OKLAHOMA:
Prosecutors plan to seek death penalty in double slaying Tulsa County prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for a Broken Arrow man who allegedly killed two people and seriously wounded another last year. A document filed today says Alex Charles Naramore deserves the death penalty because he's a continuing threat to society, he knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person and he killed in order to avoid arrest or prosecution. The 22-year-old Naramore is accused of killing Danielle Dougan and Stephen Wilson on November 16th. He allegedly shot Rebecca Caswell, but she survived. Naramore has been in the Tulsa Jail since November 17th, and awaits a March 27th arraignment in District Judge Tom Thornbrugh's court. During his January preliminary hearing, evidence indicated Naramore regularly bought cocaine at the residence where the shootings occurred. (source: KTEN News) CALIFORNIA: Authenticity of pro-clemency statements doubted -- Investigator suspected in Morales forgeries; 2 other cases probed A former defense investigator suspected of fabricating pro-clemency juror statements in Michael Morales' death penalty appeal has been linked to 14 more questionable declarations in 2 other capital cases. Kathleen Culhane, who worked for the state-funded Habeas Corpus Resource Center in San Francisco until mid-2005, is already under investigation by the state attorney general's office for the statements she submitted to Morales' defense attorneys earlier this year. Prosecutors accused Culhane of fabricating statements from 5 jurors and a witness against Morales, declarations that appellate attorneys have since withdrawn. Morales' execution for the rape and murder of 17-year-old Terri Winchell of Lodi has been put on hold on other grounds related to a defense challenge to lethal injections. The latest suspicions about Culhane's work came to light when Michael Laurence, head of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, sent letters to the state Supreme Court asking to withdraw 14 declarations she had submitted in support of appeals for 2 men on death row. A former juror quoted in one of the statements told The Chronicle on Thursday that the declaration was a fake. Culhane's lawyer, Stuart Hanlon, said the statements were authentic. "She maintains she in fact did everything correctly, never forged any signature, never did anything wrong or illegal while aggressively trying to help people on death row," he said. "She is proud of her work; she doesn't really know what's happening here." In one of his letters, dated March 6, Laurence said he had learned that "5 witnesses from whom Ms. Kathleen Culhane purportedly obtained signed declarations did not sign those declarations." The 5 were identified as jurors who found Cristhian Monterroso guilty and then recommended that he be sentenced to death for 2 robbery-murders of convenience store clerks in Orange County. The killings took place the same day in 1991. Appellate attorneys used the statements to support their argument that Monterroso had been sentenced to death because of "race and ethnic discrimination and xenophobia." One statement, purportedly from the jury forewoman, referred to a confession by Monterroso that prosecutors did not introduce at trial. "I learned during the proceedings that Mr. Monterroso had confessed, and that was enough for me," the statement said. The same statement also quoted the forewoman as saying she had been a member of a group "dedicated to immigration reform." "Since the 1980s, it has been hard to avoid the huge numbers of illegal aliens around the county," the statement said. "They are mostly Latinos, and they have a lot of children. That upsets me, because these same illegal aliens who use our public services do not pay taxes." The statement quoted the forewoman as saying she had been motivated to "speed the (death penalty case) along" to avoid "the waste of resources on these people." Another statement quoted a juror as saying she had deliberately ignored the judge's admonition against discussing the case outside court and had talked to her boss, an attorney, about what a sentence of life without parole meant. The statement said the juror's boss had told her that "there was a possibility that someone with (a) sentence of life without parole could be released down the line." That would be true only if an inmate's conviction or sentence were overturned. Ultimately, the statement said, she had told other jurors that Monterroso "could be released if we voted against death." In 2 letters dealing with another case, one sent Feb. 27 and the other on Tuesday, Laurence asked the state Supreme Court to withdraw statements purportedly made by two jurors who voted to convict Vicente Benavides, along with declarations supposedly from seven of the defendant's relatives. Benavides was sentenced to death after being convicted of the 1991 rape and murder of a 21-month-old girl he was babysitting in the town of Delano in Kern County. Benavides' appellate attorneys used the statements to support their claim that his trial