Feb. 28 CALIFORNIA: UC Davis Experts on Capital Punishment The following UC Davis faculty members are available to speak on topics related to capital punishment. If you need information on a topic not listed, please contact Susanne Rockwell, News Service, (530) 752-9841, [email protected], or Julia Ann Easley, News Service, (530) 752-8248, [email protected]. The physician's role in state executions Medical ethics and end-of-life issues Why execution is not euthanasia Anesthesiologists and executions Ethical practice in health care SOCIAL ISSUES SYMBOLIC SACRIFICE -- Modern executions are made to appear as unlike killing as possible, says UC Davis Professor Allison Coudert, the Castelfranco Chair in Religious Studies. She points to prison protocols for execution including the last meal, sometimes served on starched linen tablecloths and preceded by saying grace. "People miss the fact that capital punishment is about symbolism and not deterrence," Coudert says. "When someone is executed, people think the state is dealing successfully with the problem of illegitimate violence, but of course it isn't in any meaningful way." Coudert can draw parallels between the history of religious sacrifice and the current practice of capital punishment in the U.S., including the fact that those killed are on the margins of society. She also sees a connection between current attitudes toward criminals and the rise to power of conservative religious groups with strong beliefs in original sin and retributive justice. In spring quarter, Coudert is co-teaching a forum on capital punishment. The public is invited to attend the lectures given in conjunction with the course. Contact: Allison Coudert, Religious Studies, (530) 752-7599, [email protected]. ARTIST CONFRONTS THE ISSUE -- Malaquias Montoya, UC Davis professor of Chicana/o studies, and art and art history, can talk about how he has promoted a dialogue across the country about the ethics of capital punishment. In his exhibition, Premeditated: Meditations on Capital Punishment -- Recent Works by Malaquias Montoya, the UC Davis artist confronts the viewer with his view of the brutality of capital punishment through a suite of paintings, charcoals, collages and drawings. The show, which will be presented at the UC Davis Richard L. Nelson Gallery beginning March 30, was first shown in 2004 at the Snite Museum at the University of Notre Dame and subsequently in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Texas and Los Angeles. The exhibition at UC Davis will be presented in conjunction with the religious studies program, which will teach a class on the ethics of the death penalty, concurrently with the Chicana/o studies program. The public is invited to attend. Two UC Davis online videos tell more about Montoya's anti-death project at http://media.ucdavis.edu:8080/ramgen/ucom/2005/montoya_I.rt.smil and http://media.ucdavis.edu:8080/ramgen/ucom/2005/montoya_II.rt.smil. Contact: Malaquias Montoya, Chicana/o Studies, (530) 752-4059, [email protected]. PUNISHMENT AND THE NEW RIGHT -- Although the number of persons executed in the U.S. dwindled to nothing for nearly a decade beginning in the late 1960s, the increase in executions since the late 1970s goes hand in hand with the growth of modern conservatism, according to U.S. historian Kathryn Olmsted, a professor at UC Davis. She can talk about the reasoning behind a "get tough on crime" platform that the New Right has espoused since the tumultuous days of the mid-20th century. Olmsted, who wrote "Challenging the Secret Government" in 1996, is now working on a book regarding conspiracy theories about the U.S. government. Contact: Kathryn Olmsted, History, (530) 752-2118, [email protected]. WHY THE HARSH PUBLIC OPINION? -- Cindy Kam, an assistant professor of political science at UC Davis, says that Americans' views about capital punishment are driven by a variety of factors, including their view of who criminals are, whether they can be rehabilitated and whether the criminal justice system is fair in its rulings. Kam, who examines the political psychology of public opinion, is looking at the role that in-group/out-group perspectives play in public opinion on crime and punishment. The study is part of a book she is co-authoring for 2008 on how perceptions of in-group/out-group demarcations also affect public opinion on foreign policy, immigration and social welfare policies. Contact: Cindy Kam, Political Science, (530) 752-2633, [email protected]. LEGAL ISSUES REHABILITATION -- Bill Hing, professor of law and Asian American studies at UC Davis, is a member of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, studying, in part, the extent to which failures in the administration of criminal justice have resulted in wrongful executions. Hing teaches judicial process, a course on criminal justice and how the system operates. "The criminal justice system has many flaws that include the failure to recognize the opportunity for rehabilitation," he says. Contact: Bill Hing, School of Law, (530) 754-9377, [email protected]. U.S. SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE -- Professor Diane Marie Amann of the UC Davis School of Law is an expert in international criminal law, human rights and constitutional law. She has two forthcoming articles on U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in capital punishment cases involving juveniles and mentally retarded persons. Papers on "John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge" and "International Law and Rehnquist-Era Reversals" are, respectively, in press for the Fordham Law Review and the Georgetown Law Journal. Contact: Diane Marie Amann, School of Law, cell (310) 873-8552, [email protected]. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE -- Professor Floyd Feeney of the UC Davis School of Law is an expert in criminal law and criminal procedure. He is author of the paper "The Death Penalty in the United States in 2003," published in the journal Politeia, and he teaches criminal law and criminal procedure courses. From 1968 to 1986 he was director of the UC Davis Center on the Administration of Criminal Justice. Contact: Floyd Feeney, School of Law, (530) 752-2893, [email protected]. MEDICAL ISSUES THE PHYSICIAN'S ROLE IN STATE EXECUTIONS -- Ben Rich, associate professor of bioethics at UC Davis School of Medicine, is an attorney and philosophy scholar who is available to talk about the many issues and implications related to the role of physicians in state-mandated executions. Rich has lectured and published extensively on the topics of informed consent, advance directives, pain management and end-of-life care. He has experience as a former litigation and health law specialist, administrative law judge, counsel for two academic medical centers, and general counsel of the University System. He holds joint academic appointments in the Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at UC Davis. Contact: Carole Gan, UC Davis Health System, (916) 734-9047, [email protected]. MEDICAL ETHICS AND END-OF-LIFE ISSUES -- Roberta Loewy is an associate clinical professor in the UC Davis Bioethics Program. She is a former critical-care nurse who pursued a master's degree in philosophy with an emphasis in health-care ethics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy and ethics. She also has taught bioethics in a number of settings and authored, co-authored and edited a number of books, articles and book chapters dealing with issues at the end of life, hospice, social justice, the nature of personhood and the relationship between persons and society. Along with Erich Loewy, professor of general medicine and chair of the UC Davis Bioethics Program, she co-authored the 2nd edition of "Textbook of Healthcare Ethics." With regard to the Morales case, she believes that because an inmate on death row is not a patient "in any sense of the word," no physician should assist in his or her death. "Killing prisoners by medical means with health-care professional involvement constitutes killing otherwise healthy people who do not wish to die, using the tools and expertise of medicine," Loewy says. Standards of patient care, on the other hand, are patient-centered, even in physician-assisted suicide. "There is no standard of care for killing people who are healthy or who want to live," she says. Contact: David Ong, UC Davis Health System, (916) 734-9049, [email protected]. WHY EXECUTION IS NOT EUTHANASIA -- Erich Loewy is professor of medicine and founding chair of the UC Davis Bioethics Program (emeritus). He argues against any participation of physicians in the execution of condemned prisoners with the tools (intellectual or physical) that he or she learned in medical school. It is understood by society as well as by the profession who take an oath upon graduation that they will do all they can "to keep their patient from harm or injustice." Physician participation in capital punishment cannot be equated with "euthanasia" or "physician-assisted suicide" in patients with decisional capacity because -- despite good palliative care and over a span of time -- such patients still desire to end their suffering. A patient with widespread metastases has only two options: to live a little longer and to suffer a little longer or to live and suffer for a shorter time. Executions, on the other hand, are done for the alleged benefit of the community. Even if prisoners say that they would prefer capital punishment to spending their life in prison, they fail to foresee a plethora of future possibilities. Contact: David Ong, UC Davis Health System, (916) 734-9049, [email protected]. ANESTHESIOLOGISTS AND EXECUTIONS -- Jeffrey Uppington is professor of anesthesiology and vice chair of the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at UC Davis Health System. A specialist in cardiovascular and thoracic anesthesia, he is also district director of the California Society of Anesthesiologists and is a spokesperson for the American Society of Anesthesiologists, an educational, research and scientific association