty in place is politics. The populous wants people to die for crimes they commit, because that is the easier and more final solution. Thus, governors will often allow a prisoner to be executed for political gain. Pat Brown, a former governor of California, once admitted to denying a clemency request simply to get a minimum wage law passed. What kind of society is willing to exchange the life of a human being for political capital? Many argue that we save money by using capital punishment, but it is really more expensive - given court costs for the usual multiple appeals allowed for a capital case - than allowing a prisoner to live out his life in jail. Take Williams as an example. He was convicted almost 25 years ago, and his execution is just now coming up. More importantly, a death penalty keeps a prisoner from reforming his ways and potentially becoming a valuable member of society, even from behind prison bars. This is what "Tookie" Williams has done. He has turned his life around while in prison, and has become a positive role model in the African-American community. Name one other Nobel Peace nominee on death row. This man has become an inspiration to the world and has proven the amount of reform that can happen after someone has been put into the prison system. For these reasons, I feel that "Tookie" Williams must be granted clemency as a shining example for other prisoners, and especially death row inmates, to look up to. If we, as a society, were more willing to grant clemency to people like Williams, then prisoners would have a reason to strive to change their ways, and the world would be a much better place. (source: Calvin College Chimes (Michigan) ) USA/US MILITARY---possible federal death penalty case Attorney seeks death penalty----U.S. Air Force MP may face death in 2003 killing A U.S. Air Force military police officer charged with murdering a pregnant Georgia Southern University student in 2003 now may face the death penalty. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Lynch filed notice Thursday seeking the death penalty against Michael Antonio Natson, who allegedly killed Ardena Carter between September and December of 2003 and left her body in the woods on Fort Benning. In June, Natson, 24, was indicted on charges of murder, feticide and murder using a firearm. The murder and feticide charges are capital crimes punishable by death or life without parole. In the filing, Lynch states that the government will seek to prove that the death of Carter was a premeditated act. Carter, a 23-year-old Georgia Southern University student from Statesboro, was 24 weeks pregnant at the time she was shot to death with a 9 mm pistol. Her skeletal remains were found by hunters on a remote area of Fort Benning about 4 miles west of Cusseta on Dec. 16, 2003. The woman, who was studying to be a teacher, was last seen alive Sept. 11, 2003, by friends who dropped her off at her home in Statesboro. She told them she intended to walk to the school library for exercise. Natson, from Statesboro, was on active duty at Fort Benning at the time of Carter's slaying, according to the FBI. The soldier was discharged from the Army and joined the U.S. Air Force. Ken Brown with the university police department said evidence suggests that Carter and Natson were romantically involved at the time of the shooting. However, he would not comment on whether Natson was the father of the baby, stating that information was material to the pending court case. Brown said Natson was a "person of interest" since Carter went missing in 2003. The federal government is handling the investigation and prosecution of the case because the alleged crime occurred on a U.S. military reservation. (source: Columbus Ledger-Enquirer)
