July 28 TEXAS: Federal officials try to block Texas execution to allow world court review of case 14 years and numerous judicial reviews have passed since Jos Medellin was sentenced to die after confessing to the brutal gang rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. That's long enough, state officials say. It's time to carry out the sentence. But defense attorneys, and an unusual coalition of federal officials, including no less than the attorney general and secretary of state, say if his Aug. 5 execution is not stayed, so Mr. Medellin's case can be reviewed one more time at the behest of the International Court of Justice, Texas will be rushing to judgment and endangering Americans abroad. "Put simply, the United States seeks the help of the State of Texas," Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a letter released by defense attorneys. Federal authorities are scrambling to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Vienna Convention, a treaty signed decades ago giving jurisdiction to the world court in cases concerning consular access. The world court first called for additional review for dozens of Mexican citizens condemned to die without access to their consular officials in 2004 and repeated the call in another decision July 16. "We respectfully request that Texas take the steps necessary to give effect to the ...decision," the June letter says. President Bush tried to resolve the issue three years ago by ordering states to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals on death row, including Mr. Medellin, as directed by the International Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Mr. Bush overstepped his authority and that individual states are not bound by the international court decision. The Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for Harris County prosecutors to seek an execution date for Mr. Medellin. But 2 weeks ago, a bill was introduced in Congress by Reps. Howard Berman, D-California, and Zoe Lofgren, D-California, to require states to come into compliance with the International Court order. Defense attorneys and officials are pushing to delay Mr. Medellin's execution until that bill can be considered. "Texas has an obligation to abide by this commitment of the United States just like everybody else, and Texas should allow Congress an adequate time to pass the legislation," said Donald Donovan, Mr. Medellin's attorney. Concern about the impending execution and its possible ramifications is so high that a group of state department officials traveled to Texas to lobby the governor's general counsel. Some international law experts say Americans traveling abroad who are arrested may suffer if the U.S. does not abide by the treaty. A dilemma But Gov. Perry remains resolute. Spokesman Robert Black admits the federal government has "a big sort of dilemma" because the United States as a whole is obligated to abide by international treaty obligations, but individual states are not. Still, "the governor isn't feeling any pressure on this simply because he is here to uphold the laws of the state of Texas and not some foreign court in Europe," he said. "Two young girls were brutally gang raped and murdered, and the governor is not willing to say that any foreign national is going to get any additional protection under the law than a Texas citizen would," Mr. Black said. Mr. Medellin, 33, was afforded the same rights in his case, including a court-appointed attorney, as any American citizen. In 1994, he was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering Elizabeth Pena, 16. Another girl, Jennifer Ertman, 14, was also raped and murdered. The girls stumbled into a gang initiation. Despite the horrific nature of the crime, defense attorney Donovan said it "would be fundamentally unjust" for Gov. Perry to not respect the commitment made under the treaty "by the American people as a whole." "In Texas, like the rest of the United States, a deal is a deal," he said. And, he added, Americans overseas could face consequences. "I think the people of Texas, just like the rest of the American people, would not want Texas to do anything that would jeopardize the safety of Americans living, traveling, and working abroad." 'Profoundly wrong' Despite Mr. Perry's determination not to halt the execution, Mr. Donovan seems confident the lethal injection will be stopped. "For Texas to go forward would be profoundly wrong," he said. "And we believe if Texas insists on going forward with this execution that a Texas court or a federal court will step in, including the Supreme Court." Others doubt the political pressure or legal maneuvers will have much effect at either the state or national level. "There may be some attempt at having a political solution but Texas will be a very reluctant partner in that," said Dr. Kimi King, a lawyer and associate professor of political science at the University of North Texas. She believes the August execution will proceed "because there's simply too great of a political culture inside Texas that is supportive of the death penalty, and there is more mileage to be gained from opposing the request to stay it than there would be in trying to support it." Chuck Cooper, a Washington attorney who filed a brief