Feb. 18 USA/INDIANA: 'Exonerated' explores justice system's mortal mistakes A half-dozen former death-row inmates put the American justice system on trial in the University of Southern Indiana Theatre's latest production, and their case is troubling. It ought to be, regardless of where anyone in the audience stands on the death penalty. That overwhelming conviction jolted through the opening performance of "The Exonerated," mainly through the stark, telling testimony in Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen's documentary theater piece. Like "The Laramie Project," "The Vagina Monologues" and other stagings drawn from interviews, "The Exonerated" comes directly from court records or interviews with real people. In this case, the subjects are 5 men and 1 woman who clung to life on death row for years, and sometimes decades, before courts overturned their convictions on old and new evidence - everything from tape-recorded conversations and latter-day confessions by the true guilty parties to modern DNA testing. The documentarians-turned-playwrights chose these 6 from more than seven dozen exonerated former death-row prisoners in the United States at the end of the 20th century. Presented as readers' theater, their lines came to life through 10 actors holding scripts in hand as they sat and sometimes stood on a black, tiered platform set in USI's Mallette Studio Theatre. 6 played principal parts and 4 read multiple roles, including police, lawyers, witnesses and a judge. Director Elliot Wasserman's cast eased from interpretive readings into character as the 80-minute production took them through the harrowing process of arrest, accusation, conviction and time spent on death row before being released back into a world ever uncertain of their innocence. The transitions played more effectively for some student actors than others, with a few flubbed lines and some self-consciously studied spots on opening night. The power of these personal testimonies pulsed through the text, however, most notably in performances including those of Natalie Singer, Daniel Stunkel and Mario Reid. Singer confidently navigated the confusion, sorrow and acceptance of her fate as Sunny, a young wife and mother whose spirit somehow survived 16 years on death row after she was falsely convicted, along with her husband, of killing 2 state troopers in Florida. Stunkel's halting, sometimes reluctant delivery breathed the physical and psychological horrors haunting Kerry, a 17-year-old who spent 2 decades in prison, during which he was regularly beaten and raped before DNA evidence freed him. Reid was a thoughtful,insightful presence as Delbert, a lay poet and philosopher reflecting on his fate as a black man wrongly accused and convicted of raping and killing a white woman. The production left Wednesday's audience of 97 with plenty to ponder as we left the theater. Regardless of what we think about the justness of executing convicts, who can deny the injustice that occurs when the wrong people get the death sentence? We regularly read about people whose cases get overturned for familiar reasons: inadequate defense, sloppy investigation and prosecution, mistaken identity, defective forensic testing, false confessions, false testimony, racial prejudice. "The Exonerated" draws its power from the real, recognizable humanity of these freed few who speak for too many others wrongfully convicted in a justice system that can and does make irrefutable, and sometimes irreversible, mistakes. ** What: University of Southern Indiana Theatre presents "The Exonerated" When: Through Feb. 26, playing at 7 p.m. Wednesdays, Thursdays and Tuesday; 8 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays; 2 p.m. Sundays. Where: USI's Mallette Studio Theatre Tickets: $10; $8 for students and senior citizens Discussion: Maurice Hamington will lead an audience discussion after the Thursday performance Information: 465-1668 (source: Courier & Press) ILLINOIS: State to seek death penalty in 4 slayings DuPage County prosecutors said Friday they will seek the death penalty for Eric Hanson, 29, if he is convicted of the September killing of 4 family members. Assistant State's Atty. Robert Berlin said Hanson's family is "on board" with the decision. Several family members were present at Friday's hearing but declined to comment. Judge Robert Anderson also ordered Hanson to give a DNA sample and fingerprints. Investigators hope to match the DNA sample with blood left on a victim's wedding ring, a victim's Rolex watch and other evidence from a victim's car. Hanson is accused of fatally shooting his parents, Terrance and Mary Hanson, and beating to death his sister, Katherine Hanson-Tsao, and her husband, Jimmy Tsao, after it was discovered Hanson had stolen about $80,000 from his parents. (source: Chicago Tribune) CALIFORNIA: Morales Loses Clemency Bid as Doctors Fight Role in Execution----Schwarzenegger reviews details of 1981 murder, which the inmate has admitted. Groups say aiding his death violates the physicians' oath. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday denied clemency to death row inmate Michael Morales as medical groups protested a federal judge's order that a doctor monitor the execution. An array of professional medical organizations lashed out against the court prescription, saying that it contradicts a physician's obligation to save lives. In a 5-page statement, Schwarzenegger said Morales' "claim that he is a changed man does not excuse the brutal murder of Terri Winchell." Morales was convicted in the 1981 rape and murder of the 17-year-old Lodi high school senior. "Nothing in the record or the materials before me compels a grant of clemency," Schwarzenegger said. "The pain Ms. Winchell's loved ones have been forced to endure at the hands of Morales is unfathomable, as is the brutality of the acts he perpetrated." In an interview, San Joaquin County Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Schultz agreed. "I'm glad the governor did this," he said. "It's an appropriate decision because of the brutality of the crime." Morales, 46, is scheduled to die by lethal injection at San Quentin State Prison on Tuesday. Under a federal court order, corrections officials have arranged for an anesthesiologist to ensure he is unconscious when the fatal dose is administered. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel's ruling Tuesday came in response to defense lawyers' charges that the state's standard three-drug potion was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. A doctor, he said, would ensure that Morales was unconscious before the painful second and third drugs are delivered into his veins. Dr. Priscilla Ray, head of the American Medical Assn., said Fogel's ruling disregarded a doctor's ethical obligations. "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution," she said. The California Medical Assn. and the American Society of Anesthesiologists agreed. The state medical association expressed its dismay in a statement reiterating that it "has for decades sought to end physician participation in capital punishment, including seeking legislation banning such actions by physicians and other healthcare professionals." But Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the state attorney general, suggested that the judge was only complying with Morales' own medical expert, Dr. Mark Heath. In a declaration submitted Feb. 14, Heath said the involvement of an anesthesiologist "is an easily taken step that would greatly reduce the possibility of an inhumane execution." Nonetheless, Morales' defense team filed a motion Friday with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Fogel's decision on the grounds that adding an anesthesiologist to the procedure does not adequately address their claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Defense attorneys also filed a separate challenge with the appellate court Friday asserting that Morales was wrongfully sentenced to death on the basis of a jailhouse informant's false testimony. The informant, Bruce Samuelson, testified that Morales boasted about the killing in a conversation conducted in Spanish. A decade later, however, it was revealed that Morales does not speak Spanish. The discrepancy prompted Morales' trial judge late last month to urge Schwarzenegger to grant clemency. But in rejecting the inmate's clemency petition, Schwarzenegger noted that the issue of Samuelson was recently rejected by the California Supreme Court. Most of Schwarzenegger's statement related gruesome details of the Jan. 8, 1981, crime. Morales, who says he was high on PCP at the time, does not deny committing the murder. But Morales contends that the informants' testimony wrongly influenced the judge and jury to impose the death sentence. The Stockton high school dropout, who was then 21, and his 19-year-old cousin Rick Ortega plotted to kill Winchell out of jealousy, the governor said. "Ortega was involved in a homosexual relationship at the time and had learned that his lover was dating Ms. Winchell," he said. Morales tried to strangle Winchell from behind with a belt, which broke. He struck her 23 times in the head with a hammer before dragging her across the road and into a vineyard, where he raped her and stabbed her four times in the heart. The growing list of people urging clemency include Kenneth W. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine School of Law and former Whitewater independent counsel. Starr has said it would amount to "a grievous injustice of profound proportions." (source: Los Angeles Times) ************** OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR----FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE----02/17/2006 Governor Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency to Convicted Murderer Michael Morales Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued the following statement today following his decision not to grant clemency to convicted murderer Michael Morales: "There is no compelling evidence that the jury's punishment is not appropriate in this case. All the reviewing courts have upheld the jury's punishment. Morales' claim that he is a changed man does not excuse the brutal murder and rape of Terri Winchell." The full text of the decision is below. STATEMENT OF DECISION Request for Clemency by Michael Angelo Morales Michael Angelo Morales has been convicted of brutally murdering and raping 17-year-old Terri Winchell. Morales killed Ms. Winchell in a premeditated, surprise attack that occurred while the 2 were riding in the same car. During this attack, Morales strangled Ms. Winchell with a belt, bludgeoned her 23 times with a hammer, and stabbed her 4 times with a knife. Morales also raped Ms. Winchell as she lay dying. A jury found Morales guilty of first-degree murder, with special circumstances, and sentenced him to death. With his execution scheduled for February 21, 2006, Morales requests that his sentence be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In early 1981, 21-year-old Morales and his 19-year-old cousin Rick Ortega plotted to kill Ms. Winchell out of jealousy. Ortega was involved in a homosexual relationship at