Nov. 21 TEXAS: Seeking clarity on Watkins' death penalty views As a candidate for Dallas County district attorney, Craig Watkins left no doubt that he supported capital punishment. After taking office, he pledged to seek the death penalty for Thomas Miller-El, whose conviction had been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. "He needs to be on death row," Mr. Watkins said in January. "He should have been dead a long time ago." But now, a year after winning election, Mr. Watkins sounds less definitive. He has staked out a murky middle ground, leaving the public in need of greater clarity. He recently told Newsweek magazine that he's conflicted about capital punishment. "It depends on which day you ask me," he said. Mr. Watkins sought to explain his comments in an interview with The Dallas Morning News, saying that his views about the death penalty could not be boiled down to absolutes. He detailed his personal misgivings, noting that his spiritual beliefs sometimes seem incompatible with the realities of society. This newspaper ended its century of support for the death penalty in April, calling for a halt to executions. So Mr. Watkins' qualms about a flawed and irreversible punishment are understandable even commendable. But voters may struggle to square his seemingly emphatic support for capital punishment before the election with the far more nuanced view espoused in recent days. And they may wonder how this complex worldview translates to the day-to-day job requirements of district attorney. Mr. Watkins said his ideas about the death penalty have not changed. He blames the constraints of the campaign for his earlier answers, saying he was asked simplistic questions and was forced to provide overly simplistic responses. Mr. Watkins connects his approach to capital punishment to his broader views about being "smart on crime." Generally speaking, his seems like a more reasoned approach than "hang 'em high." But on this important issue, Mr. Watkins must be clear about his personal beliefs and his modus operandi as district attorney. Of course, we would welcome Mr. Watkins to the side of death penalty opponents. But he eschews such labels, saying that his position cannot be so easily defined. Mr. Watkins is sworn to uphold Texas law, which includes capital punishment. His personal reservations don't preclude him from doing that. To wit: Yesterday, Mr. Watkins announced that he would seek the death penalty for Robert Sparks, who is accused of killing his wife and 2 stepsons. The district attorney said that people initially weren't interested in hearing about shades of gray or deeper explanations. But his latest comments certainly have grabbed our attention and sparked more questions. Mr. Watkins, we're all ears. (source: Opinion, Dallas Morning News) FLORIDA: Convicted murderer on death row is granted a new trial A convicted murderer who has spent more than 2 years on death row was granted a new trial by the Florida Supreme Court today. Roy Lee McDuffie, was convicted of killing 2 Deltona Dollar General store clerks on Oct. 25, 2002, and sentenced to death after a lengthy trial. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the trial court made errors -- not allowing a friend to testify, restricting the defense's cross-examination of 2 eyewitnesses and allowing the jury to hear a threatening voicemail left by the defendant -- that could have affected the outcome of the case. However, the court still believes there is enough evidence to support a conviction so it did not order an acquittal. The State Attorney's Office said it would prepare for another trial and expects the same outcome. Defense attorneys for McDuffie, who always believed in his innocence, were pleased with the decision. Store clerks Janice Schneider, 39, and Dawniell Beauregard, 27, were shot and stabbed inside a small office at the back of the dollar store. Beauregard's hands and feet were bound with duct tape and 1 piece of the tape bore a partial palm print that matched McDuffie. (source: Orlando Sentinel) CALIFORNIA: Defense making argument against death penalty for Cua The San Mateo County district attorney's office said Tuesday they want proof from the defense that a 53-year-old man suspected of murdering his former employers does not deserve the death penalty if convicted of the crime. Joseph George Cua, a part-time resident of both Burlingame and Hemet in Southern California, pleaded not guilty in August to two counts of murder and denied a special circumstance allegation of multiple murders. The prosecution and defense will meet sometime in the next month, says Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, at which point the defense can bring up the defendant's upbringing, psychiatric issues or any other mitigating factors that might affect how the case is pursued. At the meeting, "We will definitely have decided whether or not to pursue this as a death penalty case by early January," Wagstaffe said. District Attorney James Fox will make the decision. Investor Fernand Wagner, 78, and part-time hairstylist Suzanne Wagner, 68, were found murdered in their Millbrae home in 2006. Police