supporting Texas in the Medellin Supreme Court case, said he doubted Congressional efforts would amount to much either. He could see "some fringe California congressman offering a bill to do this," he said, "but I can't imagine Congress as a whole passing a statute." Treaty obligations are important, Mr. Cooper said, but "the obligation to fulfill treaty requirements simply gives way when it would violate constitutional laws." (source: Dallas Morning News) ALABAMA----impending execution Alabama likely to resume executions Thursday Barring an unlikely stay, Alabama on Thursday will become the eighth state to resume executions since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that lethal injection does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Thomas D. Arthur, convicted of the 1982 contract killing of a Muscle Shoals man, is scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Thursday in the execution chamber at Holman Correctional Facility near Atmore. Arthur, who twice has come within a day of execution only to win stays, last week lost an appeal in federal court. He has one active appeal, to the Alabama Supreme Court, remaining. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said April's Supreme Court decision in the Kentucky case of Baze v. Rees is not the end of the legal battle over the death penalty. But the high court probably will not revisit the issue of whether lethal injection is constitutional in the foreseeable future. "It's unlikely that the court would take another (Eighth Amendment) case," he said. "But there are other issues to be decided." Court battles are already brewing in about half a dozen states that have execution procedures different from Kentucky's. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled that Alabama's method is substantially the same as Kentucky's. The most-watched case now is in Ohio, where a state court judge ruled that the three-drug cocktail used there must be replaced by a single-drug execution method. Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge found that Ohio's lethal-injection process is illegal because it does not guarantee a "painless" death as required by state law. Ohio, which uses the same drug cocktail as Alabama and most other states, is the only state that has a "painless" death requirement. The ruling, which has been appealed, applied to just two inmates. But other defense attorneys in Ohio already are filing similar suits. If higher courts uphold Burge's ruling in Ohio and that state switches to a single-drug execution method, other states likely would follow suit, Dieter said. In Alabama, Arthur has drawn the support of anti-death penalty activists and activists who advocate the aggressive use of DNA testing to ensure the guilt of the condemned. The Innocence Project, a New York-based nonprofit that represents the condemned, has argued that DNA testing of evidence from the trial could prove his innocence. And human rights group Amnesty International last week blasted Alabama for going forward with the execution, saying Arthur's conviction was based largely on the testimony of an admitted perjurer with an incentive to lie. Judy Wicker initially testified a burglar raped her and killed her husband, Troy Wicker Jr., who was shot through the eye as he slept. She was convicted of the murder, however, and served 10 years in prison for the crime. In return for early release, she recanted her testimony and said she hired Arthur, a work-release inmate with whom she was having an affair, to be the trigger-man. Amnesty International, Arthur's lawyers and other advocates point to that contradiction and to a list of irregularities when arguing for a stay. Among the irregularities: The district attorney who successfully prosecuted Arthur for the murder - he was tried 3 times - had previously been Wicker's attorney and negotiated her early release. 2 people later gave depositions stating that Arthur was elsewhere at the time of the crime. The case has not been appealed, on its merits, to a higher court since the initial appeal, and Arthur represented himself in court for a time. Even years later, the oddities continue. Last week, the German news magazine Der Spiegel reported on its Web site that Judy Wicker was having an affair with a police officer who was at the crime scene. Wicker, now remarried and living in northwest Alabama, declined to discuss the case in detail when reached last week. She said only that the testimony she gave at Arthur's 3rd trial, when she said she hired him to kill her husband for the insurance money, was true. "Whoever told you he didn't do it is lying," she said. "He's guilty." (source: Birmingham News) *************** 2 men charged in killing of Birmingham family Authorities have arrested 2 Bessemer men in connection with the killing of a family of 4 in Birmingham last week. Authorities say 18-year-old Shaunasty Lowe and 19-year-old Steven Williams were being held without bond in Jefferson County jail. Both face capital murder charges. Records show Birmingham police booked both suspects into the city jail at 4:30 a.m. Friday. The sheriff's office confirmed they were moved to the county jail Sunday afternoon. They are charged in the shooting deaths of Derrick Witherspoon, his wife