the time and had learned that his lover was dating Ms. Winchell. Ms. Winchell did not know about the Ortega relationship. To carry out the plot, Ortega invited Ms. Winchell to go shopping. The planned attack occurred while Ortega, Morales, and Ms. Winchell were in Ortega's car. Ortega was driving, Ms. Winchell was in the passenger seat, and Morales sat behind Ms. Winchell in the back seat. Morales had a belt, a hammer, and a knife with him. Taking the belt, Morales reached towards the front seat where Ms. Winchell was sitting, and he began strangling her. Ms. Winchell struggled and the belt broke. Morales then began hitting Ms. Winchell with the hammer. As Ms. Winchell fought back and screamed for Ortega to help her, Morales continued hitting her with the hammer, striking her 23 times on the head. With the car stopped, Morales dragged Ms. Winchell out of the car and into a vineyard where he raped her. Before leaving her there, he stabbed her 4 times in the chest. Ms. Winchell was found dead at the vineyard. Based on the evidence of his guilt, a jury convicted Morales of 1st-degree murder, with special circumstances, and rape. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Morales subsequently filed habeas corpus petitions in both the state and federal courts. In his federal habeas corpus petition, he pursued 59 legal claims. The federal court considered and rejected on the merits 57 of Morales' claims. Morales appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's findings. Morales then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which declined to review his case. Since filing his clemency petition, Morales has continued to litigate his case in state and federal courts. Morales has litigated many issues, including some of the same ones raised in his clemency petition. Now Morales seeks executive clemency based on a plea for mercy and justice. Morales' request for clemency is based, in part, on his regret, remorse, and rehabilitation. He states that he has demonstrated remorse and atonement for the last 25 years, and that he is a changed man capable of contributing positively to society. Morales points to his actions after Ms. Winchell's murder, his verbal statement to the court before he was sentenced, and his handwritten statement included with his clemency petition. He highlights that: (1) just hours after the crimes and after he regained his sobriety, he expressed his "despair at having failed to prevent his cousin Rick Ortega from drawing him into a foolhardy attempt to frighten Terri Winchell" and his sorrow for allowing events to go awry and for harming her; (2) at sentencing, he conceded his guilt by telling the court that it was hard for him even to try to correct what he had done and that he realized and regretted how much pain was caused; and (3) more recently, in connection with his request for clemency, he wrote about his acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Morales' sentiments of remorse and responsibility for the crimes he committed against Ms. Winchell are overshadowed by his statements attributing blame to his cousin Ortega and to his alcohol and PCP use. Also, he expressed remorse and regret at sentencing, but at the same time referred to the horrific murder he committed as a "mistake." And in his written statement, he used no form of the word "murder" or "kill" to describe the actions for which he says he accepts responsibility, nor did he acknowledge the rape or any of the specific acts he perpetrated against Ms. Winchell. Morales additionally points to his efforts in prison to "change his heart" as support for his clemency plea. He identifies his "exemplary" institutional record, a re-established relationship with God, close and supportive relationships with family and friends, and reformation reflected through his artistic talents. The changes in Morales' life do not override the jury's decision of guilt and sentence, which have been upheld by all the reviewing courts. Being a changed man today does not change the nature of the murder and rape Morales committed against Ms. Winchell when he was younger. In his clemency plea, Morales also argues that the death penalty is inappropriate in his case because: (1) his cousin Ortega was the mastermind and architect of Ms. Winchell's murder; (2) his (Morales') intoxication on the night of the murder resulted in a psychotic, disinhibited state that produced his homicidal behavior; (3) false testimony by a jailhouse informant at his trial "unquestionably moved the jury to vote for death;" and (4) the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty was discriminatory. Morales cannot avoid responsibility for his crimes by casting blame on Ortega. Morales, not Ortega, attempted to strangle Ms. Winchell with a belt, used a hammer to hit her on the head 23 times, and dragged her into a vineyard where he raped and stabbed her. Morales claims that, because of alcohol and PCP, he was not completely aware of the events of that night, and was not in control of his actions. This claim is belied by his actions before and after the brutal murder and rape. A few months before the murder, Morales told his girlfriend Raquel Cardenas that his "friend" has "gotten hurt by a girl, and... that he was feeling close to his best friend since he got hurt by that girl." The day before the murder, Morales "practice[ed]" the strangulation on his housemate Patricia Flores by wrapping the belt around Flores' neck and then tightening it. And on the day of the murder, Morales told his girlfriend Cardenas that "he was gonna do Rick a favor" and "hurt this