discovered their bodies after Suzanne Wagner failed to show up to work on June 14. Cua was arrested in Oxnard a few days after police discovered the savagely beaten bodies in the home at 623 Lomita Ave. Cua managed properties for the Wagners in Burlingame and San Jose, and according to defense attorney Edward Pomeroy, he developed a close relationship with the couple over 25 years ago. He was arrested following a phone tip from a confidential source identifying him as a suspect, according to authorities. Though DNA evidence from blood found at the crime scene and in Fernand Wagner's Cadillac, which was found after the murders in Daly City, appears to match Cua's DNA, defense attorneys argue that does not prove Cua was the perpetrator of the crime, and that forthcoming lab reports may show that someone else had been in the home. A pretrial conference is scheduled for Cua Jan. 8 at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for March 3 at 8:45 a.m. Cua is in custody on a no-bail status. (source: San Mateo Daily News) *********************** Because we could not stop for death... The Times editorial board's seesawing views on capital punishment----November 21, 2007 To shorten the long waits between a death penalty conviction and an execution 17 years in this state the California Supreme Court asked on Monday for a constitutional amendment that would let lower courts handle some of the load. The lengthy wait time is one of many reasons the death penalty has been called cruel and unusual punishment in the past, including by the editorial board. But the board wasn't always as staunchly against the death penalty as it is today, switching to consistent opposition only in the 1970s, and switching back once when the criminal was right. All olde-tyme spellings from the originals. On Dec. 31, 1913, the board express its disgust with those who sympathize with criminals, soundly if not violently defending a death penalty verdict: As far back as history wends its way there has been a fetish made of murderers and conspicuous scoundrels by the persons afflicted with grewsome sentimentality. Criminals, if vicious enough to be notorious, are babied and petted, made the recipient of presents, letters and fussed over in a manner that outrages decency and intelligence.... While all of these pleas are being made for [convicted robber and murderer Ralph] Fariss, while certain newspaper writers are mingling tears with ink as they discuss his "youth," his "family" and so on ad nauseam, no one seems to deem it worthwhile to call attention to the fatherless babes of Mrs. Montague.... He has placed himself beyond the ban of tender sympathy by his callous brutality; and the death sentence was just. Three years later, on April 7, 1916, comes a disturbing demonstration of The Times' thoughts on race and execution, which the board surely thought enlightened: 2 negroes were hanged by mobs Wednesday.... Never a month goes by but something of the kind takes place and the lynchers are never apprehended. The negroes may, and often do, deserve the death penalty, but so do many other men before whom justice throws her aegis until the law has spoken. Just to be clear, the editorial board was broad-minded enough to concede that lynching was a bad idea. For many years to come it would sound the Times would sound same note on executions, or stay silent. On May 8, 1948, however, the board seemed to sway slightly, imagining a society that could go without imposing the harshest punishment: The British Parliament has adopted a law suspending the death penalty for murder for a 5 year test period, and the life of one man already condemned has been saved by the act.... Murderand crime generallyis not the problem in England as it is with us. In 1945 the United Kingdon had 35 murders, which may be contrasted to 116 in Los Angeles. The new policy in England represents a great change from the conditions in the past century. On June 17, 1953, the board meditated at length on the sentencing of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, seeming at once to approve the verdict and to call into doubt the moral foundation for it: No civilized human being rejoices in the death of another human being, but from the Law of Moses to the present day organized society has inflicted the death penalty upon some of its members for the safety and preservation of all others. If Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are executed this will be what the society organized as the United States of America has done. While honest citizens may debate the theory of capital punishment, it is well established in our law and those who embark on capital crimes are by no means ignorant of the risk.... In passing the death sentence, Judge [Irving] Kaufman commented that the Rosenbergs' crime, proven to the unanimous satisfaction of the jury, was "worse than murder." This view was echoed by President Eisenhower in denying their petition for executive clemency.... With these facts straight, it is apparent that the Rosenbergs have received their full measure of justice. But what of mercy, which their advocates now seek? Mercy is an