Dec. 30
TEXAS:
Death penalty losing capital ---- Sentences decline in Dallas, state,
nation amid new limits, alternatives
Dallas courts are sending fewer murderers to the execution chamber, a
trend mirrored in courtrooms across Texas and the nation.
Nationally, more juries have the option of sentencing killers to life
without parole, advances have been made in DNA testing, and the Supreme
Court has banned the execution of mentally retarded people and minors, all
factors in the decline.
Locally, a change in Texas law that allows juries to send murderers to
prison for life without the possibility of parole took effect in September
and hasn't yet been felt by the courts. But jurors have received far fewer
death penalty cases.
"I think we're in a period where the death penalty will be used more
judiciously," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the nonprofit
Death Penalty Information Center. "The bottom line is each year for the
past four or five years the number of death sentences have been down, so
there's something going on here."
In 1996, 320 murderers in the United States were told they would die for
their crimes. But in 2004, the latest year for which complete statistics
are available, 125 people were sentenced to death. That marked the fewest
since 1977.
In Texas, death sentences have dropped from 37 in 1999 to 15 in 2005, the
fewest additional inmates on death row since 1991.
In Dallas County, Anthony Doyle's May 2004 death sentence for robbing and
beating a Rowlett doughnut delivery driver marked the last death verdict.
Testimony in the next death penalty trial is expected to begin in April,
meaning the gap between death sentences in the county will be nearly two
years.
Alternatives to death
Nationwide, the annual murder rate has remained relatively steady in
recent years, so Mr. Dieter said other factors appear to be behind the
decline in the use of the death penalty.
Using Department of Justice statistics, his organization estimates that
the number of death sentences has fallen 60 percent nationwide since 1996,
largely because more states offer jurors the option of sentencing
murderers to life in prison without parole.
The option is already available in 37 of the 38 death penalty states.
Opinion polls show that a majority of Americans still support the death
penalty, but the support shrinks when people are given the choice of life
without parole.
"Death sentences have dropped, and life sentences have increased," Mr.
Dieter said. "I think there's a good case to be made that this is
something specifically to do with the death penalty."
But other factors are also commonly cited:
- The public may also be growing wary of the death penalty after
high-profile cases in which death row inmates have been proved innocent by
DNA testing. Nationally, six death row inmates were exonerated in 2004,
and at least 2 convictions were overturned in 2005, according to the Death
Penalty Information Center.
- A 2002 Supreme Court ruling banned the execution of retarded inmates,
affecting cases around the nation. Another ruling this year banned the
execution of minors.
- In some cases in recent years - including high-profile cases such as
that of Terry Nichols, accessory to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Lee
Boyd Malvo, the "D.C. sniper" - juries have chosen life sentences over the
death penalty.
- More defendants are avoiding the possibility of a death sentence by
accepting plea deals, including high-profile murderers such as Eric
Rudolph, whose bombing of an abortion clinic left two dead, and "BTK"
serial killer Dennis Rader.
County 'more selective'
Although his office hasn't tried a death penalty case in almost 2 years,
Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill said his staff hasn't gone soft
on murderers.
Mr. Hill said his office has always been choosy when asking for the death
penalty, typically seeking execution when defendants with histories of
violent offenses are accused of particularly brutal crimes or cases
involving police officers in the line of duty.
"Our policies have not changed one bit," Mr. Hill said. "We'd rather not
have any" death penalty cases. "When we see a case that warrants it, we're
going to ask for it."
"We're much more selective," he said. He added that when his office asks a
jury for the death penalty, "we get it all the time."
But the fact remains that the number of capital murder trials in the
county has fluctuated only slightly over the last 5 years, while the
number of death penalty convictions has ebbed.
Even in Harris County - which historically leads the nation in sending
inmates to death row every year - only 2 death sentences were handed down
in 2005. The county had 9 death sentences in 2004 and a record 13 in 1996.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said that the slowdown is
not a conscious decision by his office and that death penalty cases "stack
up in the pipeline."
"Sometimes they get through, and sometimes they don't," he said.
