Sept. 9 ILLINOIS: Death penalty still on the table for Wauconda man A death sentence remains a possibility for a Wauconda man accused of fatally shooting the winner of a dice game outside a Carpentersville apartment complex, authorities said. Michael Calabrese, 25, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder in the May 1, 2005, slaying of Edmund Edwards, who was gunned down in the parking lot of the Fox View Apartments. On Friday, defense attorney Paul De Luca filed about a half-dozen legal requests concerning the death penalty, such as a bid to have the states capital punishment system declared unconstitutional. The development means that Kane County prosecutors have rejected an attempt De Luca made earlier this year to have the death penalty taken off the table in the Calabrese case. "They have decided they're going to go ahead with it,"De Luca said. "Most of these motions have been argued before, but were arguing them again." De Luca has said Calabrese's past his client recently has had a mental health exam could make him ineligible for the death penalty. Also Friday, Judge Philip DiMarzio granted a request to allow De Luca to use special state funds and resources earmarked for death penalty cases to help with Calabreses defense. Bill Engerman, an assistant states attorney who is prosecuting Calabrese, said Friday there are no plans to seek prison time if there is a conviction. Calabrese is eligible for a lethal injection under Illinois law in part because Edwards was killed during an armed robbery. Edwards, 25, was on a winning streak while he played dice with a group of men, including Calabrese, in the parking lot of the Fox View complex, police have said. A least five witnesses told police Calabrese left after losing his cash but returned around 2:39 a.m. wearing a mask and carrying a handgun demanding his money back. Edwards, of Chicago Ridge, was shot in the back and head when he tried to run. He later died at Sherman Hospital in Elgin, police said. Calabrese, who was on parole for theft, went on the lam for 23 days until he was arrested in Kankakee County. He is due in court again Oct. 20. (source: Daily Herald) HAWAII--re: federal death penalty Prosecutors seeking death penalty in child beating----Notice filed in federal court in Naeem Williams case Federal prosecutors filed notice today that they intend to seek a federal death penalty for a Schofield Barracks soldier if he is convicted of 1st-degree murder for the death of his 5-year-old daughter. Spc. Naeem Williams, 26, was indicted Feb. 15 for last years death of Talia Williams. Her stepmother, Delilah Williams, 22, was also charged with murder, but hasnt been indicted. The decision to seek the death penalty was made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, according to U.S. Attorney Edward Kubo Jr. The death penalty won't be sought against Delilah Williams, U.S. Attorney Marshall H. Silverberg said. Both are being held in Honolulu, he said. Talia was taken by ambulance from the family's residence at Wheeler Army Airfield to Wahiawa General Hospital on July 16, 2005. Emergency room doctors pronounced the child dead from "blunt head trauma due to battered child syndrome" shortly after she arrived. Doctors said the girl had bruises on her arms, chest, knees and thighs and a cut on her back. Court documents have quoted Delilah Williams as saying her husband struck Talia with a belt because she had wet herself, and when he found out she had wet herself again, he struck her again, and she fell, hitting her head on the floor. Hawaii has no death penalty, but Williams will be tried in the state under the federal death penalty law, Silverberg said. The case is being prosecuted in U.S. District Court because the crime allegedly occurred on a military base, he said. A trial date for Williams has not been set. Only a handful of federal executions have taken place since the 1960s, with fewer than 50 federal death row inmates nationwide. Only one other person has faced the federal death penalty in Hawaii since the 1950s. Richard "China" Chong avoided a death sentence in 2000 by agreeing to plead guilty to the 1997 murder of William Noa Jr. over a $100 drug debt. Chong was sentenced in 2001 to life in prison without the possibility of parole, but died of an apparent suicide about 3 months later at the federal penitentiary in Lompoc, Calif. (source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin) ************ Death penalty sought for killing at Wheeler The U.S. attorney's office in Hawai'i will seek the death penalty in the case of a Schofield Barracks soldier accused of beating to death his 5-year-old daughter last year. It is only the second time the U.S. Justice Department has approved capital punishment in a Hawai'i case since the federal death penalty law was enacted in 1994. Army Spc. Naeem Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2006 on one count of 1st-degree murder. He is accused of the beating death of his daughter, Talia Williams, at the Williams' Wheeler Army Airfield apartment on July 16, 2005. Last night, Tarshia Williams, Talia's mother, said from her South Carolina home that it was a "blessing" that the death penalty was approved for her former husband. Naeem Williams was granted custody of Talia in December 2004. "I just wanted justice for my daughter. I've been praying for this for a