attribute of Divinity, and we shall not presume to restrict it. But we solemnly submit that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg could have shown a little more mercy for the millions of human beings who may someday perish in frightful atomic explosions. Only 3 years later, the board is considering reasons to oppose the death penalty, focusing not on morality but on practicality. Sept. 19, 1956: Perhaps capital punishment would have fewer defenders if life imprisonment meant what it says. Too often life sentences under our probationary system are shortened to 20, 15, or even fewer years. This commutation may be proper in some cases but when heinous crimes are committed and life sentences are pronounced without hope or possibility of parole, perhaps many will feel that justice is served as well as it is in the gas chamber. On May 11, 1957, the Times urges the legislature to make a decision on the death penalty, even though the board itself is still a bit unsure about its position, and seems to imply that murderers who killed in a passionate rage are fairly upstanding members of society: The Assembly makes no distinction between murder for profit and crimes of passion.... By mistaken lenity, California in effect sentenced a number of innocent and worthy people to death.... The Times believes that, on the whole, the argument for capital punishment is stronger than the arguments against it, and we doubt the force of the argument that capital punishment fails as a deterrent. It is not a deterrent against murders of passion but neither is any other measure. 3 years later came the conclusion of the infamous Caryl Chessman case. The convicted murderer and rapist became a rallying point for opponents of capital punishment, a group which The Times once again pointedly declined to join. The board echoed its 1913 editorial, adding some creepy analogies, on Feb. 20, 1960: The world has just seen and abetted an act of American lynch law lynch law in reverse. The mob did not break the jail and drag an untried suspect off to the nearest tree, but its clamors and threats so intimidated authority that a criminal, judged and condemned, was plucked away from the executioner.... Similar emotions, springing from ignorance mostly, have operated to save Caryl Chessman from the sanitary disposal mechanism that a civilized society is constrained to set up to shield itself from the contamination of criminal psychopaths.... By contriving to stay alive he does to the honor, dignity and safety of the state of California what he did to those two poor women in the hills above Los Angeles. But only days later, on Feb 26, 1960, the board took a softer tone: Abolishment of capital punishment in California entails much greater responsibility for the Legislature than tearing out the gas chamber at San Quentin. It cannot do this without rewriting the rules on life imprisonment, to make it mean, in the cases of former capital crimes, what it appears to mean. And on Dec. 30, 1966, despite objecting to Gov. Pat Brown's commutations of sentences, the board avoided the pro or con question and just asked the legislature to figure it out, already: The moral and practical implications of capital punishment have been debated for thousands of years and there are still no absolute answers.... We do not urge here either [the death penalty's] abolition or retention, but we do suggest that the way things operate at present makes a mockery of the death sentence. 3 years later, the board faced another major criminal caseSirhan Sirhan's trial for the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy. It editorialized on the conclusion of the case on April 25, 1969. As with Chessman and Rosenberg, in the case of an extraordinary crime, the board manages to condone the death penalty: The jury's finding of first degree murder was based on overwhelming evidence of premeditation, and its imposition of the death penalty was in keeping with the law.... Sirhan is a wretched and ultimately pathetic little man, who would have remained deservedly obscure except for the tragedy he caused. That tragedy cannot be erased. One can only pray that others like it can be prevented. But three years after that, on Feb. 21, 1972, the board seemed to have reversed its position, this time defending itself with a moral argument. The Supreme Court of California, in a decision of persuasive clarity and wisdom, has found the death penalty unconstitutional under the state's own constitution.... The quality of society is the heart of the matter. The court has contributed to that quality once again. Over the next year, the board would write several editorials reaffirming that argument. Only 4 days later, the board reconfirmed that position, despite the concerns of one Gov. Ronald Reagan. In June, the board praised the U.S. Supreme Court for its Furman v. Georgia decision, which began a 4-year moratorium on capital punishment in the United States. In October of 1972, the board urged "No" on Proposition 17, which would have restored California's death penalty (the measure passed anyway). And in January 1973, the board tried to dissuade the Justice Department from writing legislation restoring the death penalty. 