Mr. Rosenthal said problems with the embattled Houston Police Department's
crime lab - which has been criticized for mislabeling and improperly
storing old cases, possible evidence contamination and training problems
in its DNA section - have not affected decisions to seek the death penalty
because any cases that have relied upon the lab's work are retested by an
independent lab.
And though Dallas County prosecutors say they're conducting business as
usual, they recently have exercised notable caution in cases that in
previous years probably would have resulted in death penalty trials.
Twice in the last 15 months the district attorney's office has offered
defendants a chance to plead guilty to capital murder and accept an
automatic life sentence in prison rather than face the death penalty.
Consider the case of James Singleton, who was convicted of capital murder
in the deaths of his parents: After prosecutors began the long process of
selecting a jury for Mr. Singleton's death penalty trial, prosecutors
became concerned about Mr. Singleton's erratic behavior in court and
sought a life sentence rather than the death penalty.
Toby Shook, Dallas County's chief felony prosecutor, said he thought a
jury would have sentenced Mr. Singleton to death, but an execution might
have been held up indefinitely on costly appeals.
"After the trial, jurors felt it was the right decision considering his
mental problems," Mr. Shook said.
Taxpayer savings
Intentional or not, the decline in death penalty cases has saved Dallas
County taxpayers about $1 million in trial costs this year, according to
county estimates based on the county's historic trend of five such cases a
year.
Death penalty trials are much longer than a typical murder trial, and the
county usually ends up footing the bill for court-appointed attorneys,
expert witnesses, extensive research, prosecutors and court staff.
"It costs a ready fortune to kill somebody," said Dallas public defender
Michael Byck, who has worked as a defense attorney on more than 20 death
penalty trials.
The county said such trials cost the county about $225,000 in immediate
trial expenses - not to mention subsequent mandatory appeals and the
state's cost of housing and executing death row prisoners. A regular
weeklong murder trial costs the county about $20,000.
Mr. Hill said money is not a factor in choosing death penalty cases.
In his office, the trend of fewer death penalty trials could be coming to
a close. Dallas prosecutors have at least four and possibly as many as
seven capital murder cases that they're pursuing as death penalty trials.
Testimony is expected to begin around April in the retrial of Thomas
Miller-El, whose 1986 conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in
June on grounds that prosecutors unfairly excluded minorities from serving
on his jury.
Death penalty trials are also planned for a Dallas man accused of sexually
assaulting and killing an 11-year-old girl in May and for a 27-year-old
Dallas man accused of killing a Lake Highlands convenience-store clerk
during a robbery in May.
Prosecutors are also considering seeking the death penalty for Mexican
citizen Juan Lizcano, who is accused of fatally shooting Dallas police
Officer Brian Jackson in November.
New Texas law
Despite the upcoming cases, death sentences may never again reach the
historically high levels of just a few years ago now that Texas juries
have the option to consider life without parole.
A Texas jury has not yet had the opportunity to choose sentences of life
without parole over death because the new law applies only to crimes
committed after Sept. 1. But once juries begin to see cases in which they
have the option, there will probably be even fewer death penalty verdicts,
said Mr. Byck.
Mr. Shook, who is also a Republican candidate for Dallas County district
attorney, said he does not think the new option will lead prosecutors to
seek the death penalty less often. Nor does he think juries will become
increasingly reluctant when asked to return a death verdict.
"I don't think life without parole is an issue," Mr. Shook said. Death
penalty cases are "the baddest of the bad. We prove beyond reasonable
doubt that they're bad in any environment, so the death penalty is the
only option."
With the option, Mr. Byck said he thinks prosecutors will become even more
selective and ask for the death sentence in only the absolutely worse
cases.
"Now we're only going to be seeing cop killers, baby murderers and mass
murderers" up for the death penalty, he said. "And the mass murders better
have done it at a church - not a crack house because ... [jurors] are not
going for that."
UPCOMING CASES
Dallas County prosecutors have announced that they will seek death
penalties in 4 capital murder cases and are seriously considering it in 3
others. Upcoming death penalty cases:
- Thomas Miller-El: The U.S. Supreme Court ordered in June that he receive
a new trial because prosecutors unfairly excluded minorities from his 1986
capital murder trial.