of physicians organized to raise and maintain the standards of the medical practice of anesthesiology and improve the care of the patient. He believes it is unethical for physicians or other health-care providers to take part in any part of an execution. Contact: Carole Gan, UC Davis Health System, (916) 734-9040, [email protected]. ETHICAL PRACTICE IN HEALTH CARE -- Faith Fitzgerald is a professor of medicine and assistant dean of humanities and bioethics for the UC Davis Health System, where her research focuses on protean disease states, medical education, physical diagnosis and bioethics. A national expert on ethical practice in health care, she is frequently called upon to consult on issues where medical, legal and moral judgments converge. She finds the recent refusal of physicians to participate in administering a lethal injection to a death-row prisoner completely warranted. "Doctors must be very careful not to delude themselves into the belief that making it easier for anyone to kill a human being against his will is in any way analogous to any known 'acceptable standard of care' in medicine," she said. "For a physician to facilitate executions is a violation of the most fundamental principle of medical ethics -- to do no harm -- and must be opposed." Contact: Carole Gan, UC Davis Health System, (916) 734-9047 [email protected]. Media contact(s): Susanne Rockwell, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9841, [email protected] Julia Ann Easley, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-8248, [email protected] (source: UC Davis News (University of California) FLORIDA: Punta Gorda jury recommends death for man who killed prison guard A jury recommended a prison inmate be executed for the slayings of a female guard and another inmate during a botched prison escape. It took just 19 minutes for the jury to issue the 8-4 recommendation Monday for Dwight T. Eaglin. He was convicted Friday on 2 counts of 1st-degree murder in the deaths of Charlotte Correctional Institution guard Darla Lathrem and inmate Charles Fuston. Eaglin, 30, addressed the jury before the recommendation was announced. "I love you, and I forgive every one of you. You don't know what you're doing," he said. State Attorney Steve Russell said Eaglin deserves the death penalty because the murders were executed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner and while the defendant was serving time for a 1998 slaying. The defense said the prison system failed to keep Eaglin under control and should share blame for the murders. "We are a society that needs to do things correctly, including how we handle people who have gone astray," Defense Attorney Douglas Withee said. State investigators said Eaglin was one of three prisoners who attacked Lathrem, beat her to death and stuffed her body into a locked mop closet at the Charlotte Correctional Institution on June 11, 2003. Fuston died several days later from injuries sustained in the attack. Lathrem was on duty alone, armed only with pepper spray and a radio. She was the first female prison officer ever killed in Florida. Inmates Michael Jones and Stephen Smith each are also charged with 2 counts of 1st-degree murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Jones' trial is scheduled to begin April 17, and Smith is scheduled to stand trial June 12. Sentencing for Eaglin has been scheduled for March 31. (source: Associated Press.) ****************** He wanted death, got life----He feared going to prison, so he had his wife kill a woman who was supposed to testify against him. Now he'll never have a chance at parole. Timothy Humphrey orchestrated the murder of Sandee Rozzo so her testimony in a sexual assault trial wouldn't send him to prison for 10 years. He told friends he would prefer death to prison time. On Monday, a jury ensured that he didn't get his wish. Jurors deliberated about 90 minutes before recommending that Humphrey be spared the death penalty but get life in prison without the chance of parole. Several jurors said they thought the life sentence was the harsher of the penalties. "If we gave him death, we would have given him what he wanted," juror Dana Aldrich said. Pinellas Circuit Judge Nancy Moate Ley followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Humphrey, 39, to life in prison. "The irony of this, of course, is the murder has resulted in a much longer prison sentence than the 10 years," Ley told Humphrey. Rozzo's family also was pleased with the life term. "He didn't want to be there, so now they can lock him up and throw away the key, and that's that," said Rozzo's sister, Tracy Havlicek. In 2002, Rozzo accused Humphrey, a former co-worker, of sexually assaulting her. Prosecutors filed a felony battery charge against Humphrey and planned to seek a 10-year prison term. Humphrey has a history of violence toward women. Investigators counted eight women he had abused, including one he kidnapped and assaulted in Miami in 1995, charges that landed him in prison. Rozzo knew of Humphrey's past and felt