Feb. 9 TEXAS: 3 convicted in deaths on 19 in sealed trailer----Prosecutors will now pursue a death sentence for truck's driver With the conviction Wednesday of 3 members of a smuggling ring blamed for the deaths of 19 illegal immigrants, federal prosecutors now will focus on winning a death sentence against the truck driver who took the victims on their fatal ride. After 4 days of deliberations and a near-deadlock, a jury in a Houston court convicted Victor Sanchez Rodriguez on 18 of 20 smuggling counts. Prosecutors said Rodriguez, 58, led one of 3 smuggling rings involved in the May 2003 tragedy in South Texas. His wife, Emma Sapata Rodriguez, 59, was convicted on 15 of 20 counts, and her half sister, Rosa Sarrata Gonzalez, 51, was convicted on two of three smuggling counts. U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore scheduled sentencing for May 1. Except for Emma Rodriguez, who hung her head after hearing the verdict, the defendants remained impassive, as they had throughout the trial. The convictions should help publicize the increasingly violent nature of human smugglers, known as "coyotes," and warn immigrants about the dangers of crossing the border illegally, said Deacon Joe Rubio, community relations vice president for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. "It's a terrible way for people to die," said Rubio, whose organization assisted the 19 victims' families. "It was just an inhumane act and I hope that the other coyotes realize the courts will take a stand and they will be brought to justice." The convictions mean that, of 14 accused members of the failed smuggling effort, all have been convicted, acquitted or had charges dropped except fugitive Octavio Torres Ortega. Torres, who was last known to be in Mexico, is accused of leading an organization that loaded illegal immigrants into a tractor-trailer rig near the Texas-Mexico border. No date for Williams trial The driver of the truck, Tyrone Williams, is the first person to face a possible death sentence under an 11-year-old federal law that allows the ultimate punishment if an immigrant dies, even accidentally, during a smuggling attempt. No date for his new trial has been set, pending the outcome of an appeal by prosecutors. They want to try Williams on all 58 original smuggling counts, not just the 20 on which the jury deadlocked in his 1st trial in March 2005. After reading the verdict Wednesday, Gilmore sent the jury back to decide whether the Rodriguezes should forfeit their 2 houses in Brownsville, and Sarrata her house in San Benito. Jurors went home about 2 p.m. and will continue deliberating today. The 3 were among 14 people indicted after the May 14, 2003, discovery of 17 bodies in and near the trailer that Williams abandoned at a Victoria truck stop. Another rider died soon after arriving at a hospital and another died several days later. Autopsies showed that the victims died of dehydration, asphyxiation and hyperthermia. Testimony showed that air became scarce in the sealed trailer and temperatures soared above 170 degrees during an attempt to smuggle at least 74 people from Harlingen to Houston. The Rodriguezes and Sarrata fled to Mexico after the failed attempt, but were arrested. All are U.S. citizens and were deported in February 2005. Portrayed them as greedy Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Rodriguez and Jeff Vaden portrayed the 3 as greedy members of a coldly calculating business operation that regarded immigrants as commodities and put little value on their lives. Defense attorneys said prosecutors failed to prove the legal basis of the accusations, that the defendants were taking the blame for a failed immigration policy and that the government's witnesses were unreliable. Gilmore last week dismissed 40 of 60 counts against the Rodriguezes and 55 of 58 counts against Sarrata. The jurors informed Gilmore on Tuesday that they were hopelessly deadlocked, but she urged them to continue trying to reach a unanimous verdict. They convicted Victor Rodriguez on eight counts of harboring illegal immigrants, 9 counts of transporting illegal immigrants and 1 count of smuggling conspiracy. Although the conspiracy charge potentially carried a life sentence, he faces a maximum of 20 years because jurors found that, although people suffered bodily injury, they were not in fear of death and did not die. The finding was puzzling, because testimony showed that 3 riders smuggled by the Rodriguezes died in the trailer. Unusual gag order The jurors could not comment on their reasoning because Gilmore has imposed an unusual gag order that extends to jurors who have been released from their duty. Houston Chronicle attorneys have asked her to reconsider her decision, but she has declined to do so. The jury convicted Emma Rodriguez on 8 counts of harboring, 6 counts of transporting and 1 count of smuggling conspiracy. She and her husband face prison sentences with maximums ranging from 10 years to 20 years. Sarrata was convicted of 1 count of harboring and 1 count of smuggling conspiracy. She faces a maximum of 10 years on each count because the jury found that no one was injured under the conspiracy charge. Also unexplained is how jurors decided that serious bodily injury occurred under the Rodriguezes' conspiracy counts but not under Sarrata's, since the charge applies to everyone in the trailer. 5-year-old among dead The Rodriguezes were accused of running a smuggling operation that brought at least 8 people across the border and held them for transport by another ring headed by Karla Patricia Chavez Joya, 28, who has pleaded guilty. 