year," Williams said. "I just want him to be punished for everything he did to my child. I feel like justice is about to be served." Tarshia Williams said it's been a difficult year for her and she recently marked the anniversary of her child's death by releasing balloons at her grave. "He tried so hard to get my daughter away from me ... ," Tarshia Williams said. "When I got my baby back, my baby was unrecognizable." No trial date has been set, but Williams said she will be here for the trial. David Klein, Williams' attorney, said that he will fight the imposition of the death penalty if his client is found guilty of murder. "This is a tragic case that is being compounded by the unfortunate decision by the government to seek the death penalty, especially given Mr. Williams' lack of criminal history and exceptional military service," Klein said. Williams remains at the Federal Detention Center in Hono-lulu, Klein said. He declined further comment. Federal authorities said Talia was an abused child and that her father beat her and knocked her to the floor on the day she died. An autopsy showed that Talia died of "inflicted head trauma due to battered child syndrome," and authorities reported that the apartment's walls were spattered with blood. Yesterday, U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo said that the decision to seek the death penalty was made by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "The Department of Justice has determined that the torture and murder of a young child warrants the death penalty. So we will march accordingly," Kubo said. He declined further comment. Delilah Williams, Naeem Williams' wife, also has been charged with the murder of Talia. The death penalty won't be sought against Delilah Williams, U.S. Attorney Marshall H. Silverberg said. Naeem Williams is only the second person in Hawai'i who has faced the possibility of execution since the federal death penalty was enacted in 1994. The death penalty in 4 other capital murder cases was rejected while U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno was in office. In 1999, then-U.S. Attorney Steven Alm was given the go-ahead to seek the death penalty against Richard Lee Tuck "China" Chong. Chong was charged with the 1997 shooting death of William Noa Jr. in Makaha over what prosecutors said was a $100 drug debt. Chong eventually pleaded guilty to the murder charge and was sentenced to life in prison. In September 2001, Chong committed suicide in his cell at the federal penitentiary in Lompoc, Calif. Capital punishment was abolished by the Hawai'i territorial Legislature in 1957. The last execution under state law was in 1944. (source: Honolulu Advertiser) CALIFORNIA: Brown vows to enforce death penalty if elected For most of his adult life, and now in the midst of his bid to become California's next attorney general, one political issue has hovered over Jerry Brown: the death penalty. In 1960, Brown helped persuade his father, then-Gov. Edmund "Pat" Brown, to temporarily delay the execution of convicted murderer Caryl Chessman. As governor in the late 1970s, Jerry Brown vetoed a bill reinstating the death penalty but exerted little effort to block a legislative override that subsequently enacted the law. Almost a decade later, his appointee as state Supreme Court chief justice, Rose Bird, was removed from office by voters angry in part because of her handling of death penalty cases. In the years before he became mayor of Oakland in 1998, Brown railed at capital punishment on his radio show, describing it as "state murder." Now, as the Democratic nominee for attorney general, Brown remains morally opposed to the practice but insists he will follow the law. Brown brings that history to the contest against Republican Chuck Poochigian, whose views on the death penalty are much less nuanced. A state senator from Fresno, Poochigian unabashedly supports it as a deterrent and a measure of justice for perpetrators and their victims. "No one should take pleasure in the loss of anyone's life," Poochigian said in an interview. "But in those cases in which the death penalty is applicable, given the heinous crimes being committed against innocent people, it is in my mind imperative that we have it." The death penalty was once a potent topic in California campaigns of the 1970s and '80s, particularly in gubernatorial and attorney general races. Since then, however, some political observers say the death penalty has faded as a campaign issue. Poochigian hopes his campaign can benefit from Brown's personal aversion to capital punishment. Brown has much wider name identification among voters and a 21-percentage-point lead in a month-old Field Poll. As a candidate for attorney general, Brown has appeared less fervent in his criticism of the death penalty. "I think we'd do better without it, but a majority of Californians disagree with that," Brown said in a wide-ranging interview in March. He added that he would "strongly carry out the law of California." His campaign staff declined several recent invitations for Brown to discuss the subject. Brown's position disturbs death penalty opponents, who once counted him as an ally because he often described the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole as a more humane and equally effective deterrent as capital punishment. "It's somewhat tiresome when