- Rhiphifieal Funches and Charles Wiggans: They are accused of sexually
assaulting and killing a Hispanic immigrant during a home-invasion robbery
in April.
- Steven Lynn Long: He is accused of sexually assaulting and strangling an
11-year-old Dallas girl in May.
Prosecutors are considering the death penalty for the following cases:
- Juan Lizcano: He is accused of fatally shooting Dallas police Officer
Brian Jackson after the officer responded to a domestic-violence call in
November.
- Marcus Hunter: He is accused of killing a Lake Highlands convenience-
store clerk during a robbery in May. At the time of the shooting, Mr.
Hunter was wanted in connection with a fatal carjacking in east Oak Cliff
one month earlier.
- Christopher Dominique: He is accused of robbing and fatally shooting a
19-year-old convenience-store clerk in Lancaster in November.
(source: Dallas Morning News)
IDAHO:
Nice could face death penalty
In Twin Fallas, a grand jury has determined that 3 Hagerman children died
under circumstances that could lead to the death penalty for their father.
Jim Junior Nice, 33, has been charged with three counts of 1st-degree
murder in the poisoning deaths of the children last week in Twin Falls.
A grand jury indictment issued Wednesday night alleges the children died
under "aggravating circumstances" in a manner "especially heinous,
atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity."
Nice is accused of killing the children with a combination of
over-the-counter medicine and rat poison. The children, 6-year-old twins
Spencer and Justin Nice, and 2-year-old Raquel Nice, were found dead Dec.
21 at their father's home at 1831 Fourth Ave. E.
"I don't want anybody to think we've made the decision," Loebs said. "But
you lose the option to ask for the death penalty if the grand jury doesn't
find aggravating circumstances."
Ultimately, Loebs said, a death sentence must be imposed by a trial jury,
which must also determine that aggravating circumstances exist.
The grand jury indictment alleges that aggravating circumstances exist
because more than one life was taken, the deaths were committed in a cruel
manner and Nice "exhibited utter disregard for human life."
The indictment was one of two issued by the Twin Falls County Grand Jury.
The second charges Nice with three counts of 1st-degree murder.
Loebs said the second indictment replaces a 3-count criminal complaint
that was filed against Nice last week. The charges are basically the same,
but the indictment offers prosecutors 3 alternatives for pursuing the
case.
All three alternatives fall under Idaho's 1st-degree murder statute.
Specifically, the indictment says Nice can be prosecuted for murder in the
1st degree, murder by poison, or felony murder.
Under the "murder by poison" alternative, Loebs said prosecutors do not
need to prove premeditation. Under the "felony murder" alternative,
prosecutors do not need to prove either premeditation or malice.
Nice is being held without bail in the Twin Falls County Jail. He likely
will be arraigned in 5th District Court on the grand jury indictments on
Tuesday, Loebs said.
Once Nice enters a plea, the prosecutor's office has 30 days to decided
whether or not to seek the death penalty. "We'll give it a lot of
consideration during that time," Loebs said.
(source: The Times-News)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Death Row Inmate Campaigns Against Alito's Nomination to Court
You might think Antuan "Tony" Bronshtein would be grateful to Judge Samuel
A. Alito, President Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
After all, Bronshtein, a convicted killer and Pennsylvania death row
inmate, has a new lease on life, at least temporarily, thanks to Alito's
controversial decision as a federal appeals judge to set aside
Bronshtein's death sentence.
But he is not grateful.
Instead, Bronshtein is campaigning to block Alito's Supreme Court
nomination.
In letters written from his prison cell to members of the U.S. Senate and
the press, the Soviet-born convict argues that Alito violated established
law, his own writings, and Bronshtein's civil rights - all to burnish his
reputation as a hard line, pro-death penalty judge and improve his Supreme
Court prospects.
Bronshtein first made his claims in a hand-written court filing last June,
4 months before Alito's nomination. He elaborated on them in a series of
telephone interviews with the Forward from the State Correctional
Institution in Waynesboro, Pa.