10 months later, on Oct. 1, the board reacted to California's decision to reinstate the death penalty and, now fully in the anti-death-penalty camp, resorted to a Holocaust analogy: Gov. Reagan has suggested looking into a more humane approach than the gas chamber, perhaps a lethal shot or pill like those given to cats, dogs and horses. The governor's intentions cannot be faulted, but the method has chilling overtones of Dachau.... Some ways to kill a person are more inhumane than other ways, but there is no humane way to kill a person. For the next several years, the board hammered Republicans, Reagan, the Supreme Court, and even the general public with harsh words: Conscience, Politics and Death, June 6, 1977 ...[W]e deplore the actions of a small number of Republicans in the Legislature who are weighing the political advantages of sustaining Brown's veto, although all are vigorous advocates of capital punishment.... It would be unconscionable for pro-death penalty Republicans to sustain a veto that is offensive to their consciences and to their constituencies in the shabby hope that it might serve them politically. The Principle Will Not Die, June 11, 1981 The Senate Judiciary committee has given its answer to violence. It is death.... The theory behind the bill is to impose death in a fair and rational way. That is the theory, but the history of capital punishment mocks it in practice. Regardless of the laws on the books, regardless of the widespread support for capital punishment, society flinches from imposing death with rigorous consistency.... It is morally wrong, we believe, for the state to take a life. In doing so, it contributes to the brutality that afflicts society. Morally Impermissible, Feb. 24, 1984 Unfortunately President Reagan chose to make the issue partisan in his radio address last weekend in which he indicated the Democrats would show they were soft on crime if they defeated the death penalty expansion...the President urged the House to pass crime legislation that would stop "coddling criminals." The phrase trivializes the issue, which is whether it is morally permissible for society to take life when it can refrain without mortal damage to itself. We think not. Grisly Relic of History, Jan. 25, 1985 [P]olls say and we believe them to be accurate that the death penalty is favored by probably 70% of Americans. But we remain convinced that there will come a better day. When that day comes, the death penalty will be abolished as a grisly relic of history and unworthy of a just society. Death Penalty Dilemma, May 7, 1986 [E]xcluding death-penalty opponents [from juries] allows the prosecutor to put his thumb on the scales of justice. But not excluding them gives the defendant an unfair advantage. In fact, neither side should have an advantage, but such even-handedness is not possible to achieve in these cases. Apart from the logical problems of the court's ruling, the decision clears away one of the last remaining generalized challenges to the death penalty and makes it likely that there will be a spate of executions in coming months. Many of the nation's 1,700 death-row inmates including at least one in California were convicted by juries from which death-penalty foes had been excluded. The executions are expected go forward in what could be a blood bath whose magnitude is unprecedented in recent history. On Oct. 17, 1986, the board took a full editorial to consider race and the death penalty: There are now 1,788 people on death row. Of them, 1,713 were convicted of killing a white person. However, blacks are 6 times more likely to be murder victims than whites are. It strains credulity to see no significance in this pattern. Rather, it is obvious that society values white lives more than black lives and is more willing to impose capital punishment when a white life has been taken. And on Sept. 12, 1994, the board wondered if celebrity mattered more than race in one notable case: The decision announced last week by prosecutors not to seek the death penalty against O.J. Simpson appears to spring as much from pragmatism as from any rarefied balancing of punishment against the alleged crime. Given that Simpson was an appealing celebrity with no felony record, prosecutors surely feared that seeking the death penalty could jeopardize their ability to win a conviction for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. And for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the board reversed its long and vocal opposition to execution on June 12, 1997: Timothy McVeigh should receive the ultimate penalty for committing the most infamous act of terrorist murder to ever take place on American soil. It can be reasonably argued that there is a social purpose in imposing the death penalty in this instance to bring closure and, yes, a measure of national retribution for a murderous act of unprecedented enormity. That said, why not round up every death row murderer in the nation and march them toward their final destination? Because almost everything about the McVeigh case is the exception, not the