girl... [and] strangle her." After the crimes, the broken belt, the hammer, and Ms. Winchell's purse were found in the home where Morales lived. The belt was found under a mattress, the hammer was found in a refrigerator crisper, and the purse was found in a closet. This evidence shows that Morales was aware and in control of his actions and their consequences. The federal district court also found that a mental impairment defense based on PCP usage was wholly inconsistent with Morales' actions on the day of the crimes and with his detailed memory of the crimes. Morales insists that he has a compelling case for clemency because trial witness Bruce Samuelson lied on the stand. Morales claims that it was Samuelson's testimony alone that convinced the jury to prescribe a sentence of death, instead of life in prison without the possibility of parole. This argument was recently reviewed and rejected on the merits by the California Supreme Court. Samuelson's testimony was not the only lying-in-wait evidence presented to the jury. Cardenas testified that Morales admitted to attacking Ms. Winchell while she was sitting with her back towards him in the car. Flores also described the way Morales attempted to strangle Ms. Winchell. And Ortega's testimony at his own trial lends further support for the way Morales attacked Ms. Winchell in the car. The courts have confirmed that Morales' actions in this case qualify as lying in wait for purposes of the special circumstances statute. Morales places great weight on a January 25, 2006 letter from the trial judge in his case. In this letter, the judge supports clemency based on Samuelson's testimony being the only evidence in support of the lying-in-wait special circumstance that made Morales eligible for the death penalty, and it being the source of the prosecution's substantial aggravating circumstances. A review of the evidence and trial transcripts reveals that the judge's letter is not an accurate reflection of the record before the jury and courts because there is other evidence supporting the lying-in-wait special circumstance. Also, through the cross-examination of Samuelson, the jury and judge were well aware of the fact the Samuelson was a jailhouse informant and was providing his testimony in return for a deal on his own pending criminal charges. As for aggravating factors, the prosecutor primarily relied upon the horrific nature of the crimes committed by Morales and the statements made by Morales to others. In addition to the aggravating factors presented by the prosecutor, Morales' counsel presented mitigating factors that were also considered by the jury and judge. Morales also asserts that the prosecutor's charging decision was biased by race, gender, and ethnicity. This claim was rejected by the federal district court because Morales failed to present any evidence that the prosecutor intentionally discriminated against Morales. The court also rejected the claim because the statistical evidence submitted by Morales did not show purposeful discrimination in his case. Nothing in the record or the materials before me compels a grant of clemency. The pain Ms. Winchell's loved ones have been forced to endure at the hands of Morales is unfathomable as is the brutality of the acts he perpetrated. Based on the record and the totality of circumstances in this case, Morales' request for clemency is denied. DATED: February 17, 2006 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor of the State of California (source: Office of the Governor) ***************** Debate over anesthesiologist role The state's decision to hire an anesthesiologist to monitor the planned lethal injection of the killer Michael Morales on Tuesday has rekindled a fierce ethics debate in medical circles over doctors participating in executions. Responding to a federal judge's ruling, California for the 1st time intends to have an anesthesiologist at an execution to ensure Morales is unconscious when a paralyzing agent and heart-stopping drugs are administered at San Quentin State Prison. The anesthesiologist will join another doctor who is on duty at executions to declare the prisoner dead and otherwise ensure proper medical procedures are followed. Defenders of the procedure say the doctors' presence ensures the execution is carried out as humanely as possible. California prison officials keep confidential the names of doctors who participate in executions. But several influential medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association have condemned physicians' involvement in executions as unethical and unprofessional. "The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine - first, do no harm," said Dr. Priscilla Ray, who chairs an AMA ethics committee. "Requiring physicians to be involved in executions violates their oath to protect lives and erodes public confidence in the medical profession." Morales is scheduled to be executed at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday for the rape-torture murder of a 17-year-old San Joaquin County girl 25 years ago. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to grant clemency Friday to Morales, 46, who admitted that he murdered and raped Terri Winchell, 17, but said his own life was worth sparing because of his remorse and redemption on death row. "There is no compelling evidence that the jury's punishment is not appropriate in this case," Schwarzenegger wrote. "Morales' claim that he is a changed man does not excuse the brutal murder and rape of Terri Winchell." The issue of doctors' involvement in executions has been debated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977 and has intensified now that lethal injection is used in all but one of the 38 states that execute prisoners. Despite the ethical objections, no doctor has ever been formally reprimanded for participating in an execution. That's because it's legal for doctors to participate in executions. The AMA and the other professional organizations issue advisory guidelines only. "Executions are legal in the state of California," said Candis Cohen, a spokesman for the state's disciplinary agency Medical Board of California. Cohen said the board hasn't received any complaints about doctors participating in executions. A California appellate court in 1998 tossed out a lawsuit challenging the legality of physicians attending executions. The state board that oversees doctors in Kentucky last year dismissed a grievance filed against Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who also is a doctor, alleging he violated medical ethics by signing a death warrant. The board concluded Fletcher was acting as governor and not a doctor when he allowed the execution to happen. Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a New York University psychiatry professor and death penalty foe, filed a formal complaint in Georgia against Dr. Hothur Sanjeeva Rao after Rao stepped in to insert a catheter into a condemned prisoner's arm after medical technicians failed to do so. In December 2004, the Georgia board dismissed the complaint and an appeal was denied. Rao could not be reached for comment. A lawsuit Zitrin filed to compel the Georgia medical board to punish participating doctors is pending in a Georgia court, but a bill in that state's Legislature that would shield doctors from punishment for attending executions is advancing rapidly. "All existing standards internationally and nationally held by professional health societies bars doctors from participating," Zitrin said. "I regret that there are colleagues who, for whatever reason, find it compelling (and) do participate." (source: Associated Press) ****************** Fewer are sent to death----Experts divided on reasons why capital sentences have declined since 2000. California sent fewer convicted murderers to death row during the last 6 years than during any similar period since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s, state and federal data show.In the 1990s, California, on average, sent 35 convicted murderers to death row each year, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Since 2000, that number has fallen to an average of 21 per year - a nearly 40 % decline. Researchers, prosecutors and death penalty opponents offer different reasons for the trend. Some suggest there's been a drop in cases worthy of the ultimate punishment. Others say jurors and prosecutors are more ambivalent about the death penalty. "I'd say part of it is (district attorneys) are using their discretion to seek the death penalty only when it is worth their time and resources," said state Chief Justice Ronald M. George. "Another factor ... may be that juries themselves are exercising more discretion about imposing the death penalty. And it may be that DAs are finding they are getting more (sentences of) life without the possibility of parole."On Tuesday, at 12:01 a.m., the state is scheduled to execute Michael Angelo Morales at San Quentin State Prison. The execution would be the 3rd in the state during as many months. Nationally, the rate of death penalty convictions has dropped too, federal data show. About 165 murderers were sent to death row, on average, each year from 2000 to 2004, down from an average of 299 death row convictions annually during the 1990s. "(California) absolutely parallels the national pattern," said Franklin Zimring, William G. Simon Professor of Law at UC Berkeley, who has done extensive research on the death penalty. "The United States is the world capital of mixed feelings about capital punishment." Zimring is among those who attribute the drop in death penalty convictions to the state's declining crime rate. But he believes the link has been indirect - a result of less fear and anger about violent crime, rather than fewer death penalty candidates. During the 1990s, about 500 people a year were sent to California prisons on first-degree murder charges, state prison data show. Since 2000, that number has dropped to around 400, though that 20 % decline is not nearly as steep as the drop in new death penalty convictions. Regardless of that decline, Zimring said, there are always more potential capital punishment cases than there are capital punishment prosecutions. The big difference is that jurors and prosecutors are less frustrated now that they see crime is falling. Jurors today, Zimring said, don't feel like they need to send a message to would-be criminals. The opposite was true during the 1990s. "Despite a 6-fold expansion in the prison system after 1980, crime hadn't gone down much," Zimring said, describing the situation in the 1990s. "The frustration wasn't like the 1st time you put your 75 cents in the machine and nothing came out. This was like after you've been kicking the machine for 10 years with nothing happening." Sgt. Eric Messick, a prison spokesman at San Quentin - where California's death row is located - offered a similar analysis. During the 1990s, several high-profile murders occurred in California, including that of Polly Klaas. Killers such as Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped the 12-year-old from her Petaluma bedroom and then murdered her, inflamed public sentiment, and their acts led directly