lawyers had failed to do their job in finding family members to speak on his behalf during the penalty phase. They also tried to bolster their appeal with the jurors' purported statements. One quoted a juror as saying that she had doubts about the death penalty and Benavides' guilt, but that her prayer group had told her "to do what God wanted and punish this man." In an interview, Laurence would not comment on whether the jurors or relatives had denied making the statements. However, the former juror who supposedly talked to a prayer group told The Chronicle that the statement was a fabrication. "This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard," said the juror, Elewee Jackson, 81, of Bakersfield. She said she does not belong to a prayer group. Jackson said that a man had visited her 2 weeks ago and shown her the signature on the statement, but that it was a forgery. Laurence would not comment about either case. "The one thing I want to stress is that the clients had nothing to do with any of this," he said. "They should not suffer." Hanlon said Laurence's actions were "not only damaging to (Culhane), but his own clients. It seems what he is doing is devastating to Death Row appeals. "I have lot of respect for him," Hanlon said. "He is one of the best. That doesn't mean he knows what he is doing in this instance." (source: San Francisco Chronicle) NEW JERSEY: Can you handle the truth?----Docudrama at OCC is not for the squeamish DIRECTED BY: Arthur Waldman WHEN: 8 p.m. today and Saturday WHERE: Ocean County College Theater Company's Fine Arts Theatre, College Drive, Dover Township TICKETS: $20 INFO: (732) 255-0424 Brimming with ultra-realistic frankness and scalding with truth, "The Exonerated" opened at the Fine Arts Theatre of Ocean County College in Dover Township last weekend. The drama plays like a black-and-white documentary film, dealing with the little-known truths behind 6 innocent individuals who were mistakenly convicted of murder and served time on death row. What we hear and see is shocking and astounding, giving us insights not only into the cracks in the American justice system but the prejudices and falsehoods that are essential parts of those cracks. The drama is based on extracted interviews, letters and transcripts of 6 people who were wrongly convicted of murder. Gary Gauger is a Midwestern organic farmer who was convicted of killing his parents. As he sits on death row, he explains how he never got over the shock of finding their dead bodies and keeps wondering why and how they were killed and by whom. Shockingly, the only real evidence that associated him with the crime is that he found the bodies. His story, paraphrased, is simply that the justice system had to convict somebody, and it arbitrarily chose him. After years on death row, the real murderer was found, and Gauger explains that he did not think that the murderer should be put to death, just jailed for life. Delbert Tibbs, an African-American poet, landed on death row after being mistakenly convicted for the rape and murder of a white girl. Later the conviction is overturned. What is astounding about his case is that Tibbs did not even match the description of the real suspect and never should have been arrested. The remaining four stories are just as upsetting. "The Exonerated" makes its characters three-dimensional by not only acting out limited parts of the characters' stories, but also by leaving us with an in-depth look at how the lives of the exonerated were brutally changed, if not completely taken away from them, even though at the play's denouement, they all are free. The 10-member ensemble is thumbs-up in the acting department. The cast is highlighted by Edward C. Smith, South Toms River, as Delbert Tibbs, the gospel-singing poet. Also standing out is Wendi Klemple, Dover Township, as Sunny Jacobs, a charismatic yoga instructor whose husband was convicted and executed for killing a police officer. Director Arthur Waldman wisely creates the play's serious mood by having actors costumed in come-as-you-are clothing, and virtually no setup just 10 chairs and spotlights on the speakers. As good an evening of theater that it is, "The Exonerated" is not for those who are sensitive about hearing graphic details of murder victims. For an additional touch of authenticity, various members of the Ocean County justice system appear in cameo roles. (source: Asbury Park Press) ************ Attorney general tells of death-penalty doubts----Citing costs and her "practical opposition," Zulima Farber said she backed extending the moratorium. In Trenton, the state's top prosecutor says she supports extending New Jersey's moratorium on executions, does not think the death penalty is a "necessary tool" for prosecutors, and believes it does not dissuade criminals. "I don't think it's a deterrent, and I understand revenge," Attorney General Zulima Farber said this week in her first major interview since being sworn in Jan. 30. "I think some people deserve it, but I don't think it's a necessary tool." Farber attributed her opposition in part to the death