she was in danger. Family members asked her to drop the case. But they said Rozzo wanted to testify so Humphrey couldn't harm any more women. As the case was pending trial, Humphrey, a personal trainer at a Brandon gym, began dating a 19-year-old client. They moved in together, and on July 4, 2003, a notary married them. Ashley Humphrey was an impressionable young woman from a broken home who had fallen fast in love with the man nearly twice her age, prosecutors said. Throughout the relationship, she listened as her husband-to-be fretted about going back to prison. So the night after their wedding, Ashley Humphrey followed Rozzo home from work. She ambushed Rozzo in her garage and shot her 8 times, then she got into her car and left, prosecutors said. Rozzo's boyfriend found her in her car, bloodied and unconscious. Rozzo, 37, a mother of a then-13-year-old girl, died en route to the hospital. At the time of the shooting, Timothy Humphrey was at his Brandon apartment, ordering a pizza. The receipt of that delivery was his alibi. But he and Ashley had talked many times on their cell phones that night, and tower records showed Ashley had followed Rozzo home, then quickly left the area right after the shooting - nearly the whole time talking with her husband on the cell phone. Both Humphreys eventually were charged with murder. Ashley later accepted a deal to testify against her husband in exchange for a 25-year prison sentence. She said he manipulated and threatened her into killing for him. After 2 weeks of trial, jurors on Friday convicted Humphrey of first-degree murder. They returned Monday to decide whether to recommend a death sentence. Prosecutor Fred Schaub, who on Friday had delivered a scorching closing argument, was much more low-key Monday. He told jurors the murder could qualify for the death penalty because it was particularly cold and calculated; Humphrey has a history of violent crimes; and the murder was committed to eliminate a witness. Schaub particularly stressed that last point. He noted that 2 witnesses in the murder case were scared to testify because of Rozzo's death. "For our system to work, we need to ensure the safety of witnesses," Schaub said. Defense attorney Richard Watts told jurors a death sentence wasn't appropriate because the actual shooter will receive a 25-year sentence. Ashley Humphrey is scheduled to be sentenced next month. "The mitigation in this case is Ashley Humphrey's sentence," Watts told jurors. Several jurors said they agreed. Jurors said they found Ashley Humphrey's testimony compelling, though they also were impressed with the evidence collected by Pinellas Park police and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "Everything she said was corroborated by evidence," said juror Kristen Clark. Timothy Humphrey took the stand late last week to refute his wife's claims, which was risky. Several courtroom observers had predicted the move, saying the confident Humphrey likely believed he could charm the jury. But jurors said his testimony didn't go over well. During testimony, Humphrey said he had no prior knowledge of his wife's plan to murder Rozzo. However, he admitted to figuring out she had shot Rozzo, then trying to create an alibi for her. But jurors said he slipped up on the stand and used the phrase "our alibi." "I just didn't believe what he was telling the jury," said juror Brian Russell. (source: St. Petersburg Times) ******************* Errors at trial -- Overturning Florida's wrongful convictions After years of controversy, Florida lawmakers finally seem to understand the importance of DNA testing in previously closed criminal cases. To date, 25 people have walked free -- 22 of them from death row -- because DNA tests proved their innocence. The evidence is so compelling that the Legislature has extended the deadline for DNA testing twice, and could abolish it during next month's session. They're moving in the right direction, putting justice over politics. But not every case has DNA. And some of those convictions are troubling. Such was the case with John Robert Ballard, a 37-year-old convicted of 2 murders and sentenced to death in 1999. Ballard's conviction rested mostly on a few hairs and a fingerprint found in a Collier County apartment shared by Jennifer Jones, and Willy Ray Patin, Jr. The evidence established that Ballard was in the apartment -- but that was no surprise, since Ballard was friends with the couple and often in their home. Testimony showed that another man had shot at Jones' and Patin's apartment the week before the couple was murdered. But instead of pursuing that man, prosecutors persuaded a jury to convict Ballard. Telling him he'd forfeited his right to live, Circuit Judge Lauren Miller sentenced Ballard to death. Still, he maintained his innocence. Nearly 6 years later, the Florida Supreme Court has ordered Ballard to be freed. The evidence against him was too slim, proving only that he was in the apartment at some time, the court said. Ballard wasn't the only one to suffer because of the