to more death sentences. Since then, Messick said, "things have been quieter." Several prosecutors take a simpler view of the trend: There just aren't as many cases these days worthy of the death penalty. On death row, there are 17 inmates from Sacramento County who were sentenced during the 1990s, compared with five who were sentenced since 2000. That's not because of any change in prosecutor attitude about the death penalty, said Lana Wyant, special assistant deputy district attorney for Sacramento County. "We are very selective on death penalty cases," she said. "Those will be very aggravated cases. I think we've seen a change since the early 1980s and early 1990s ... I don't think we've seen the number of outrageous-type cases since then." Fresno County prosecutors say the same thing. About a dozen current death row inmates were sentenced during the 1990s in Fresno County. Since 2000, only 1 person on death row was sentenced there. "We just haven't seen cases that warrant prosecution in that way," said Bob Ellis, assistant district attorney for Fresno County. Others see more at work. One big change, they say, is intense focus on scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, and efforts to prove the innocence of some condemned inmates. Every time the public hears about someone on death row getting exonerated, attitudes about the death penalty change, said George Williamson, co-chair of the Capital Case Litigation Committee of the California District Attorneys Association. "Jury attitudes have helped drive that number down," he said. "When we (pick juries), it's very clear that the number of people who have problems with the death penalty has increased pretty significantly than what we saw in the 1980s and early 1990s." That increased ambivalence, Williamson said, affects prosecutors' decisions about seeking the death penalty in the first place. "You can't in good faith do a case like this unless you have a reasonable likelihood of success," said Williamson, who is also chief deputy district attorney for Solano County. Putting on a death penalty prosecution is expensive, Chief Justice George noted. It often takes 2 or more prosecutors. It usually takes a long time to pick a jury. Then the case must be argued. Then, prosecutors must go through the penalty phase. All of which, George said, is especially daunting as many district attorneys see their county funding shrink or remain stagnant. "The expense of trying these cases, it takes much more effort and time," George said. "It may be that district attorneys are making that a component of their discretionary call - basically on a cost-benefit basis. Does this case merit a drain on ... the DA's resources?" The final piece of the puzzle may be the state's "3 strikes" law, passed during the 1990s, which made it possible to sentence repeat criminal offenders to life in prison. San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said in an interview that the law has taken many potential death penalty candidates off the streets. A lot of the worst criminals "are now in prison before they commit the murders," she said. Jennifer Chacon, a law professor at UC Davis, agrees that the "3 strikes" law is affecting capital punishment in the state, but for a different reason. Many California residents, she said, see the law as an appropriate deterrent, lessening the need for something more drastic like the death penalty. "The death penalty has maybe lost some of its importance as a crime-fighting tool in California," she said. Experts disagree about whether the number of death row convictions will continue to fall, but - barring some particularly heinous crimes that inflame public sentiment - none thought the numbers would be likely to jump back to their old levels. "I see no reason for any immediate change in the trend," George said. (source: Sacramento Bee) ARKANSAS: Defense lists several mitigating factors in death penalty case Attorneys for a Springdale man facing the death penalty filed mitigating circumstances in the case on Friday in the Washington County Circuit Court Clerks Office. The disclosure of the mitigating factors was filed in the case of Fernando Navarro, 24, of Springdale, who is accused of capital murder in the beating and stabbing death of 41-yearold David Edwards on Nov. 26, 2004, in Springdale. The trial, which is the 1st death penalty trial in nearly 20 years in Washington County, is scheduled to begin Tuesday in Washington County Circuit Judge William Storeys court. In determining sentence in a capital murder case in which the death penalty is not waived, or it is not stipulated that no aggravating circumstance exists or that mitigating factors outweigh aggravating circumstances, jurors must determine sentence. Under statute, evidence may be presented to the jury as to any matters relating to aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Mitigation evidence must be relevant to the issue of punishment, including, but not limited to, the nature and circumstances of the crime, and the defendants character, background, history, and mental and physical condition. The disclosure of mitigating factors filed Friday states that the defense anticipates proof will be introduced at the trial of several mitigating circumstances, including that Navarro has a low verbal IQ of 69 and that he reads and comprehends at the third- and fourth-grade levels. The filing also states that Navarro has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, though it did not disclose the specific disorder, and that he willingly turned himself into police. It also states that