somebody gives me that excuse," said Mike Farrell, an actor and president of Death Penalty Focus. "I would love to see him sort of put his career, if you will, where his mouth is." (ssource: SacBee) **************** Couple convicted of torture, murder bound for death row A Rialto couple convicted of keeping a 16-year-old girl as a sex slave for 2 weeks before they tortured and killed her are on their way to death row. "This is humanity at its worst, deviant sexual predators preying on young girls and giving in to their wildest, sickest fantasies," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Rushton. Michelle Curran was kidnapped from near home in Las Vegas in 2001 by Michael Forrest Thornton, 50, and his partner, Janeen Marie Snyder, 26. The teenager's body was found in a horse trailer on a Rubidoux ranch in April 2001. She had been strung up hand and foot in a tack room, sexually assaulted, and shot point blank in the head. The 2 were sentenced to death Thursday by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Paul Zellerbach. Snyder becomes the 15th woman on California's death row. Only 4 woman have been executed in state history and none since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume in 1976. Prosecutors believe the couple is responsible for at least 1 other murder, a shooting in Oklahoma and other rapes. Rushton said they were "among the most evil" people he had ever come across. It is believed that in March 1996, the couple kidnapped 14-year-old Jessie Peters and took her to Lake Arrowhead where they killed and dismembered her, Rushton said. That case never made it to trial. It also is thought they shot a woman in Oklahoma four times, Rushton said. The woman survived. The youthful Snyder was used as bait to lure young girls into Thornton's grasp, investigators found. The trial lasted 6 months and included 129 witnesses. They were convicted in March, and the jury recommended death for both in May. They were found guilty of several special circumstances that made them eligible for the death penalty, including kidnapping and torture. (source: The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin) ************** Son of executed Crips founder Tookie Williams fights father's will The son of Stanley Tookie Williams is contesting his father's will, claiming it was signed 2 days before his execution at San Quentin State Prison and its beneficiary probably had a hand in its creation. Travon Williams, 33, says the executor of his father's estate was a business partner who had the will drafted and says it should be ruled invalid. It was unclear what the estate may be worth, although Tookie Williams wrote children's books denouncing gang violence that prompted four Nobel Prize nominations. The executor, Barbara Becnel, 56, of Richmond is the sole beneficiary and filed a petition last spring in Marin Superior Court to begin probate proceedings. Travon Williams this week filed an objection to the petition, saying the will does not reflect his father's true intentions and that he had not discussed alternatives to the document he signed. Becnel said Friday she will fight Travon Williams' efforts to undermine his father's will and desires. Travon Williams says errors made in producing the will are grounds to have it set aside. He notes that Becnel became a business partner with Tookie Williams in the mid-1990s as a co-author and editor of his books. "Since that time, petitioner has profited from her relationship with Tookie, both economically and professionally, due to the publicity she has received being associated with Tookie," the document reads. Becnel said Travon Williams never publicly supported saving his father's life. "Now he is willing to publicly dishonor the wishes and intelligence of Stanley Tookie Williams for his own financial gain," Becnel said. "That's very, very disappointing to me." Becnel said the accusations are false and that she had nothing to do with the drafting of the will. "I stood by Stan's side for 13 years, fighting to support his work, his innocence and his life," Becnel said. "I will continue to fight, this time to support his honor, his legacy and his desires." Becnel's attorney, Melvin Honowitz, said the objection to the petition for probate is ludicrous. "It is not founded in reality," Honowitz said. "Our client will take all appropriate legal action to expeditiously resolve this matter, which will confirm the late Stanley Williams' true intentions as reflected in his last will and testament." Tookie Williams was a founder of the Crips street gang in South Central Los Angeles. He was convicted of 4 murders in 1981 and sentenced to death. He was a rebellious prisoner until he turned his life around in the 1990s, denouncing gangs and writing children's books to advocate alternatives to street crime. He was nominated 4 years in a row for the Nobel Peace Prize, beginning in 2001. He was executed Dec. 13, 2005, despite calls for clemency by anti-death penalty advocates and a campaign based on his redemption that was spearheaded by Becnel. In his objection to the petition for probate, Travon Williams said his father is survived by his mother, two sons, a sister and grandchildren. He said he had a strong, loving relationship with his father. Travon Williams, who lives in the Los Angeles area, said his father feared for his family's safety and tried to keep them out of the public eye. He says the attorney who drafted the will did not know the names of Stanley Williams' children and never spoke with him before preparing the will. Stacie Nelson, Travon Williams' attorney, said she does not know the value of Stanley Williams' estate. "The executor has possession of Mr. Williams' assets," Nelson said. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Monday. (source: Marin Independent Journal) KANSAS: Kline makes Carr case an issue with attacks on Morrison A man on death row for 4 killings in Wichita has become part of the attorney general's race, as Republican incumbent Phill Kline continues to portray Democratic challenger Paul Morrison as too soft on violent crime. Morrison, the Johnson County district attorney, contends Kline is misleading voters in linking Reginald Carr's crimes to a 2000 law that Morrison supported. The law, an effort to deal with a growing inmate population, shortened the time offenders are supervised after they're released and dedicated $6.7 million for prison expansion projects. Brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr are facing a death sentence for 4 murders in December 2000, part of a spree that also claimed a 5th victim. Reginald Carr previously had served time on drug, theft and aggravated assault charges. After his release in March 2000, the state ended its supervision of him prematurely, less than two weeks before the 1st killing. Morrison contends the crimes can't be linked to the 2000 law because the Department of Corrections attributed Reginald Carr's early release from state supervision to an error by 2 employees. The department said that without the error, the state would have supervised Carr 6 months longer. Mark Simpson, Morrison's campaign manager, said Kline is "demonstrably wrong" in his statements about Carr. "What does it say about him that he will continue to say something that's not true?" Simpson said. "If you can't talk about what you've been spending your time on as attorney general on, I guess you make stuff up." Following a civic club Friday - in which he went through a list of tough-on-crime legislation he advocated - Kline said he's not disputing that employee error led to Carr's early release from supervision. But, Kline noted, Carr was one of 2,800 offenders the Department of Corrections has said were affected by the law. The department also has reported that more than 1,500 offenders whose supervision was shortened by the law had returned to prison by the end of 2005. However, for 2/3 of them, they already would have been released from supervision when they committed new crimes, even if the 2000 law hadn't passed. In January 2001, then-Corrections Secretary Charles Simmons acknowledged the 2000 law shaved a year off the time Carr was supposed to be under supervision, so that it would end June 1, 2001. The employees' error set the end date as Dec. 1, 2000. "All we're saying is that he was one of those, of the 2,800, who had their sentences reduced," Kline said. "And that's the truth." A fundraising letter sent by Kline's campaign under his signature in August described Carr as being "released early by Morrison's bill." Kline also raised the 2000 law as an issue in 2002 during his successful GOP primary race against then-Sen. David Adkins, a supporter of the law. During that campaign, a Falls Church, Va., group, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, attacked Adkins with a TV ad linking the 2000 law to Carr's release. After a day, stations in Topeka and Wichita pulled the ad, and Gov. Bill Graves, with Morrison by his side, denounced it as "dragging Kansas into the politics of personal destruction." While Kline didn't take issue with the ad's linking Carr's release to the 2000 law, he said Friday that the commercial upset him because the Carr brothers were still awaiting trial. Kline has raised the 2000 law to undercut Morrison's claim that he is a "real lawman" while describing Kline as a mere politician. Kline also has pointed to endorsements from law enforcement groups, and on Friday, the state lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police announced it was backing his re-election. Simpson dismissed the endorsement's importance. "It's sort of an institutional endorsement and it went to the incumbent," Simpson said. "Regardless of whether he has bad priorities, he's still the incumbent." Kline campaign: http://www.klineforag.com Morrison campaign: http://www.morrisonforag.com Text of 2000 law: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/showBill.do?id16235 (source: Associated Press) USA: Quality and Quantity on Appeal When it comes to handling appeals, as in so many other areas of the law, some lawyers are more talented than others. Three of the most important skills that a highly effective appellate lawyer must possess are: (1) the ability to select the best issues to raise on appeal; (2) the ability to perform top-notch legal research and analysis to ensure that the issues are argued in the most effective manner possible; and (3) the ability to present the arguments and background about the case in writing and orally to the appellate judges in a way that will persuade the court of the correctness of the client's position. Although these days many clients are justifiably interested in having a highly qualified appellate advocate