April 18
OKLAHOMA----execution Man executed for Grady County triple murder A Grady County man was executed Tuesday for the murders of 3 men who were shot then left to die in a burning residence nearly 10 years ago. Richard Alford Thornburg, Jr., 40, was pronounced dead at 6:20 p.m. after a lethal dose of drugs was administered at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Thornburg was convicted of the Sept. 28, 1996, shooting deaths of James Donald Poteet, 51; Terry Lynn Shepard, 39; and Keith Alan Smith, 24. 2 other men also were convicted of murder in the case. The 3 killings occurred at Poteet's house in Alex, which was set on fire. The defendants held a 4th man, Marvin Matheson, at gunpoint and forced him to shoot Donald Brent Scott, who survived his wounds, prosecutors said. Thornburg didn't seek clemency and there were no last-minute attempts to stop the execution on Tuesday. Thornburg's wife, children and other family members visited with the condemned man on Tuesday and planned to witness the execution, said Jerry Massie, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. On Tuesday night, while strapped to a gurney at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Thornburg apologized, said prison spokesman Jerry Massie. "I just want to say I'm sorry for all the pain I've caused," Thornburg said. "I'm truly ashamed of my actions. I wish it could have been me. I'm sorry. I wish I could take it all back." Thornburg becomes the 1st condemned inmate to be put to death this year in Oklahoma and the80th overall since the state resumed capital punishment in 1990. Oklahoma trails only Texas (362) and Virginia (94) in the number of executions carried out since the death penalty was re-legalized in the USA on July 2, 1976. Thornburg becomes the 13th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the USA and the 1017th overall since the nation resumed executions on January 17, 1977. (sources: Associated Press, Reuters & Rick Halperin) TEXAS: Jury to begin considering new evidence in death row inmate's trial A jury will consider new evidence this week on behalf of a Lubbock man who was sentenced to death 6 years ago. Joe Franco Garza, 34, strangled and robbed a 71-year-old retired preacher in 1998 - an offense for which he was later convicted and sentenced to die. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the district court's conviction in 2002, determined that Garza strangled Silbiano Rangel with a sock during a dispute over money to buy beer, court records state. He then stole Rangel's truck. In August, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ordered that a Lubbock County district court consider evidence from Garza's past that was not included during his 2000 trial. Cummings found that information contained in Garza's juvenile criminal record could have a mitigating effect on the jury and could ultimately affect Garza's sentence. According to the court order, testimony demonstrated that Garza was raised in an abusive and violent home, where he suffered neglect and physical and mental abuse. But his brushes with the law, which began at 8 years of age, and the contents of three psychological evaluations were not included during the punishment phase of the trial. The U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1989 that, "defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to disadvantaged background, or to emotional or mental problems, may be less culpable than defendants that have no such excuse," according to the order. The jury of 6 women and 6 men, who were selected over the last 4 weeks, will not be asked to consider Garza's guilt. A jury made that determination in 2000. Under Texas law, the only permissible punishments for a capital offense are a life-sentence or the death penalty. Testimony is expected to begin today and to last through the week. (source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal) ****************** Trial Begins Tuesday For Former Lubbock Death Row Inmate A former death row inmate will get a 2nd chance in the courtroom. Monday, attorneys completed jury selection for the sentencing phase of Joe Franco Garza's trial. In 2000, a Lubbock jury found Garza guilty of capital murder in the death of Silbiano Rangel. A Lubbock federal judge overturned the death sentence. Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty once again. The trial starts Tuesday morning. (source: KCBD News) OHIO: Appellate court threw out conviction of death row inmate In Cincinnati, a federal appellate court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of a death row inmate, ruling that his confession in the murder of a man he met at a gay bar in 1985 should not have been allowed as evidence. A 3-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case of Robert VanHook back to U.S. District Court with instructions that VanHook be released if not retried by the state within 180 days of final action by the U.S. District Court. Court records show VanHook, 25 at the time in February 1985, strangled and repeatedly stabbed David Self, also 25, in Self's apartment after the 2 men in the bar. He then went to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where he was arrested. VanHook claimed temporary insanity, triggered when Self made sexual advances. The police questioned VanHook after he had requested legal counsel, violating his right to have an attorney present, the appeals court said. The judges also found that they couldn't say with assurance that the three-judge Hamilton County Common Pleas panel that convicted VanHook wasn't "substantially swayed" by the unconstitutionally obtained self-incriminating statements. The attorney general's office could ask the full 6th Circuit Court to review the ruling or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. ON THE NET----U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov (source: Associated Press) CALIFORNIA: Doctors' execution stance draws sharp warning -- As Assembly panel backs bill that excludes physicians from the process, some fear where it will lead. An Assembly committee voted Monday to bar physicians from participating in executions after a frank debate that invoked abortion in a warning that doctors should be careful when they ask lawmakers to draw their ethical boundaries. The powerful doctors' lobby, the California Medical Association, has sponsored legislation, AB 1954 by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, that would prohibit the state from using licensed physicians to participate in an execution. The bill cleared the Business and Professions Committee with a bare majority after an earlier critic put up a reluctant vote just before the committee adjourned. "I think this will be a close vote all the way," Lieu said afterward. The measure, which has drawn support from death penalty opponents, was introduced in response to legal questions that have delayed the scheduled execution of Michael Morales for 2 months. Attorneys for the condemned killer filed a last-ditch appeal that argued the state's method of lethal injection involved a level of pain that amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Pending a hearing on that claim, a federal judge told the state it could execute Morales if it brought in doctors to monitor the process. The execution was postponed when 2 anesthesiologists backed out. The hearing is set for next month. The state Department of Corrections already is barred from compelling doctors, even those it employs, to take part in executions. Representatives of the CMA said it wants to make sure that doctors are not drawn into the process as a result of the Morales case. "The one purpose of our profession is to use science to heal," said Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi, a Lodi Republican, ophthalmologist and co-author of the bill. "Execution is not a medical task, no matter what method you use." San Diego anesthesiologist Robert Hertzka, immediate past president of the medical association, said physicians could consult about appropriate medications, "but we just see absolutely no reason why we should have any direct, participatory role in this process. "Go train people," Hertzka said. "They can start an IV. They can administer the drugs." In addition to administering lethal injections, the legislation would prohibit the state from using doctors even to supervise the administration of any medication during an execution or to monitor vital signs. Hertzka said many other states with the death penalty similarly prohibit doctors from participating in executions. But Democrat Joe Canciamilla, a maverick moderate from Pittsburg, pointedly asked Hertzka why it was necessary to enact a state law to protect doctors from something they cannot be forced to do anyhow. "You are asking the state Legislature to tell doctors that they are now prohibited as a matter of state law, from participating in a particular activity," Canciamilla said. Canciamilla offered abortion as an example. Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, warned that a simmering debate over the legalization of assisted suicide also could become entangled in the precedent that would be set. Hertzka said the broader political implications were not lost on the medical association. But, he argued, "Once you think about it, there is nothing medical about an execution." The Morales case has "thrust physicians in the middle of this and we're proactively saying we don't want to be a part of it," Hertzka said. (source: The Daily Breeze)