3 of those immigrants died, including a 5-year-old boy and his father. The Rodriguezes harbored the immigrants at houses on their property, then took them to a staging area in Harlingen, where they were loaded into a tractor-trailer rig driven by Williams, a legal immigrant from Jamaica who lived in Schenectady, N.Y. Prosecutors said the Rodriguezes also harbored and transported the 3-year-old son of a Honduran woman who survived. They transported him in a car that followed the truck, according to testimony, and refused to release him to his mother until more money was paid. 2 of Sarrata's sons testified against her, saying she ran the smuggling operation while presenting herself solely as a beauty parlor operator. As children, they were used as props to help her smuggle children across the border, they said. (source: Houston Chronicle) ILLINOIS: Defense seeks death penalty foes' testimony Lawyers for former Gov. George Ryan want to call prominent death penalty opponents as character witnesses -- including Sister Helen Prejean of Dead Man Walking fame -- even though the judge ruled the issue of capital punishment has no place in Ryan's corruption trial. Prosecutors on Wednesday accused defense attorneys of trying to improperly put before jurors Ryan's historic 2003 decision to clear Illinois' Death Row by choosing multiple character witnesses who know Ryan only through his death penalty reform work. Defense lawyers say they are not trying to inject the issue into the case but simply plan to call witnesses who will speak of Ryan's "integrity" and "character." HIGHLIGHTS DEFENSE: Wants to call prominent death penalty opponents to the stand to testify to George Ryan's "integrity" and "character." PROSECUTION: Says defense is trying to get Ryan's policy decisions into his public corruption trial through the back door. UP NEXT: Tom Cuculich, who worked under Ryan when he was secretary of state, takes the stand for the defense. "We understand what the rules are and we intend to obey them," said Andrea Lyon, Ryan lawyer and vocal capital punishment opponent. The defense wants to call 10 to 15 character witnesses, including national death penalty opponent Mike Farrell, best known for playing B.J. Hunnicut on the popular television series "MASH." Ryan's lawyers haven't publicly released its witness list but said 3/4 of the character witnesses have nothing to do with capital punishment. Prosecutors said in court other witnesses work for groups related to domestic violence, handgun violence and gay rights -- issues, they argue, that also should be banned from coming into the trial. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer has ruled that none of Ryan's policy decisions as a public official should come into his corruption trial, and Wednesday said she'll limit what the jury will hear about the background of character witnesses. She said she'd consider reviewing their testimony ahead of time, outside the jury's presence. Back-door attempt? Pallmeyer needled the defense for lining up witnesses who seem to know little about Ryan's character in relation to the racketeering, tax, and mail fraud charges against him. Pallmeyer said she was "suspicious" it was a back-door attempt to "present those [policy] issues to the jury." But Lyon accused prosecutors of "trying to reduce" Ryan "to some nameless, faceless person with no background." Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins said any talk of the death penalty is explosive, unfairly prejudicial and could confuse jurors into thinking they have to decide whether Ryan's decision to clear Death Row was right or wrong. They instead should concentrate on the merits of the case, he said. "That's not what this case is about," Collins said. "It's doing through the back door what they couldn't do through the front door." While in office, Ryan first imposed a moratorium on the death penalty, then held a series of hearings to weigh the evidence in every capital case in the state. But just before leaving the governor's office in 2003, he granted blanket commutation, clearing Death Row. The move garnered him a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, and he started the anti-death penalty lecture circuit. Collins threatened that if the defense slips death penalty rhetoric before jurors, the government could call rebuttal witnesses, including families of murder victims whom Ryan met with and allegedly promised he wouldn't grant blanket commutations. (source: Chicago Sun-Times) CALIFORNIA: Judge to Hear Challenge to Use of Lethal Injection----Foes say the practice may cause a very painful death, thus violating the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in San Jose will take up an issue today that has the potential to block all executions in California: whether lethal injections used on death row inflict so much pain that they violate the Constitution. Although lethal injections have been used for more than a quarter century, the question of whether they violate the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" has suddenly become a hot issue in the courts. In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked executions in 2 Florida cases to allow time for lower court judges to consider arguments against lethal injection. Last week, the Maryland Supreme Court stayed the execution of a convicted murderer on several grounds, including a challenge to the state's lethal injection procedure. The case coming before U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose raises the same questions that have come up in those cases. Opponents of lethal injection say that rather than being more humane than a gas chamber or electric chair, lethal injections may cause a very painful death. California corrections officials - like those in virtually every state that uses the method - execute condemned inmates with a combination of three chemicals: sodium pentothal, a short-acting sedative; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes all voluntary muscles; and potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. In theory, the sodium pentothal, a barbiturate, renders