he did not have a premeditated intent and he has no history of extreme violence and that he has a "co-dependent" relationship with Michael Chavez, 19, of Springdale, who has pleaded guilty to 1st degree murder in the case and is expected to testify in Navarros trial before he is formally sentenced. Other factors listed are that Navarro comes from a poor socio-economic background, has had "significant head injuries resulting in behavior changes," was enrolled in special education classes from ages 13-18, had a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder at age 13, when medication was prescribed, had a childhood experience that included violence and gangs, and was subject to cultural barriers and stereotypes during his educational career. It also states that he is a "loving" son and brother, has positive character traits, is trusted with children, has an easy-going demeanor and is religious. (source: Northwest Arkansas Times) MARYLAND: Population of Maryland's death row continues to dwindle With the decision last week by the state's highest court to overturn the death sentence of a man who killed an 8-year-old girl in Harford County, the number of condemned inmates in Maryland shrank to five, a sharp drop from just 6 years ago. Since 2000, at least 20 people have spent time on the state's death row. But through a combination of court decisions voiding death sentences, weary families leery of continuing long legal battles who push for life sentences, two executions and one inmate death from cancer, the death-row population has dwindled. Only 5 inmates have been executed since Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978, most recently Wesley Baker in December. By comparison, neighboring Virginia has executed 94 people since it adopted the death penalty in 1982. Some prosecutors say the lengthy appellate process and narrow circumstances under which they can seek death sentences in Maryland limit the law's use and make it difficult for the families of victims who often see an execution as a measure of closure. "It is incredibly difficult to sustain a death penalty conviction in Maryland," said Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas Gansler. "It sets up a system of false promise and false hope for the victim's family." Death penalty opponents, however, say the limited use of the state's death penalty law and the numerous cases where appeals courts have overturned sentences exposes the weaknesses of what they say is an unnecessary punishment. "You are seeing a pattern in which the death penalty is becoming more and more obsolete," said Jane Henderson, executive director of the Maryland Coalition Against State Executions. "It is part of a trend away from the death penalty in this state." There is a similar trend nationwide: The number of death sentences dropped by 50 % since the late 1990s, and executions were down 40 % since 1999, according to a 2004 report by the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, which is opposed to capital punishment. But in December, a North Carolina man became the 1,000th person executed since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment could resume. At the beginning of 2000, 15 inmates faced death sentences in Maryland, and another 5 were condemned to death over the next several years. But since 2000, beginning with then-Gov. Parris Glendening's decision to commute Eugene Colvin-el's death sentence, 12 men have had their sentences overturned. Defendants have challenged their sentences on different grounds, arguing that they were poorly represented at trial or were sentenced by a judge instead of a jury. Others have raised questions about their sentences because of a 2003 University of Maryland study that suggests race and geography play a role in capital punishment. 1 of the 5 still facing possible execution, Vernon Evans was recently granted a last-minute stay of execution so the Maryland Court of Appeals can hear in May his claims that his sentence for a 1983 double killing in Pikesville was unfairly imposed. University of Baltimore law professor Steven Grossman, a former prosecutor, said some appellate judges are concerned about issues such as whether inmates were poorly represented by their attorneys. Several members of the Court of Appeals have written that the standard Maryland juries use to determine whether to apply a death sentence is not high enough, he said. "Judges are always going to err on the side of appeals, even crazy appeals, when you are talking about someone's life," said Grossman, who is opposed to the death penalty. Baltimore County Deputy State's Attorney Stephen Bailey, whose jurisdiction seeks the death penalty in all cases eligible for capital punishment, agreed that the appeals court is, "not a death-penalty-friendly court." But he noted it has allowed the executions of Baker and Steven Oken in 2004 to go forward. "Over the same time, they have clearly rejected some of the frivolous claims brought forth by Oken and Baker," he said. In some cases, prosecutors have chosen not to seek death again for inmates whose sentences were vacated by the courts. In 2004, the families of two people killed by former National Security Agency cryptologist Darris Ware in 1993 asked Anne Arundel County prosecutors not to push for another death sentence after two earlier death sentences were overturned. Ware was given life in prison without parole. Bailey had a similar case two years ago, when the family of Kenneth Collins' victim said they didn't want to go through another death penalty phase after Collins' sentence was vacated. The Court of