Elizabeth and her 2 sons, Jerome and Justin. The family was found in their burning home Thursday morning. A funeral for the family will be held Wednesday at 11 a.m. at the More than Conquerors Faith Church. (source: Tuscaloosa News) NEW YORK: Taking A Unique Stand Against Capital Punishment Quietly, deftly, New Yorks new governor, has virtually eliminated the death penalty. Gov. David Paterson has simply ended the use for executions of the death house in Green Haven Prison in upstate New York. And he hasnt designated any other site for administering lethal injections to people convicted of murder. The New York Post revealed his action -- and it caused barely a ripple in the world of state politics. The death penalty was reinstated in 1995. Gov. George Pataki supported it -- and so did his successor, Gov. Eliot Spitzer. But, although 7 defendants were sentenced to death after Pataki signed the law, the facility at Green Haven has never been used for an execution. Indeed, capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals last year. A state Correction Department spokesman said, of Paterson's decision to eliminate the death house: "What the court said is, 'If you want executions, the Legislature is going to have to enact a new statute or fix the statute.'" That hardly seems likely now. In a nation where many voters, if not the majority, still favor the death penalty, it takes political courage to take action against capital punishment. Paterson, as he struggles with the state's budgetary problems, has devoted some time to considering a perennial legislative issue and he's come out on the side of The American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International in opposing capital punishment. The ACLU'S John Holdridge called the death penalty "a frightening abuse of governmental power." But Senator Martin Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, called Paterson's anti-death penalty action "another decision by fiat." While he thinks the Democratic governor has done some good things, Golden believes eliminating the death penalty this way "violates our system of checks and balances. The legislature, not the governor, should decide this issue." Golden sponsored a bill passed by the senate that tried to fix the law thrown out by the high court. But this legislation, which zeroes in on criminals who kill state troopers or police, didn't pass the assembly. Almost all European countries have abolished capital punishment. It's been ended in most Latin-American nations. According to Wikipedia, In 2007, China led the world with at least 470 executions. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place. And the 5th highest number of executions were carried out in the United States -- 42. Although this is hardly a proud achievement, polls show many Americans believe the death penalty does deter criminals. Yet many others have doubts about it. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in his state after 13 wrongful convictions had taken place. I cannot support a systemso fraught with error," the governor said. He called the state taking innocent life "the ultimate nightmare," adding that "until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection no one will meet that fate." Of course, that is an impossible standard to meet. There's no way of absolutely eliminating human error. Now New York's governor has quietly taken a stand against the death penalty. It's a complex issue. But perhaps the 12th century philosopher, Moses Maimonides, put it best when he wrote: "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death." Mainmonides lived 900 years ago. But he had it right. (source: WNBC News) SOUTH CAROLINA: Defense: Dickson trial will be death penalty case----Defendant, 19, likely to receive notice soon Nathan Dickson, 19, will likely face the death penalty when he stands trial in the deaths of his father, brother, step-mother and step-sister, one of his attorneys said Monday. Anderson defense attorney Kurt Tavernier said he met with 10th Circuit Assistant Solicitor Rame Campbell on Monday. He said he expects the Solicitors Office to serve the death penalty notice soon. Tavernier and Andy Potter, with the 10th Circuit Public Defender's Office, are representing Dickson and are expected to be his attorneys when the case goes to trial. "All indications are that they will serve the death penalty notice," Tavernier said. "Based on the multiple homicides and the allegations made from the start, both Andy and I assumed that it would be a candidate as a death penalty case. So we have taken that approach from the beginning." John Dixon, uncle of Nathan Dixon and brother of one of the victims, said most of the family had agreed to the death penalty. Nathan Dixons mother, he said, had not. "We talked to the solicitor and detective and they did notify us they were going to seek the death penalty," John Dixon said Monday. "They told him (Nathan Dixon) formally." Tenth Circuit Solicitor Chrissy Adams said she had not served the death penalty notice yet and has not made a final decision. She said she is waiting on certain procedural matters to take place in the case and has no estimate on when the final decision will be made. "I have every intention of filing for the death