on their side when a case heads to appeal, there are a substantial number of cases where the skill of appellate advocacy, or absence thereof, should not make any difference to the result. To begin with, when deciding an appeal, the appellate court's goal is not to rule in favor of the party whose attorney impresses the court as most talented; rather, the goal is to decide the case correctly, according to applicable law, regardless of whether that means ruling for or against the side with the more talented appellate advocate. Thus, cases where the quality of the appellate advocates matters little if at all are those in which the issues on appeal can only be resolved one way given applicable precedent. If an appeal must be decided a certain way, it should not matter that the attorney arguing for the wrong result is much more talented than the attorney who is advocating the proper outcome. An appellate court's duty is to reach the right outcome regardless of the relative talent of the lawyers on appeal. By contrast, in a case where existing precedent does not govern or foreordain the result, and thus the case could legitimately be decided in favor of either side of the dispute, it could matter a great deal which side's appellate attorney is more talented. Moreover, if the best issues to raise on appeal are not selected; if applicable precedent is not found, evaluated, and applied properly and advantageously; and if the reasons why the court should rule in the client's favor are not conveyed in writing and orally in a persuasive manner, an appellate court may be stymied in its efforts to determine the proper outcome of the appeal. In any event, the effect of quality of advocacy on an appellate court's decision-making process cannot be appreciated without also considering the impact of quantity. In other words, one must also understand the impact of the overwhelming quantity of pending cases that now confront most appellate judges. University of Richmond Law Professor Law Professor Carl Tobias recently wrote, in an essay opposing a split of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that federal appellate courts today offer "a 2-tier system of justice, whereby 20 % of appeals receive full consideration -- namely oral arguments and published opinions -- and 80 % do not." And Senior 3rd Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, in a written interview that I conducted with him in 2003, spoke of "assembly-line justice" caused by the crushing caseload confronting appellate courts. According to Aldisert, "You must understand that the case you file with us moves along an assembly line of over one case every 4.9 hours. Think about it. That's the time allotted to your case. In that time, the judge must read the briefs, research the law, perhaps hear argument, conference with colleagues, make a decision, write an opinion or order, examine draft opinions written by other judges, and at the same time study motions in other cases or petitions for rehearing. And, of course, travel to the court, check into the hotel. Answer the phone. One fully briefed case for decision every 4.9 hours." The scarcity of time in which appellate judges must determine what the correct answer is in each case creates a more urgent need for a high quality appellate presentation. It is easier for appellate judges to determine the lawful outcome of an appeal if the case is well-briefed and well-argued by both sides. By contrast, if the party that deserves to win an appeal based on existing law does an especially poor job of communicating that fact to the appellate court, it is possible in the press of time and the crush of other work that the appellate judges may fail to reach the proper outcome. In such an instance, the poor quality of appellate lawyering on behalf of the party that deserved to win the appeal would be to blame. In the real world, appellate judging differs significantly from a law school moot court competition. Actual appellate courts are not supposed to enter judgment based on which party has the most talented appellate advocate. Rather, an appellate court must decide cases in accordance with the law, even if that means that the party with the less talented appellate lawyer ends up prevailing. Although the quality of an appellate lawyer's presentation is not, in and of itself, the basis on which appeals should be decided, it nevertheless may significantly influence the result. This is because selecting the proper issues on appeal, determining which legal arguments are likely to prove most persuasive and effective, and then communicating those arguments in a manner that is both easy to understand and convincing can make all the difference between a win and a loss on appeal. Because appellate judges are strapped for time due to a crushing caseload, an appellate court may not always be willing or able to employ the effort necessary to reach the correct outcome in the absence of appropriate assistance from the attorneys. This is the unfortunate reality of appellate litigation today. Thus, while the quality of a party's appellate presentation does not necessarily guarantee success on appeal, the lack of a quality appellate presentation may guarantee defeat. (source: Law.com --Howard J. Bashman operates his own appellate litigation boutique in Willow Grove, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia) ************** Looking