In his court filing, Bronshtein described Alito's April 2005 ruling as "a
dishonorable and politically motivated affront to justice."
Bronshtein said that although Alito heard arguments in his case in April
2003, he stalled his ruling for 2 years, waiting until after Bush's
November 2004 reelection, because he knew he was a potential high court
nominee.
"If Bush hadn't been reelected," Bronshtein said, "he would have thrown
out the conviction," instead of merely setting aside the death sentence.
There is little direct evidence to support Bronshtein's claim that Alito's
high court ambitions colored his decisions - although the claim showed
prescience, if nothing else, coming 4 months and 2 nominations (John
Roberts and Harriet Miers) before Alito was named on October 31.
But there is considerable support for Bronshtein's broader claims about
his case. Legal scholars and death penalty opponents say his conviction
was flawed by blatantly incorrect rulings from the bench, and question the
rejection of his appeals on the basis of his missing the filing deadline.
Both Amnesty International and the Union for Reform Judaism have
questioned the treatment of his case.
As for Alito's 35-page ruling last April, even the prosecutors who put
Bronshtein away agree it is deeply flawed, raising more questions than it
answers.
Born in 1970 in Kishinev, Soviet Moldova, Bronshtein came with his family
in 1978 to Philadelphia, where his parents divorced and he drifted into
drugs and petty crime. He was sentenced to death in 1994 for the murder of
a suburban Philadelphia jeweler, Alexander Gutman, who was shot in the
face in 1991 during what police described as a botched holdup. Bronshtein
insists he is not guilty and says he would rather be executed than see his
conviction stand.
His case first won national attention when he was scheduled to die on
April 8, 1999. The date coincided with the last day of Passover, drawing
protests from Pittsburgh rabbis who said it was offensive for a Jew to be
executed on a religious holiday. The protest drew the attention of Harvard
law professor Alan Dershowitz, who brought in a high-powered Philadelphia
law firm, ramping up Bronshtein's legal efforts.
Though sentenced to die for the murder of Gutman, which he denies,
Bronshtein first came under police suspicion because of his confession in
the unrelated killing of another jeweler, Jerome Slobotkin.
According to court records, Bronshtein contacted Montgomery County police
by phone on February 27, 1991, 6 weeks after Gutman's murder, and admitted
to the Slobotkin slaying.
"I confessed to a crime that I had involvement in," Bronshtein told the
Forward. He said he "didn't set out to murder Mr. Slobotkin," but "I'm the
one that pulled the trigger."
While discussing the Slobotkin case, Bronshtein said, authorities
pressured him to admit to the Gutman slaying. He insists that the killing
was carried out, as court records put it, by "a 'Mr. X.' whom Bronshtein
described as a high-level member of the 'Russian Mafia.'" He later
identified the man as another Pennsylvania jeweler, who was never located
or charged. Prosecutors presented witnesses who placed Bronshtein at the
scene of Gutman's slaying, but they were never able to provide conclusive
evidence that he had pulled the trigger. Eventually, however, authorities
did come up with a witness, one Wilson Perez, who testified that
Bronshtein admitted the Gutman killing to him. Bronshtein denies that, but
offered no explanation for Perez's testimony, saying only, "there was
absolutely no evidence of me ever even being seen with a gun." Bronshtein
maintains police actually traced the gun to another man.
At his trial, Bronshtein maintained he had worked for Mr. X as a jewelry
fence and, according to court records, "had merely accompanied [him] to
Gutman's store, without knowing that [Mr. X] was going to kill him."
Bronshtein's lawyers believed they had a strong defense, said Peter Rossi,
who later represented Bronshtein on appeal. "The defense attorney told me
he thought he was going to get the guy off," Rossi told the Forward.
But the trial was flawed from the beginning, Rossi said. The flaws began
during jury selection, when 2 jurors, both with Jewish-sounding names,
were stricken from the list. That raised what Rossi believed was a
possible challenge, based on a 1986 Supreme Court ruling, Batson v.
Kentucky, prohibiting the disqualification of potential jurors on the
basis of race.
Some federal rulings have defined Jews as a "race."