penalty's drain on resources and lack of implementation. "I don't have a philosophical or religious opposition to the death penalty. I have a practical opposition to the death penalty," she said. 10 prisoners are on New Jersey's death row. Although the state reinstated capital punishment in 1982, its last execution took place in 1963. In January, the Legislature voted to suspend executions while a 13-member task force studied the fairness and costs of imposing the death penalty. Farber has a seat on the study commission, which has until November to make its report. "I don't believe we're less protected in New Jersey in terms of law enforcement because no one has been executed in going over 40 years," Farber said. She said capital cases consumed precious state resources without perfect results. A November study by the New Jersey Policy Perspective, a nonprofit liberal think tank, said capital trials cost an average of $162,960, compared with $46,560 for non-capital trials. It also said death-row inmates were more expensive to confine than typical inmates. "I would welcome the analysis of the data and whatever the commission is going to look at, and I would not oppose cessation," Farber said. 38 states allow the death penalty. (source: Associated Press) USA: Return to public execution The men and women who this week were arrested in association with the child porn sting carried out by the Justice Department should experience true justice. They should be dragged to Times Square in New York City, hands tied behind their backs, and their crimes should be announced to the packed square and an international TV audience. They should be given no more than two minutes to sort out their business with God. And then ... they should go meet Him! They should have their necks stretched, a bullet placed in the back of their heads, or a dozen bowling balls tied to their necks and dropped into the ocean. Or all 3. Whether they watched it or participated in it - and when it comes to moral sin, the Bible doesn't distinguish between the 2 - they should receive the same sentence. But what these mongrels have done goes beyond the pale of moral indiscretion. When President Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, the authorities saw fit to burn and shoot Booth, but also publicly hanged his co-conspirators, including a doctor who treated his broken leg following his shooting of the president. They even hanged the women. The crime the crew had conspired to commit was so deadly, lethal and dangerous to the nation that it was obvious no wrongdoer in the matter could be allowed sanction. How much more evil is it for a father to engage in oral sex, even anal intercourse with his 18-month-old infant? How violent an act is it to injure a baby's rectum from such activity? How diabolical is it to videotape it? And how far beyond perverse is it to encourage others to watch while it is done? My radio audience, in urban areas especially like New York City, seem to always rally against the idea of death penalty. The normal arguments relate to certainty of a convict's association with the crime. The rest argue that God is the only one who can mete out true justice in such a scenario. In this case - the identity of the sickening dogs is easy to prove - they're the people raping their own children and watching the rapes occur. So have the "trial" - if its necessary - but that should more or less consist of, "here's the tape of the defendants doing what they are accused of." Once that is proven, then there should be no more delay, no more posturing, no more psychoanalysis calling for "understanding these people's mental state." I have no interest in understanding their reasoning for sodomizing their 18-month-old baby, and I would want to lock up anyone who did. This is not now, nor should it become, a matter of these persons' mental state, capacity, or potential. There is no need for "intense counseling" where they can uncover "demons that made them do it." This is a matter of perverse appetite that is so far beyond control that it is unredeemable. The ability to be compassionate to a person in this position should not humanly attainable. And for those who argue that it would be God's will to extend such compassion, then let us agree by sending them to meet Him forthrightly. Let us return to the public, the benefit to the human psyche, of putting these offenders to death in a brutal and agonizing fashion before the world's TV cameras for all to see. In doing so, we send the resolute message that there is a God, and that it is always better to meet Him on His terms, rather than yours. In scarring our now hardened hearts with the shock of what happens to wrongdoers, perhaps we can avoid the pain that comes with the shock to the innocent of the wrongdoer's actions. Let Tim Robbins and Jesse Jackson hold the vigil and weep for the pain that the molester will experience. We know they care more for the cause of their agenda rather than the pain of the child who will be stunted mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and perhaps physically - because someone they trusted made their 18-month-old body their own personal pleasure tool. Determine the facts as to the matter of guilt and let justice be done swiftly. And let it be so for the sake of our children we seek to protect, and for the restraint it might encourage in others whose proclivity to evil might be stopped. Try them, show them, hang them - and let the people learn. (source: WorldNetDaily - Kevin McCullough) ***************** Caught Up in DNA's Growing Web The announcement this week that DNA from a paroled violent felon working as a bouncer matches that found on plastic ties used to bind a murdered graduate student highlights DNA's power to implicate people already in state databases. 