state's decision to prosecute him. News of Ballard's pending freedom hit the victims' families hard. They trusted the state to find the right man, and they say they're struggling with the notion that the high court threw out his conviction. Courts can't calculate the cost of an error this massive. But they can learn from cases like Ballard's. Florida's criminal trial system is adversarial -- one lawyer pitted against another -- but in too many cases, indigent defendants rely on overburdened, underfunded public defenders. These lawyers are often highly skilled, but have nowhere near the resources they need to adequately investigate cases and prepare defenses. Florida leads the nation in overturned convictions, which could be read two ways -- either the state's trial system is lax, or the appellate system is exceptionally good at catching trial-court errors. Ballard's case doesn't shed light either way, but other cases travel between courts for years before innocence is proven. Justice demands that Florida's leaders take a harder look at those overturned convictions. They'll find patterns: cases based at least in part on questionable jailhouse snitches; others relying on faulty eyewitness identification; prosecutors who go too far in their quest for a conviction. Other states are looking for ways to minimize wrongful convictions by controlling these common avenues to error. Florida owes it to John Robert Ballard and every other citizen to make the criminal justice system as accurate and fair as possible. (source: Editorial, Daytona Beach News-Journal) *********** For the defense----Public defender Steven Schaefer's job is a thankless one Steven Schaefer works on the county's worst cases The certificates Steven Schaefer hangs in his office are only for show. The chief assistant public defender, who tackles some of the most gruesome cases in Manatee County, says it assures his clients. "Makes my clients feel I'm an attorney," he said drily, leaning back in his chair behind a large desk. Not that his clients could see his degrees, or the military honors including a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his stint in Vietnam. They're mostly in jail, awaiting trial on homicide charges. Among his clients are Blaine Ross, Richard Henderson Jr. and Clifford Davis, 3 men accused of killing their family members. "Someone's got to do it. It's not pleasant anymore but it's important for it to be done," said Schaefer, who has been a public defender in the 12th Circuit Court for about 20 years. Schaefer has a job that not a whole lot of attorneys in town envy. "He's the attorney for the damned right now. Which means he handles all the awful, horrible cases that other attorneys would shy from," said Mark Lipinski, a Bradenton attorney who has known Schaefer for as long as he has been a public defender. It's a pretty thankless job, Lipinski said, and Schaefer's probably overworked and underpaid. The public despises you for the clients you defend, Lipinski said. And, if your client gets convicted, you'll be bad-mouthed all the way up to the higher courts. "There's a special place in heaven for people like that," said Lipinski of Schaefer. Due process For a man who has moonlighted as a math and science teacher, a truck driver and an electrician, Schaefer stuck to defending the underdogs because he sees his role as necessary in the due process of law. "The criminal justice system is a conveyor belt where you throw lives on it and dump them into prison. My job is to throw a wrench at the belt to try to stop them once in a while," he said. "A lot of my clients can't speak for themselves; they need someone to speak for them." Schaefer didn't think he would be a criminal defense lawyer; he wanted to practice environmental law. He interned at a district attorney's office in Oregon and went to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in his last semester of law school. But he soon discovered he missed courtroom work. Upon graduation, he worked as a clerk for a Bradenton attorney while waiting for his bar results. Then he began his career with the public defender's office. "I found out that I didn't want to prosecute people and I like to defend them," he said. Prosecutors found him a formidable opponent in court, and his peers admired him for his tenacity. "He's one of the better cross-examiners that I've had trials with," said Art Brown, an assistant state attorney who prosecutes homicide cases. "And we've tried . . . about 30 to 40 cases together." Schaefer also tried a case with his daughter, Kelsey, a corporate attorney, last year. His daughter had wanted to be a trial lawyer and worked with Schaefer on a second-degree murder case in May 2005. David Tudor, 21, was accused of fatally stabbing another man. "It was an extremely nerve-wrecking trial for me," Schaefer remembered. "The first time she cross-examined someone, my stomach flip-flopped for her and my client." The jury found Tudor not guilty of the charge. Schaefer will be seeing a lot of his daughter, who lives in