the prisoner unconscious long enough for the potassium chloride to kill him. Without the sodium pentothal, the injection of potassium chloride would cause great pain. But with it, the condemned inmate feels nothing, lawyers for the state argue. "There is no dispute that 5 grams of sodium pentothal will quickly render the inmate unconscious, that he will remain in that state while the other drugs are delivered and that no inmate can, while unconscious, experience pain," Deputy Atty. Gen. Dane Gillette, who heads the state attorney general's capital appeals unit, told Fogel in a brief. But lawyers for Michael A. Morales, a convicted rapist and murderer scheduled to be executed Feb. 21, question that assertion. California's lethal injection procedure "was adopted without any medical research or review to determine that a prisoner would not suffer a painful death," they argue, noting that a former warden of San Quentin, Daniel Vasquez, adopted the current procedure after watching 2 executions in Texas. Morales' lawyers - David A. Senior of Los Angeles, John R. Grele of San Francisco and Richard P. Steinken of Chicago - say the sodium pentothal may not always work effectively. Because the second drug, pancuronium bromide, paralyzes all of an inmate's muscles, the prisoner would have no way of signaling that he or she was still conscious and able to feel pain, they say. Several years ago, the American Veterinary Assn. outlawed the use of sedatives in combination with paralyzing drugs when euthanizing animals because of the prospect of "pain and distress," the lawyers told the judge. Their suit asserts that California has no effective way to guarantee "that the anesthetic agent is flowing properly into the prisoner." Fogel has ordered the state to turn over information and logs about the last 3 executions in California. State officials said after the Jan. 16 execution of Clarence Allen that completing his execution required an extra dose of potassium chloride. The same thing had happened in 2 previous executions, they said. Vernell Crittendon, a spokesman for the San Quentin warden, said it was unclear why the state needed to use the extra chemicals in those executions. The U.S. Supreme Court has never found any method of execution to be unconstitutional. And so far no lower federal court or state supreme court has issued a ruling striking down lethal injection. Some courts have explicitly rejected challenges to lethal injections. In October, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling saying there had been "no evidence of problems" in any of the states using injections. Fogel has previously rejected two other challenges to lethal injection, but those rulings were based primarily on procedural grounds. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while allowing one execution to go forward, cautioned that California's procedure for lethal injections "raises extremely troubling questions." The most successful challenge to lethal injections so far has come in New Jersey. There, a mid-level state appeals court in 2004 ruled against the procedures, because the state had stopped requiring an emergency cart containing equipment and medications that could be used to revive an inmate in the event of a last-minute stay. "We think it plain that an inmate who is being executed in error because a stay of execution has been issued after the injection is administered is wrongfully deprived of due process and fundamental fairness, to say nothing of life itself," Judge Sylvia Pressler wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. The judges ordered the state to come up with new procedures. That effort became moot in January when New Jersey enacted a moratorium on executions. Lethal injection was first adopted by Oklahoma when it enacted a new death penalty statute in 1977. The procedure is now the predominant method of execution nationwide, used in 37 of the 38 states with capital punishment laws. In California, the 1st person executed by lethal injection was triple murderer Keith D. Williams in 1996. That year the 9th Circuit had ruled that executions in the San Quentin gas chamber constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 10 other people have been executed by lethal injection in the state since then. Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and prominent critic of lethal injections who has reviewed such procedures used by every state, said most adopted them without any meaningful help from medical professionals. "The more we know about lethal injections, the more problems that are revealed," she said. (source: Los Angeles Times) ***************** Man nearing execution argues injection cruel and unusual Lawyers for a condemned rapist and murderer will ask a federal judge Thursday to block the looming execution amid claims lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. Michael Morales is scheduled to be killed Feb. 21 for raping and murdering a 17-year-old Lodi girl 25 years ago. The Stockton man has a long legal road to travel in his bid to stay alive. The U.S. Supreme Court has never endorsed a claim that lethal injection, used in 36 states, is unconstitutionally cruel, although the justices are weighing the procedure by which inmates can make such a challenge. Morales is also asking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to commute his sentence to life without parole, a clemency bid supported by the trial judge and six jurors who sentenced him 23 years ago. Last year, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who is to hear Morales' case Thursday, dismissed a similar Eighth Amendment challenge by three-time murderer Donald Beardslee. Days later, Beardslee was injected at San Quentin State Prison, where California carries out its executions. The U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether death sentences