Appeals last week ordered a new sentencing hearing for Jamaal Abeokuto, who was convicted of slitting the throat of 8-year-old Marciana Ringo in 2002. Harford County State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly said he hopes to persuade the appeals court to reconsider his case, but hasn't yet decided on whether to seek a death sentence again if that fails. He also plans to consult with Ringo's parents on the decision. "They are very upset at the prospect of having to go through all this again," Cassilly said. "They are naturally concerned that a case that was, in their minds, done, finished, completed, is now back out there with all the uncertainties." Yet even as the state's death row shrinks, some death penalty cases continue. On Feb. 9, the state asked the Court of Appeals to reinstate Lawrence Borchardt's sentence after a lower court judge granted him a new sentencing hearing last May. Prince George's County prosecutors said in November that they will seek a death sentence for a man who killed a county officer in June. Bailey said Baltimore County may also soon ask a judge to sign a death warrant for Anthony Grandison, who was convicted along with Evans for the killings of 2 motel clerks - even though the case of his co-conspirator, Evans, is still pending. Prosecutors shouldn't be deterred by the larger debate over capital punishment, he said. "I think people can have a serious and honest debate as to whether or not we should have a death penalty," Bailey said. "Our role as prosecutors is to determine how to fairly carry out the statute we have on the books." On the Net: Maryland Coalition Against State Executions: http://www.mdcase.org Death Penalty Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/capitalpunishment (source: WVEC News) ******************** Maryland's death row inmates since Jan. 1, 2000 Currently on death row with a death sentence: - Vernon Evans Jr., sentenced to death in 1984 for murder of 2 Baltimore County motel clerks. - Anthony Grandison, sentenced to death in 1984 for the same Baltimore County murders as Evans. - John Booth-El, sentenced to death in 1984 for murder of an elderly couple in their Baltimore home. - Heath Burch, sentenced to death in 1996 for stabbing 2 of his Prince George's County neighbors during a botched robbery. - Jody Miles, sentenced to death in 1998 for killing a Wicomico County theater director. Executed inmates: - Wesley Baker, executed Dec. 5 for the 1991 murder of a woman in a Baltimore County shopping center parking lot. - Steven Oken, executed June 17, 2004, for the 1987 rape and murder of a 20-year-old newlywed in Baltimore County. Died on death row: - Francis Zito, died Nov. 17, 2002, of lung cancer. Zito was sentenced to death in May 2002 for murdering 2 Eastern Shore police officers. Death sentence overturned: - Eugene Colvin-el, then-Gov. Parris Glendening commuted Colvin-el's death sentence in June 2000 to life in prison. Colvin-el was convicted for the 1980 murder of an elderly Florida woman who was visiting her daughter in Baltimore County. - Joseph Metheny, death sentence for strangling Baltimore prostitute thrown out by Court of Appeals in July 2000 because there wasn't enough evidence he had committed another crime needed to be eligible for death penalty. Later given life in prison. - Jean Alex Clermont, death sentence for 1995 carjacking murder overturned by a Prince George's County judge in December 2000. Later sentenced to life in prison. - Wallace Ball, Charles County judge overturned death sentence in December 2000. Ball was sentenced to death in 1996 for the 1994 murder of a Catonsville Community College student. - Eugene Winder, Court of Appeals threw out his conviction in January 2001 after concluding he had been coerced into confessing to the 1998 murders of his fiance and her grandparents in Wicomico County. He later pleaded guilty to avoid another death sentence. - Darris Ware, sentenced to death in 1995 for killing two women in Anne Arundel County. Sentence thrown out twice, last time in 2002. He was sentenced to life in prison in 2004 after the families of his victims asked prosecutors not to seek death a 3rd time. - Courtney Bryant, Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that judge who sentenced Bryant to death should have considered he was just 18 years old when he beat and fatally stabbed the night manager of a Baltimore County Burger King in 2000. Later sentenced to life in prison. - Kevin Wiggins, sentenced to death for the 1988 murder of a 77-year-old Baltimore County woman. U.S. Supreme Court voided death sentence in 2004 saying he had poor representation at trial. Sentenced to life in prison in 2004. - Kenneth Collins, based on Supreme Court decision in Wiggins case, Somerset County judge in 2004 set aside Collins's death sentence for the 1986 murder of a bank executive in Baltimore County. Sentenced to life in prison. - John Miller, Court of Appeals overturned death sentence in February 2004 ruling based on various legal arguments. Miller convicted of murdering a baby sitter at his Baltimore County apartment in 1998. - Lawrence Borchardt, Anne Arundel County judge granted Borchardt new sentencing hearing in May 2005, saying he received ineffective counsel at trial for 2000 Thanksgiving Day murder of Baltimore County couple. State appealed ruling in February. - Jamaal K. Abeokuto, Court of Appeals granted new sentencing Feb. 13, citing several legal errors in death sentence for murdering 8-year-old girl. Harford County prosecutors are undecided on whether to seek another death sentence. (source: Associated Press)