Arlington, Va., this year. She is taking some time off from her corporate job in Washington, D.C., to work at the public defender's office. But that doesn't mean Kelsey will be working directly with her father very much. Schaefer is juggling 10 murder cases on his plate; at least 6 of them are death penalty cases. "The cases I'm handling now, I would not have chosen to handle," said Schaefer tiredly. Horsing around He wished he could spend more time at his Myakka City home with Jean, his wife of 25 years, his two horses and his pet raccoon, Lena. Schaefer also likes to work with wild horses, or start them, as he likes to say. Every spring, he would take time off to visit his son, Eben, who lives on a ranch in Montana. Schaefer enjoys riding with the ranch horses. "Horses are fun," he said. Schaefer joked that he sometimes wishes that people would take themselves less seriously. In fact, he makes it a point to remind himself of that every day after work. "When you give one human being power over another human being, you have to be careful," he said. "I think about power every night I go home, and try to laugh at myself. It's important to understand that I am not important." Then he whips out a Homer Simpson tie from under his vest, looks at it, and smiles. Perhaps it's his attitude that sets him apart from other attorneys in town. "You can ask a hundred lawyers, and they will agree that Steve Schaefer is a character," Lipinski said. "He thinks and acts differently, he has a dry sense of humor, and doesn't care what people say about him." Steven A. Schaefer AGE: 61 LOCAL RESIDENCE: Myakka City OCCUPATION: chief assistant public defender BIRTHPLACE: New York FAMILY: wife, Jean, 55; son, Eben, 36; daughter, Kelsey, 33 (source: Bradenton Herald) PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Rules Pa. Killer Can't Be Executed In Allentown, a judge has ruled that a former prison guard convicted of killing 13 people in a 1982 shooting rampage can't be executed because he is mentally ill. George E. Banks is delusional, psychotic and has no capacity to assist in his own defense, Luzerne County President Judge Michael Conahan ruled Monday. "Banks cannot make rational choices because of his major mental illness, cannot rationally comprehend his death sentences, has a hopeless prognosis and will not improve to any acceptable degree," Conahan wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1986 that it is unconstitutional to execute the insane. Banks picked up his AR-15 semiautomatic rifle on Sept. 25, 1982, and began shooting. He killed 7 children -- five of them his own, along with his 3 live-in girlfriends, an ex-girlfriend, her mother and a bystander in the street. The state Supreme Court halted Banks' execution in December 2004 and ordered a competency hearing. Banks, disheveled and seemingly oblivious to the proceedings, sat in a cell adjacent to the room where the hearing was held. Psychiatrists testified that Banks believed his death sentences were vacated by Jesus or God, that nurses and other staff are witches and devils, and that he was illegally incarcerated because of a conspiracy involving the Department of Corrections, the "Islamic government of the U.S." and others. His lawyers have said mental illness played a role, though the trial jury rejected an insanity defense. Psychiatrists testified at the competency hearing that Banks has the delusional belief that he has been pardoned and that his psychosis prevented him from making sound decisions. District Attorney David Lupas said he will likely appeal. Prosecutors already have appealed a previous ruling by Conahan that barred one of their witnesses from testifying at the competency hearing. (source: Associated Press) ******************* Inmate once on verge of execution found mentally incompetent Pennsylvania death-row inmate George E. Banks, who came within a day of being put to death in late 2004, on Monday was declared mentally incompetent to be executed. Banks, now 63, received the death sentence in 1983 for a shooting spree the year before in and around Wilkes-Barre that left 13 people dead, including 5 of his own children. It remains the worst killing rampage by 1 person in state history. "His longstanding delusions render him unable to rationally comprehend his death sentence, its reasons or its implications," Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Conahan stated in his order. "George Banks is a very mentally sick man." Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle H. Eshbach said the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Banks' mental condition is an issue because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that it is unconstitutional to execute the insane and that a hearing should be held to determine whether a prisoner is mentally competent and understands why he is about to be executed. As Banks' scheduled execution approached in December 2004, his mother sought a reprieve for her son, saying he was too mentally ill to pursue any appeals. The state Supreme Court halted the execution and ordered the competency hearing. That hearing was held earlier this month. Two psychiatrists and a psychologist described Banks as psychotic, delusional and irrational, and said he does not comprehend his sentence or the reasons for it. His mental state has always been an issue. At the time of the murders, Banks had been on leave from his job as a prison guard; he had been told to seek help after threatening suicide. At trial, his lawyers mounted an insanity defense. They argued that Banks, son of a black father and white mother, had been driven to murder by delusions of looming race wars and worries about the racial abuse his children might suffer. But the jury rejected that argument, convicting him instead of 1st-degree murder. In the 23 years since the killings, Banks' mental state has deteriorated, his lawyers argued. They said he has tried to commit suicide, gone on hunger strikes and refused medical and psychiatric treatment. Billy Nolas, a federal defender who represents Banks, on Monday called the case "another example of the absurdity and cruelty of the death penalty." Eshbach said the ruling by Conahan was not a surprise, but she is hoping the state's highest court will allow another evaluation of Banks' competency. Conahan had barred the testimony of a psychiatrist who was prepared to testify for the state that Banks was mentally competent. That ruling came after defense lawyers objected that the psychiatrist had spoken with Banks on one occasion outside their presence. Eshbach also is appealing that ruling. (source: Knight Ridder) ************************** Former death-row inmate speaks The problem with the criminal justice system isn't the system itself, but the people who are running it, said Ray Krone, a man exonerated from death row after 10 years in an Arizona state prison. Krone spoke to students, faculty and visitors in a lecture on Thursday in Maginnes Hall. Krones visit to Lehigh was part of a series of lectures arranged by The Witness for Innocence Project. He also visited Muhlenberg and Moravian colleges. Krone, a Dover, Pa. native described his experience as a suspect in an Arizona murder case and the time he spent on death row. He was convicted for murdering Kim Ancona, a night manager and bartender at CBS Lounge, a local bar he frequented. Krone became a suspect when Anconas friends, who were also bartenders at CBS Lounge, informed detectives that Ancona had a crush on Krone. Maricopa county homicide detectives, who believed that Ancona was Krones girlfriend, arrested Krone with only one piece of evidence: bite marks found on the victim that supposedly matched Krone's. Although Krone was later cleared of the charges, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder by an Arizona jury. He was unable to afford a private attorney and was sent to death row because there were no mitigating factors, such as alcohol dependency or mental illness that could prevent him from execution. Krone said his cell was the size of a small bathroom, and had a cement bed, and chair and no pillow. He was allowed out of his cell three times a week for exercise, but was restricted to a 10 feet by 10 feet outdoor cage. "It was wonderful; it was heaven," Krone said. "Just to get outside and be in the fresh air, to get out of that cell and see other people, hear the birds chirp. It was also the only days when I could shower." Krone's luck changed when he received a letter from a cousin in California he had never met. Krone's cousin believed he was innocent. His cousin contacted a friend, an attorney in Arizona, who agreed to work on Krones case. In 2001, Arizona passed a new law that made it easier for prisoners to have access to DNA testing. Krone was exonerated from death row when DNA found in blood on Anconas jeans matched the DNA of a former sex offender who had been living behind CBS Lounge. "I used to believe in the death penalty," Krone said. "I thought that the system does work, it's fair, and therefore the death penalty must be OK." Now, Krone is active in groups such as The Witness for Innocence Project that help educate others about the death penalty and the imperfections of the criminal justice system. "I still believe in our system," Krone said. "It's not the system - it's some of the people who are running it, the people making the rules. And we can change it." Krone said the problem with the death penalty is a lack of consistency. Some people who commit murder are not executed while others are, he said. He said there is no concrete definition of a fair trial, and much depends on what the person charged can afford, who the judge is and the ability of the prosecutor. Krone said he thinks a moral issue is associated with the death penalty. When asked if the government has the right to take someone's life, Krone said its important to evaluate what that means. "We need to recognize that life is something precious and special," he said. In his closing statement, Krone encouraged the audience to become involved and educated about the death penalty