carried out by lethal injection are cruel and unusual punishment. The justices have upheld executions in general despite the pain they might cause inmates, but have left unsettled the issue of whether alleged pain in lethal injections is unconstitutionally excessive and can be avoided. Attorneys for Morales allege a mistake made during the sedation process might mean he would appear unconscious, but internally would suffer excruciating pain once the paralyzing and the death drugs were administered. The judge ordered prison officials to turn over to Morales' attorneys the heart-monitoring data taken during the executions of Beardslee, Stanley Tookie Williams and Clarence Allen, the last three men California executed. Attorneys demanded the data in a bid to help bolster their claim. Morales, 46, of Stockton, raped and brutally beat a 17-year-old Lodi girl 25 years ago. Terri Winchell was found beaten and stabbed in a secluded vineyard. He was tried in Ventura County because of extensive pretrial publicity in San Joaquin County. The case is Morales v. Hickman, 06-219. (source: Associated Press) FLORIDA: DNA testing, compensation bills advance in Legislature Legislation to expand DNA testing of inmates in old cases, once considered controversial, had clear sailing in a pair of legislative committees Wednesday. One panel also introduced a bill to create a process for compensating wrongly convicted prisoners, but a lawyer who has helped inmates win their freedom through DNA testing said it doesn't go far enough. Identical DNA testing bills won unanimous approval from the House Criminal Justice and Senate Judiciary committees. Both would permanently lift a deadline for testing old cases and allow it even for inmates who pleaded guilty or no-contest. "It's good to see after 3 years that we might finally get a bill that will at least provide an opportunity (for testing), which is all we're really providing," said Jennifer Greenberg, executive director of the Florida Innocence Initiative. The program helped free Wilton Dedge, who received $2 million from lawmakers last year to compensate for spending 22 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, and Alan Crotzer, released last month after doing more than 24 years for rapes that DNA showed he could not have committed. Greenberg said she believes the compensation bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to introduce, would not help Crotzer even though it would allow wrongly convicted inmates to seek reimbursement for lost wages. "As a poor man without resources, he didn't look - at 19 - like he would attain an earning capacity," Greenberg said. "His damages are pain and suffering - 24 years, 6 months and 13 days - and there's not one penny for pain and suffering." Once filed, the bill will return to the committee for debate, testimony and possible amending. The testing bills next go to appropriations committees, their last stops before they can get floor votes after the Legislature convenes in regular session March 7. The Legislature initially provided a 4-year window for DNA testing of old cases. It was due to shut Oct. 1, 2005, but the Florida Supreme Court is keeping it open at least through July 1. The justices are considering whether to continue the testing regardless of what lawmakers do. The existing law limits testing to inmates convicted at trial. Allowing those have pleaded guilty or no-contest had raised questions about the new legislation. The sponsors, Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami, and Rep. John Quinnones, R-Kissimmee, have argued that it shouldn't matter how an innocent person is sent to prison. Some may have taken plea deals to avoid risking a harsher sentence if they go to trial, received bad advice or are just dumb, Villalobos said when his bill went through the Senate Criminal Justice Committee last month. (source: Associated Press) *************** Death Row inmate seeks another trial in W. Palm woman's slaying A man sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a West Palm Beach woman is requesting a new trial or to have his death sentence turned into a life sentence, because he believes his attorney didn't advise him properly before he confessed to the murder. Lenard Philmore, of Lake Park, initially told his court-appointed attorney that he had nothing to do with the kidnapping and murder of Kazue Perron, only admitting to the robbery of a bank using Perron's car shortly after she was shot in the head and left in a canal in Indiantown. But Philmore later changed his story, saying that he and an accomplice shoved Perron into her gold Lexus in Palm Beach Gardens and drove her to Indiantown, where he shot her in the forehead and left her body in a canal. On Wednesday, Philmore's attorney argued before the Florida Supreme Court that Philmore's original attorney, Assistant Public Defender John Hetherington, did not investigate the case sufficiently to determine that Philmore's initial denial was a lie. Had the attorney investigated more, attorney James Viggiano argued, he would have advised Philmore not to speak to investigators and give the confession. Or at least the attorney could have sought a plea deal that could have saved Philmore from the death penalty. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Campbell said during Wednesday's hearing that "just because Mr. Philmore is unable to lie successfully shouldn't be blamed on his attorney." Chief Justice Barbara Pariente said the court had already found Philmore's confession to be voluntary. "It looks to me like it was Mr. Philmore that is not only responsible in terms of his murder, being the shooter, but responsible for where he found himself when he confessed to police," Pariente said. The court will now review the case. Philmore, 29, remains on death row, as does his accomplice, Anthony Spann. (source: Palm Beach Post)