15 years ago, as a Manhattan homicide prosecutor, I was an aggressive proponent of taking DNA from convicted murderers, rapists and other violent felons so we could catch them when they committed crimes again. I even quit my day job to write a book likening the identification of criminals through DNA to the voice of God speaking on earth. I still firmly believe in the power of DNA to catch the guilty and exonerate the innocent. This week's developments seem likely to vindicate that faith again. But for all this technology's promise, proposals by some to extend DNA databanks far beyond convicted felons, and even to the general population, go too far. In the early 1990's, state legislatures did what many early proponents of DNA urged: they passed laws to take DNA from those convicted of murder, rape and other violent felonies. Then they enacted laws to take DNA from most convicted felons. Misdemeanor sex crimes were next, a logical, intelligent measure. But the proposed next steps in DNA collection were more problematic. In 1998, New York City's police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed that DNA be taken from all arrestees. And Gov. George Pataki has sought to take DNA from people convicted of any misdemeanor, without proof that such offenders are more likely than the general population to commit violent felonies or sex crimes (the kinds of offenses where DNA evidence is most useful). And the buzz today among prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers is that proposals to take DNA from the entire population are next. What, if anything, is wrong with this picture? DNA databanks do help apprehend dangerous criminals (and thereby prevent crime). But most people aren't violent criminals and never will be, so putting their DNA on file exposes them to risks that they otherwise wouldn't face. First, the people who collect and analyze DNA can make mistakes (witness the Houston Police Department Laboratory, whose slapdash DNA procedures led to at least one wrongful conviction). Second, people can be framed by the police, a rival or an angry spouse. Third, DNA is all about context; there may be innocent reasons for a person's DNA to be at a crime scene, but the police are not always so understanding. Indeed, with a universal national DNA databank, innocent people may be embroiled in criminal investigations when their DNA (a single hair or spot of saliva on a drinking glass) appears in a public or private place where they had every right to be. Even if we get past those objections (do you trust the government with your DNA on file?), the practical barriers to universal collection loom larger still. In a nation with no institutionalized national identification cards, photo files or fingerprinting, just imagine requiring all citizens and residents to report to the local registry for DNA collection. So the advocates of universal testing will urge the collection of DNA at birth. Aside from the atmospherics of registering newborns (don't you know that children are our future ... criminals), rapid technological advances suggest that we will not be using the same methods to analyze and store DNA results 20 years from now, when those grown babies begin committing crimes. DNA databases should expand, but some fundamental principles should guide their development: government should aim DNA collection at those most likely to commit the crimes DNA can solve (rape and murder); before expanding collection, it should focus on improving laboratories and testing samples from unsolved violent crimes sitting untested in storage closets or refrigerators; and it should recognize (as have some but not all of our courts) that it does not have an unlimited right to every person's DNA without some showing of special need. When the proponents of universal collection make their way to the body politic, they'll tell us that this is the next big thing. But there's nothing cutting edge about technology that is likely to be outdated before it becomes useful, or vast databases maintained by government bureaucrats who will require you to explain the presence of your alleged DNA at a crime scene at peril of prison. Instead, it sounds like some misguided, dismal imagining of our future. (source: Harlan Levy, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, is a lawyer and the author of "And the Blood Cried Out."----Op-Ed, New York Times)