The reasons for the two jurors' dismissal remain controversial. The
defense claimed both were removed by the prosecution because of their
ethnicity. The prosecution said one juror was dismissed for unrelated
reasons, and it questioned the other because she had attended a Quaker
high school, raising concerns that she might not be willing to impose the
death penalty.
The trial judge brushed aside defense concerns about ethnicity saying at
one point that he did not believe Jews constituted an ethnic group as
defined by the Batson ruling. The trial judge's statement was later
challenged by higher courts.
But the most damning flaws occurred during the trial judge's charge to the
jury at the end of the trial, in which he instructed them - erroneously,
by all accounts - that they could find Bronshtein guilty of 1st degree
murder "without finding that he had specific intent to kill," as a federal
appeals court later wrote. The judge also failed to tell the jurors that
if they convicted Bronshtein and did not impose the death penalty, he
would face life without the possibility of parole.
Though the judge later corrected himself, the jury convicted Bronshtein
and sentenced him to death.
Bronshtein initially refused to file an appeal, insisting that although he
was not guilty of murdering Gutman, he would rather die than spend the
rest of his life in prison. He even fought - successfully - for dismissal
of an appeal petition filed by a group of attorneys, acting with the
consent of his mother and other relatives. At that point, as the state's
deadline for appeals passed, Bronshtein was on his way to becoming the 1st
inmate to be executed in Pennsylvania under the state's new capital
punishment statute.
He later had 2nd thoughts, however. In 1999, he filed his own appeal in
state court. The court rejected it as untimely. He then turned to the
federal courts.
In 2001, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. in Philadelphia agreed to
hear Bronshtein's case. Reed overturned both the conviction and the
sentence, and ordered a new trial.
Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor appealed the ruling to
the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals - the court where Alito has sat
for the past 15 years - arguing that because Bronshtein had failed to meet
the state deadline, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction and should not
have taken up the case. In April 2003, a 3-judge panel, including Alito,
agreed to review Castor's appeal.
In Bronshtein's view, Alito already knew then that he was on Bush's short
list for a Supreme Court vacancy. "From what I can tell, Tony thinks that
Alito is using him as a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court," Rossi said.
To that end, in Bronshtein's view, Alito took an unusually complicated
approach in his April 2005 decision. Alito rejected the lower court's
ruling that the conviction be overturned, writing that although the
state's case was fraught with errors - among them the possible violation
of Bronshtein's rights under Batson and the judge's controversial charge
to the jury none of those affected the case's outcome. Still, Alito
agreed with the lower court that the sentencing phase was flawed and that
a new penalty phase must be held.
Alito ruled that Bronshtein's change-of-heart appeal was rejected because
of a state deadline that "was not firmly established and regularly
applied" at the time, though it has since been revised. As a result, the
federal court had jurisdiction, Alito wrote.
The irony, said Rossi, is that despite Alito's reputation as a hard-line,
pro-prosecution conservative, his Bronshtein ruling takes "a pretty, you
know, liberal position."
"That's a position that's not going to be popular," Rossi said, adding
that "if the government is appealing Alito, you know, you've got to
scratch your head a little bit."
The ruling has satisfied no one. In June, Bronshtein filed a 96-page
handwritten petition asking the Third Circuit en banc - meaning the entire
court - to review Alito's ruling. Bronshtein contends that that Alito's
findings were "arbitrary" and "clearly motivated by politics, not the
law." Bronshtein has also asked that his attorneys, whom he alleges
mishandled his case, be replaced.
That petition was eclipsed in September when Castor, arguing that
Bronshtein had simply turned to the federal courts because "he thinks he
has a better shot in federal court than the state courts," appealed
Alito's ruling to the Supreme Court. "The decision by the circuit court is
at odds with some...circuits in the country and in agreement with some
others...so it is a question that is not settled nationally and I think
the Supreme Court needs to settle the controversy once and for all,"
Castor said.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear the case in the
next few weeks.
(source: Forward.com)
USA:
The death penalty: Don't worship your emotions
John Shea shares this story: He once invited a renowned storyteller,
Reuven Gold, to meet with his students. During that visit, one of the
students, a young priest facing a painful transition in ministry, poured
out his anxiety to the classroom, especially his fear of failure.