rule. But in more recent years, the board has refused to take exception for any criminal, and even reverses its thoughts on McVeigh: It's not about Clarence, Jan. 16, 2006 When Stanley Tookie Williams was executed last month, we said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was right to have questioned the former gang leader's tale of redemption but still wrong to put him to death.... At 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, it's Clarence Ray Allen's turn to be put to death. Allen arranged a triple slaying in 1980 while in prison for another murder. Some argue that the state has no business killing a blind and infirm 76-year-old former warehouse manager. To which we say, again, this isn't about Allen, it's about us. Rough justice, Dec. 28, 2006 If one opposes capital punishment as a matter of principle, as we do, putting [Saddam] Hussein to death is of course objectionable. So was executing Adolf Eichmann and Timothy McVeigh.... The most practical argument for sparing Hussein's life is rooted not in procedural scruples or a rejection of the death penalty but in political strategy. (source: Opinion, Los Angeles Times) ******************** Plan to speed death penalty reviews seen as just one step----The proposal to spread the state high court's burden draws praise. But cutting the shortage of lawyers who handle appeals is also viewed as vital. The state Supreme Court's proposal to speed review of capital cases can be carried out without significant cost to taxpayers, but it's only a first step toward easing the backlog on California's death row, legal observers said Tuesday. Chief Justice Ronald M. George called Monday for a constitutional amendment to shift the high court's review of some death penalty cases to lower courts. George said spreading the workload could accelerate the appeals process, which can drag on for decades. The state has the nation's largest death row population, 667 inmates, but it takes an average of 17.2 years for them to reach execution, twice the time period nationally. Most officials applauded George's effort but said another problem, and one that would be far more expensive to fix, was a shortage of lawyers to represent death row inmates on appeal. 79 lawyers at state-funded agencies are currently handling appeals and habeas corpus petitions for condemned prisoners, said State Public Defender Michael Hersek. Since 1997, staffing at the state public defender's office, dedicated to death penalty appeals, has been reduced from 127 positions to 86. About 90 condemned convicts are awaiting appointment of counsel, a process that takes four to six years, given the backlog on death row and lawyer staffing levels, Hersek said. If the state can't handle the work, private attorneys can take over, at a rate set by the Legislature at $140 an hour. Defense attorneys say the rate is too low -- less than what public defenders make in the federal system. Costs of the typical death penalty appeal are estimated at over $250,000. Many prosecutors doubted that an increase would make much difference in the number of private lawyers willing to take on such work. But another lawyer said a raise -- perhaps 50% -- would be "helpful." "It might sound like a lot of money, but it really doesn't cut it," said the lawyer, who works for the judiciary and spoke on condition of anonymity. "These cases last forever; it's a huge undertaking and can ruin your law practice. Many counsel are emotionally, professionally and financially shunning these cases." Hersek said that having the 7 high court justices share review with the state's 105 appellate judges would probably reduce the wait for execution. The state Supreme Court has 50 cases that are fully briefed and awaiting decision, he said. "We need a comprehensive approach to the breakdown of our death penalty system," Hersek said. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has scheduled "expedited review" of George's plan. "The governor agrees that death penalty appeals must be thorough, fair and reasonably prompt, and he looks forward to reviewing this proposal and ensuring that justice and the will of the people continues to be carried out," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Bill Maile. Federal appellate Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, who earlier this year proposed a similar shift to lower courts for death sentence review, pointed to the federal case of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as proof that executions can occur without such long waits. "From the judgment of death until execution was approximately 3 years," said Alarcon, of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "That shows you it can be done." Local prosecutors who bring death penalty cases applauded the opening George created. The plan would provide "a tremendous help in reducing the backlog," said Colusa County Dist. Atty. John Poyner, head of the state prosecutors association. "That's good for everyone except the person sitting on death row." Riverside County Dist. Atty. Rod Pacheco also called the plan "a great proposal." He heads a statewide group of prosecutors that