penalty," Adams said. "But I have not filed yet and it is not a done deal until then." Dickson was charged with four counts of murder on April 26 after his father, brother, step-mother and step-sister were all found dead at their Pine Lake Drive home in Easley on the morning of April 26th. Dickson's father, Andy, his 14-year-old brother, Taylor, and 46-year-old Maritza Hurtado Dickson and her 19-year-old daughter, Jilian Melisa Salazar were all fatally shot with a shotgun. Deputies found Dickson finishing up an afternoon of riding four-wheelers when they arrested him the same day outside a Belton home. Since he was arrested, Dickson has been "holding up rather well" at the Anderson County Detention Center, his attorney said. He has not been placed in solitary confinement and understands the nature of the charges against him, Tavernier said. Tavernier said he plans on speaking with Dickson today. He said he has been told that he may face the death penalty, Tavernier said. "It is a reality he has to face," Tavernier said. "He is nervous and scared obviously. You almost wish it would happen so that the waiting is over with. There is a lot of anxiety in just waiting." A bond hearing for Dickson has not been requested since the one scheduled on May 23 was cancelled. Even when the death penalty notice is served, it could still be a while before Dickson actually faces a judge. Tavernier said trial itself could still take a while before it reaches the court. (source: Independent Mail) CALIFORNIA: Will the Supreme Court reconsider?----A controversial case proves that the courts are not the best place to fight capital punishment. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Robert H. Jackson once archly observed, are not final because they are infallible; they're infallible only because they are final. But what about when they're not? That question will be presented to the undoubtedly chagrined jurists when they return from their summer recess to consider a motion for reconsideration in one of the court's most celebrated -- and criticized -- rulings of the past term. The case, Kennedy vs. Louisiana, established a prohibition against state laws that would subject anyone but murderers to the death penalty, a welcome result that halted the expansion of a barbaric exercise of the state's ultimate power. But in concluding that the nation's "evolving standards of decency" commanded that ruling, the court relied in part on the incorrect belief that only 6 states authorize the death penalty for the rape of a child. In fact, a federal law and a separate executive order provide for the penalty under military law. Because of that mistake, the state of Louisiana has asked the court to reconsider its ruling. The motion seems unlikely to prevail. The existence of the penalty in military proceedings does not undermine the balance of the court's rationale, even though it does weaken it incrementally. As such, the court's ban seems destined to stand. The embarrassment will remain, however, and serves to remind that progress toward eliminating capital punishment once and for all through the courts will always be problematic. That's not, as some conservatives would have it, because the Constitution does not allow for evolving standards. It does, and the court is right to recognize that the mere fact that one century countenances say, torture, does not bind all future generations to those standards. The trouble is thus not with evolution in principle but with how to measure changing standards. In this case, the court drew on the actions of legislatures and others, but it not only flubbed the military example, it arguably read too much into the legislative record. (Although only 6 states passed such laws, for instance, others might have had the court not left the impression that they would be overruled if they tried.) For opponents of capital punishment -- including, emphatically, this page -- the sounder basisfor its abolition lies not with the courts but with the legislatures. DNA evidence has helped illuminate cases of wrongful conviction, shattering the confidence of many onetime supporters of the death penalty. They have joined those of us who've long protested it as a moral abomination whose sanction places the United States in the ranks of the world's most disreputable nations. With or without prodding from the courts, states should abolish capital punishment and clear this nation of its stain. (source: Los Angeles Times) ******************** Death penalty upheld in deputy murder A state appeals court has upheld the death penalty sentence of a man who murdered a Shasta County sheriff's deputy in 1991. Tomas Cruz was convicted of 1st-degree murder in the October 1991 shooting death of Deputy Ken Perrigo. The Sonoma County jury recommended the death penalty for Cruz. A panel of the appeals court ruled last week to deny the appeal, saying all of the defendant's claims were without merit. Cruz shot the deputy in the head with the officer's backup gun after being picked up for public drunkenness. (source: Mercury News)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., N.Y., S.C., CALIF.
Rick Halperin Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:36:35 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