and America's legal system. Every vote counts, he said. "If you have a strong faith and a strong belief in something and you unite with people who share common faith and beliefs, you can change what you believe is wrong," he said. Gwendolyn Ferdinand, '09, said she thinks the death penalty would be different if it could be administered perfectly. "In a perfect world, the death penalty might be OK," she said. "But we don't live in a perfect world. The truth isn't always the truth, and money talks. It's unfortunate." (source: The (Lehigh University) Brown and White) ********************* No easy path to forgiveness Everyone deserves a second chance, even the man who gunned down his son in 1987, said the Rev. Walter Everett of Lewisburg. The Rev. Everett of has taken a stand against the death penalty despite his own family's brush with violence when his son, Scott, was killed at the age of 24. Instead of wanting to see the man who murdered his son executed, the Rev. Everett forgave him and now the 2 often lecture together, speaking on the power of forgiveness. The Rev. Everett will share his experience at 7:30 p.m. today at Grace United Methodist Church, 216 State St., Harrisburg as part of a lecture times to coincide with World Abolition Day, an event designed to draw attention to and eliminate the death penalty. The Lewisburg man said the path to forgiveness was not easy for him but in the long run was worth it. "It was not an easy process, but I knew it was a process that was going to begin to lead my healing," he said. "I spent a year of intense rage and depression struggling with how to deal with Scott's death." While always opposed the death penalty he wanted his son's killer to get a long prison sentence. But, that did not happen. "He plea bargained and got a much shorter sentence than I thought was fair," the pastor said. "Ultimately I got to know him as a person whose life was changed and I spoke on his behalf to the parole board. I believe the fact that people can change and do change should be an important factor in the time people spend in prison. I also believe the death penalty does not do anything for victims. It doesn't changed a thing." Rather than focus on vengeance, he choose to think about healing. It was a process which took years to complete but is something he urged others to consider too. "What prompted me to forgive was when I asked God 'how do I get over the anger?" he said. "The killer apologized. It was at that point that I began to feel God's nudging. I have become more and more convinced that we've go to change society's desire for vengeance, to make life new for not only victims but offenders." "I'm convinced that the death penalty does nothing to provide healing for the victims," Rev. Everett said, "and increases the level of violence in society." Rev. Everett and his wife, Nancy, recently moved to Lewisburg from Hartford, Conn., after his retirement from the ministry in the Methodist church. Today's event comes at a time when both chambers of the General Assembly are considering bills that would end the execution of the mentally retarded. Senate Bill 631 and House Bill 1410 would allow the judge to determine the defendant's mental capacity before trial, which is supported by advocates for the mentally retarded, church groups, and civil libertarians. Senate Bill 334 and House Bill 698 would hand the responsibility of mental determination to the jury after conviction, which is supported by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. At the same time the Innocence Commission Act is currently on the floor of the state Senate. This bill would establish the Innocence Commission of Pennsylvania to study the underlying reasons why innocent people are convicted of crimes. (source: The Daily Item) VIRGINIA: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to reinstate death sentence Virginia lost an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a death sentence for a man convicted of a Hampton rape and murder more than 20 years after the crime. The justices refused without comment Monday to hear the state's appeal in the case of William Morrisette III, as well as a separate appeal filed by Morrisette's lawyers. The high court let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling last year that Morrisette is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the Hampton jury that convicted him was given a misleading verdict form. Morrisette was convicted of capital murder in 2001 for the 1980 rape and slaying of Dorothy White in her home. The state court said the verdict form did not make clear that the jury could sentence Morrisette to life in prison even if it found he had shown depravity of mind and would be a continuing threat to society. Morrisette was charged with killing White after authorities found DNA evidence from the crime scene that was thought to be lost. The evidence matched a DNA sample from Morrisette. The cases are Washington v. Morrisette, 05-805, and Morrisette v. Washington, 05-8227. (source: Associated Press)