After listening awhile to the young priest, Reuven made a comment that
seemed designed to actually increase the priest's anxiety. The priest was
momentarily flustered, but suddenly grasped Reuven's deeper point, stopped
abruptly, smiled and said: "Thanks, I feel better." Then in a loud voice,
but devoid of anger, Reuven said: "Don't worship your emotions."
That's sound advice for all of us, especially as we examine our attitudes
towards the issue of capital punishment, the death penalty. We need to
stop worshipping our emotions. No easy task.
If we're honest, we have to admit there's something inside of us that
wants the death penalty, needs it, and cannot help but feel a certain
vindication and glee when a murderer, especially one who is cold and
unrepentant, receives the death penalty. The itch for justice is too
deeply written into our DNA.
That's why so many popular movies and novels end not just with the triumph
of good over evil, but with good crushing and killing evil. Something
inside of us feels vindicated and whole again when evil is crushed and
brought to its knees by sheer force so that the playground bully can be
arrogant no longer and must finally eat his own violence. We want that and
feel a deep release whenever it actually happens.
And so there's always an argument for the death penalty: It's necessary as
a deterrent, it brings a needed closure to the families of the victims,
it's a demand of justice itself.
But, in the end, those arguments are more emotional than logical. This is
feeling, not faith, speaking.
First of all, as most studies show, the death penalty doesn't act as a
deterrent. Nor does it bring closure for the victim's loved ones. It
brings instead catharsis, that wonderful (though ephemeral) feeling of
release and vindication that we experience at the end of a movie when the
bad guys finally get shot.
And, while justice seemingly does demand the death penalty, there's a
morality (and a logic) higher than that of strict justice. Only
forgiveness is ultimately a deterrent and only it brings real closure.
And for a Christian the issue is clear: the death penalty is always wrong,
not because it isn't a deterrent and doesn't bring closure, but because it
goes against the very heart of the Gospel. The one thing that Jesus asks
us to do that sets us apart as Christians, more than anything else, is to
love those who hate us, to do good to those who curse us, to not give back
in kind, murder for murder, but to forgive our enemies, including
murderers.
Jesus witnessed to this in his own death ("Forgive them for they know not
what they do!") and he challenged us to the same by telling us that our
virtue needs to go deeper than that of the scribes and the Pharisees, that
is, the virtue of strict justice which, precisely, prescribed the death
penalty in the name of fairness and in the name of God.
The renowned anthropologist, Rene Girard, asserts that the cross of Jesus
is the single most revolutionary moral event ever in history, but that it
is like a capsule whose power is being released slowly (in terms of our
understanding and absorption) through the centuries. Simply put, as the
centuries go on, slowly, more and more, we are grasping its deeper moral
demands.
John Paul II was a testimony to this. It took 2000 years before, finally,
a pope stood up and pronounced unequivocally that the death penalty was
wrong, not because it was ineffective as a deterrent, but because it goes
against the center of the Gospel. No pope again, ever, will affirm the
contrary. We've absorbed the meaning of the cross a little more deeply and
part of that understanding is that capital punishment is not God's way
and, ultimately, not our way either.
Still, that doesn't make it easier for us to emotionally move away from
the idea of the death penalty. It's one thing to believe something in
faith, it's quite another to have one's heart and emotions onside. And so,
generally, we're lying if we say that it is easy to forgive and to move
beyond our need for justice. Our emotions demand strict justice,
especially for those who are stubborn, cold, callous, unrepentant. At the
level of our feelings, we want to see the arrogant broken by justice, by
death if necessary.
But, but, let's not worship our emotions. We're meant instead to worship a
God whose son, Jesus, tells us that the highest moral and spiritual demand
of all is forgiveness. What distinguishes a Christian from others is, in
the end, the willingness and the capacity to not give back in kind, even
to murderers.
Oblate of Mary Immaculate Father Ronald Rolheiser is a specialist in the
field of spirituality and systematic theology.
(source: Rev. Ronald Rolheiser, OMI--The Tidings, Dec. 16)
