March 16 NORTH CAROLINA: Amnesty International: Give Moody clemency----Public asked to appeal to Easley to block execution A national human-rights organization is asking the public to send appeals for clemency to Gov. Michael Easley on behalf of a man scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Friday. "We are opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and we work on every single execution in some way or another in the United States," said Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn, the director of Amnesty International USA's program to abolish the death penalty. "In Patrick Moody's case, we've issued a call for urgent action because Mr. Moody's case is particularly horrendous." Moody, 39, was sentenced to death in 1995 after being convicted of killing his lover's husband, Donnie Robbins, on Sept. 16, 1994. His execution is scheduled for 2 a.m. at Central Prison. Moody had been having an affair for several months with Robbins' wife, Wanda, who planned the killing so that she could collect life insurance. Testimony during the trial revealed that Robbins persuaded Moody to kill her husband by making up stories of spousal abuse - even faking bruises with makeup - and threatening to end the affair if Moody didn't carry out the killing. Moody's attorneys say that he was susceptible to manipulation by women because of his marginal intelligence and his abusive childhood. Evidence at his trial showed that he had an IQ of 81 and had scored as low as in the mid-60s on previous tests - low enough to qualify for exemption from the death penalty. Amnesty International "is also seriously concerned about the quality of Moody's legal representation at the trial stage," according to a statement issued yesterday by the organization. "Moody's current attorneys allege that his trial counsel failed to properly investigate mitigating evidence such as his history of severe psychological problems and sustained child abuse." Wanda Robbins was allowed to plead guilty to 2nd-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and insurance fraud. She was sentenced to life plus 65 years in prison. Gunawardena-Vaughn said that Amnesty International sees many cases where someone convicted of killing another gets sentenced to death, while someone else who committed the same crime in another county or state gets life in prison. "It's a lottery of death, really," she said. "It's a lottery of counsel, of issues, of jurors, of geography." Moody's last hope lies in Easley granting clemency and commuting his sentence to life in prison, a move that Easley has made only twice in the past. Local death-penalty-abolition activists have several activities planned for Thursday, including a prayer service at 7:30 p.m. at Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh and a nighttime vigil outside the prison until the time of Moody's execution. (source: Winston-Salem Journal) ************** A bad joke The State of North Carolina cannot, straight-faced, pretend ignorance that it has chosen to carry out the execution of a man named Patrick, Patrick Moody, on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2006. It should seem obvious that the secretary of correction is having a laugh at the expense of the people. The state should be ashamed of this insensitive little inside joke; application of the death penalty is serious business. I am sure that the secretary's spokesperson will say that it is merely coincidence, but coincidence occurs in the absence of deliberate choice. Pursuant to the N.C. General Statutes, the secretary is to set a date of execution not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after receiving written notification from the Attorney General's Office that a death row inmate's appeals have been exhausted. In this case, the secretary must have decided it would be -- cute? ironic? funny? clever? -- to carry out the execution of Patrick Moody on St. Patrick's Day. This mocks the criminal justice system and, more sadly, mocks all of those affected by homicide, whether committed illegally by individuals or committed legally by the state. Maybe the real message is that in spite of all of their professed piety, our state's leaders don't take the sanctity of life very seriously at all. Marshall Dayan----Durham (The writer is an assistant professor of law at N.C. Central University.) (source: News & Observer) LOUISIANA: State will seek death penalty in 17-year-old case In Benton, Bossier-Webster District Attorney Schuyler Marvin will proceed with the 1st-degree murder trial of a Texas man who for the second time faces the death penalty as an option if convicted of the 1989 slaying of a Bossier City man. Marvin was cleared to set a trial date for James Crandell, 58, after learning the Louisiana Supreme Court late Friday refused to hear Crandell's writ application because it was filed in an untimely fashion. The case was remanded to Bossier Parish District Court for further proceedings. The district court and 2nd Circuit of Appeal had previously sided with Marvin's request to seek the death penalty. At issue had been the question of whether Crandell faced double jeopardy. A jury that convicted him in 1991 of the beating death of Charles Parr, 48, could not unanimously agree if he should be put to death. So, instead, Crandell was sentenced to life in prison. But a federal court overturned his conviction in August 2004 after Crandell successfully challenged the manner in which jury forepersons were selected. Crandell remained in prison, however, as Marvin pursued a new first-degree murder indictment, which a Bossier