for Agreement on Tribunals for Detainees The main Senate Republican in talks with the White House over bills to establish tribunals for terror suspects said Friday that a small set of problems divided the two sides and that they would negotiate through the weekend in an effort to reach a compromise. The senator, John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said 90 percent of the proposal that the White House submitted this week reflected a proposal that he and other Republican senators who have taken the lead on the question had drafted over the summer. The senators, Mr. Warner, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, maintain that they can work with the administration to resolve the differences, but they showed few signs of yielding on the disputed questions. "The determination simply has to be made on what flexibility the administration wants to show," Mr. Warner said. The disputed issues are the same ones that the Supreme Court cited in striking down a system of tribunals that the administration established after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They include whether suspects can be excluded from their trials and what types of evidence would be admissible. "I feel strongly about this," Mr. Warner said. "I want to be supportive of the president." But as a lawyer and former Navy secretary, he said, "I feel this bill has got to pass what I call the federal court muster, so this thing doesn't get tangled up in the courts again and go all the way to the Supreme Court, and then down she goes again." Mr. Warner said that his committee would have its legislation ready for a vote next week, whether or not the White House agrees to all its provisions. He predicted that the Senate would quickly pass it. "We dont need a lot of time," he said. "We all know what the issues are. I don't see a prolonged debate." There is no certainty that the committee bill will reach the Senate floor if there is no deal with the White House. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, has said he will decide next week whether to bring the committee bill to the floor or bring up the version that President Bush proposed on Wednesday. House Republican leaders have said they intend to pass the White House version. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the tribunals the White House established violated the Constitution and international law by denying terror suspects basic human and legal rights. Chiefly, the court objected to excluding suspects from trials and allowing hearsay and evidence obtained under coercion. It faulted the administration system to have a military lawyer oversee the proceedings, as opposed to a judge, as in military courts-martial. The court added that the jury size was too small. Mr. Bush's new proposal allows for a military judge and expands the jury from a minimum of 3 people to5, the minimum the court said was required under courts-martial, with 12 for cases involving the death penalty. The administration proposal would allow hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion, if the judge rules it was probative and reliable. The plan would also deny the accused the right to see and therefore respond to classified evidence that the jury could use to convict him, although the defendant could be allowed a summary of it. That provision, Mr. Graham said this week, would be struck down by a court "in 30 seconds." Mr. Graham in particular, a former military lawyer and a military reserve judge, has been inclined to follow the advice of the military lawyers on the shape of the tribunals. Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has argued that any system would set a precedent for how other countries try American troops and that passing a system that excluded the defendant opened up Americans to being tried in kangaroo courts elsewhere. A spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Washington said Friday that it would visit the 14 new detainees being held at the naval base in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, as soon as it received permission from the Defense Department. An official with the Red Cross in Washington, Simon Schorno, said: "We do not have a date yet. But as soon as we get confirmation, we will undertake a visit as soon as possible." Mr. Schorno said his organization had a team of about 10 people on standby. The team, which includes officials in the Washington office, will draw Red Cross employees from elsewhere to work as translators. He said the first order of business would be to interview the detainees "and give them the means to contact their families through Red Cross messages." The Red Cross, Mr. Schorno added, will assess the detention conditions in the undisclosed locations where the inmates had been held and now at Guantnamo. By agreement with the United States government, the Red Cross will, in exchange for access, not make public its views on the conditions of confinement and treatment. Mr. Schorno said his organization might announce the fact of the visit when it occurred because of the wide public interest in it. (source: New York Times)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ILL., HAW., CALIF., KAN., USA
Rick Halperin Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:15:58 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