develops policy on the death penalty. "It's not a cure-all. It's not a panacea," said Ronald Matthias, special assistant to Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose office represents the state in all death penalty appeals. "Yes, there are other problems that need to be addressed. But you have to start somewhere." (source: Los Angeles Times) NEW JERSEY: New Jersey Senator Urges Delay on Repeal of Death Penalty The leading social conservative in the New Jersey State Senate, Gerald Cardinale, accused Democrats on Tuesday of trying to rush a bill repealing the death penalty through the Legislature without sufficient deliberation. The Democrats, who control both the General Assembly and the Senate, have put the legislation on a fast track, and supporters and opponents alike say it has a good chance of passage before the new Legislature takes office in January. Passage by that group would not be as certain. If the bill becomes law, New Jersey will become the 1st state to outlaw capital punishment since the United States Supreme Court permitted executions to resume in 1976. Seeking to counter some of the momentum that has been building for the proposal, Mr. Cardinale, of Bergen County, appeared at the state Capitol on Tuesday with Prof. Robert Blecker of New York Law School, a prominent death penalty supporter. "There's no emergency here," Professor Blecker said. "As everybody knows, New Jersey hasn'[t executed anybody in decades." The state's last execution was in 1963. Mr. Cardinale said the Democratic leadership in the Legislature was trying to bulldoze the opposition. "Ramming an issue of this magnitude through the Legislature during the lame-duck session is at the very least poor public policy and, quite frankly, offensive." At one point during Mr. Cardinale's remarks, the news conference veered into a sticky discussion of urban politics and race after he said that Democrats were taking advantage of their "uninformed" urban base by fast-tracking the bill. "There is an uninformed electorate in certain areas of this state," he said. "It forms the base of support for the majority party in both houses. That uninformed electorate is moved in certain emotional directions by the fact that they think the death penalty disproportionally affects inner-city residents." Mr. Cardinale later tried to clarify his comments, saying that he had no particular group in mind. "I don't know if they're black. I don't know if they're brown. I don't know if they're purple. It is not for me to judge." (source: New York Times) PENNSYLVANIA: Trooper Accused In Slaying Of Blairsville Dentist Won't Face Death Penalty A state police trooper accused of killing a dentist in Indiana County will not face the death penalty. Prosecutors said Kevin Foley, 42, stabbed and killed Dr. John Yelenic in April 2006 at Yelenic's home in Blairsville. At the time, Foley was allegedly dating the doctor's estranged wife. Dozens of bloody footprints, matching the type of shoe Foley was known to wear, were found at the scene. Prosecutors said they don't believe the case meets the requirement for Foley to face the death penalty. (source: The Pittsburgh Channel) MISSISSIPPI: U.S. Supreme Court sets conference on Berry execution The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a Nov. 30 conference on the death penalty appeal of Mississippi inmate Earl Wesley Berry, whose execution the court stopped in October. Court officials said the justices' decision on whether they will hear Berry's case could be announced shortly thereafter. Berry was sentenced to die for beating and stomping Mary Bounds to death in 1987. Berry has raised the same argument as that in a Kentucky case that challenges lethal injection procedures as cruel and unusual punishment. In the Kentucky case before the Supreme Court, justices will consider whether the mix of three drugs used to sedate and kill prisoners and the way they are administered can cause pain severe enough to violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Arguments in the Kentucky case will take place early next year and a decision should come by late June. The Supreme Court has allowed only one execution to go forward since agreeing to hear the case. Berry was convicted of kidnapping and killing Bounds on Nov. 29, 1987, outside the First Baptist Church in the tiny north Mississippi town of Houston. Berry was sentenced to death by a Chickasaw County jury on Oct. 28, 1988. His confession was used against him during the trial. The Supreme Court did not delay Berry's execution indefinitely, saying the stay would remain in effect until the justices take action on Berry's petition for review of his case. If the court decides not to review the appeal, the attorney general's office would ask the Mississippi Supreme Court to seek a new execution date. Berry was less than an hour from his scheduled execution time Oct. 29 when the Supreme Court granted a delay. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TEXAS, FLA., CALIF., N.J., , PENN., MISS.
Rick Halperin Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:01:57 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