Parish jury handed down in September 2005. Marvin again said he would go after the death penalty. While state court decisions for the past two decades have held that prosecutors are prohibited from twice seeking the death penalty, Crandell's case differed because the federal court's ruling essentially nullified his first court proceeding. It was like the 1st trial never happened. "Neither double jeopardy, nor the right to appeal precludes the state from seeking the death penalty against this defendant in this first-degree murder trial," Supreme Court Associate Justice Jeffrey P. Victory wrote for the majority. Marvin does not anticipate additional court challenges since the same majority of associate justices expressed their view on the legal issue, even though the merits of the appeal were not considered. Attorney Pam Smart, who is representing Crandell, was not immediately available for comment Monday afternoon. (source: The Shreveport Times) OREGON: Attorneys debate merit of state death penalty----Supporters say capital punishment prevents murder; opponents argue inconsistent application The death penalty has been a part of Oregon's history for nearly as long as it has been a state, and its existence has been one of the states longest-running controversies, according to the Oregon Department of Corrections, which is responsible for overseeing state executions. "The death penalty is one of two or three most emotional subjects," said Joshua Marquis, district attorney of Clatsop County. "The others are abortion and race. People feel very passionately about it on both sides. But it's not a blue or red, conservative versus liberal, Republican versus Democrat issue. It's much more nuanced than that." In his career as a district attorney, Marquis has had to decide whether to pursue the death penalty in 20 cases of aggravated murder, he said, and has only pursued it twice. Proponents of the death penalty cite its ability to deter criminals. "If you didn't have the death penalty, you would not be able to get some of the worst killers to take pleas of 'true life'," Marquis said. True life means life in prison without parole. "I never argued that it was a general deterrent," Marquis said. "I argued that it was a specific deterrent. That individual won't kill anyone again because he's dead." "I came to realize the sad truth that there are a very small number of people who are flat out evil, who like to hurt and kill other people," Marquis said. "There is a tiny number of people for whom the death penalty is appropriate." Opponents argue that the death penalty is inconsistently applied and up to the discretion of prosecutors who are influenced by local community values. "I think the whole issue of guilty pleas and bullying people into pleading guilty by threatening them with the death penalty if they go to trial is a terribly undesirable practice," said attorney Stephen B. Bright, who works at the Southern Center for Human Rights, a non-profit organization that represents people facing the death penalty who wouldn't otherwise have legal representation. "The person should plead guilty if they are guilty, not because they are afraid of the death penalty sentence," Bright said. "Proponents use an argument of vengeance and bringing home responsibility for a horrible crime," said Randall McGowen, a professor at the University who taught a class on the history of the death penalty. "Opponents would say the whole system of death penalty justice is absurd, that it's a lottery of who actually dies and who doesnt." Capital punishment was originally adopted by an Oregon statute in 1864, and until it was repealed in 1914, 25 men were executed by the state. Oregon voters repealed the death penalty by a narrow 50.04 % vote in 1914, according to the corrections department Web site. Oregonians restored the death penalty in 1920 with a 56 % vote. The state executed 34 men from 1920 until 1964 when Oregon voters repealed the practice again by a 60 % vote. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 because of its inconsistent application and criticism that it was racially biased, McGowen said. In 1977, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and allowed states to pass new legislation that better addressed the inconsistencies in cases where the death penalty could be applied. In 1978, by a 64 % majority vote, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 8, which re-instated capital punishment by lethal gas. The Oregon Supreme Court struck down the statute in 1981 because it deprived a defendant of the right to trial by jury. In 1984, Ballot Measure 7 amended Oregons constitution to require that a defendant be given a separate sentencing by the trial jury after being convicted of aggravated murder. The measure passed by 75 %. To sentence a person to death, a jury must determine whether the murder was deliberate, if the defendant poses a continued threat to society and if the defendant's actions are an unreasonable response to any provocation by the deceased person, according to the corrections department Web site. A fourth consideration was added by the Oregon Legislature in 1989 that said the jury should not give the death penalty "if you find that there is any aspect of defendant's character or background, or any circumstances of the offense, that you believe would justify a sentence less than death," according to the corrections department Web site. According to the site, Oregon has executed 2 men since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1980s and currently has 30 inmates on death row. (source: Oregon Daily Emerald)
