May 18 TEXAS: 7th execution date tied to Bexar is set The record pace of Bexar County execution dates continued Thursday when a judge scheduled what could be the year's seventh lethal injection for a local murderer. The Aug. 29 date for John Joe Amador set the stage for two such executions in 2 nights. Kenneth Foster, the getaway driver in 1996 when one of his friends shot college student Michael LaHood Jr. during an attempted mugging, is currently slated to die on Aug. 30. Amador, 31, was condemned for the 1994 robbery and slaying of cabdriver Mohammad Reza Ayari. Texas has never put to death more than 4 murderers from Bexar County in a single year since the state instituted the electric chair in 1924. (source: San Antonio Express-News) ******************** Death for child rapists: House likes it, prosecutors don't ---- Legislature: Bill heads to Perry, but high court to ultimately rule on issue Child rape is among the most horrible crimes. But is it as heinous as capital murder? Prosecutors and victims' rights groups throughout the state oppose making child rape punishable by death. They say a bill that received final approval in the House on Friday and is expected to be signed into law will leave child rapists with no reason to spare their victims' lives. Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether child rape is punishable by death. Critics include Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins. Mr. Watkins said lawmakers are counting on voters who hear brief explanations of the measure on television and immediately support it. "The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes," Mr. Watkins said. "This is a heinous crime but not a death penalty crime." Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said he knows of no prosecutor in the state who strongly supports the death penalty for child rapists. Mr. Bradley testified before the Legislature about the proposed changes and has talked with prosecutors statewide. He said that some say the change won't affect them and others say they will merely carry out the law as they are required. "I don't know of any [district attorney's] office across the state that wants to be a leader in saying, 'This is something we want,' " Mr. Bradley said Dallas defense attorney Dan Hagood, a former Dallas County prosecutor who has worked on death penalty cases, said he strongly disagrees with anyone who says that child rape isn't as horrible a crime as capital murder. "I can tell you a capital murder that's over in a moment - I try to rob you and I shoot you. Compare that to a little girl in a box who's been raped repeatedly by a man who's been to the ... [penitentiary] once before," he said. "In my mind, you can't compare the suffering. The living might as well be dead." Feelings about the bill continued to run strong among state legislators during final debate Friday before the House voted to send a conference version of the bill on to the governor. "It's just one more example where we think we have sort of a God-given right to intercede and kill another human being. That is flawed thinking," said Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. "It's unnecessary, and it's counterproductive." If Gov. Rick Perry signs the bill as expected, Texas would join 5 other states with the death penalty for certain crimes against children. Prosecutors could seek the death penalty the second time a person is convicted for any rape of a child under 6 or after the 2nd rape of a child age 7 to 14 when the attack involves a weapon or is particularly violent. 'Jessica's Laws' The bill is part of the "Jessica's Laws" movement, named for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and buried alive by a convicted sex offender in 2005. In the end, the question of whether child rape is a capital crime won't be in the hands of legislators or prosecutors, said Southern Methodist University law professor Fred Moss. A 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision forbade the death penalty for the "rape of an adult woman" but did not address the constitutionality of that punishment for younger victims, said Mr. Moss, a former federal prosecutor. "It's interesting from a constitutional law perspective because the question that has been heading for the Supreme Court is whether you can have a death penalty case when a death has not been caused by the criminal conduct," he said. In the 1977 decision Coker vs. Georgia, the court ruled that the rape of an "adult woman" would violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The adult woman was actually a married 16-year-old. The court called death "grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape." The case that tests this law may not come from Texas, Mr. Moss said. Louisiana is the only state with a child rapist on death row. That case is now before the Louisiana Supreme Court. If the Louisiana justices rule that the death penalty is allowed under state law, the case will probably be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will not be appealed if the Louisiana court finds it unconstitutional. Then, states with death penalty punishments for child rape will wait even longer for a constitutionality test case to reach the Supreme Court, said Mr. Bradley, who has testified before the Legislature about this issue. "What do prosecutors in Texas do during that time?" Mr. Bradley said. "If you shy away from it, you build in a constitutional problem by not treating all cases the same throughout the state." Sponsor's opinion When asked why Texas chose not to wait for a Supreme Court decision on the death penalty provision, Rep. Debbie Riddle, the Tomball Republican who sponsored the House legislation, said, "We think our children are worth it." Republican Bob Deuell of Greenville, the Senate sponsor, said lawmakers know there's a chance the death penalty provision could be overturned by the Supreme Court. He said the Legislature wanted to go ahead and pass the bill because lawmakers only meet regularly every 2 years. He said they added provisions to the bill so if the court "rules adversely," the death penalty language will be null, and the rest of the bill will stay intact. In addition to the death penalty measure, the bill increases other mandatory sentences for assaults against children and creates a new charge - continuous sexual abuse of a child - to punish habitual child-sex offenders. It would carry a 25-year minimum sentence. Mr. Moss, the SMU law professor, said it would be very difficult for lawmakers to explain to the electorate why they didn't support the bill. "Someone who votes against it is damaging their chances for re-election. It's a hot-button issue," he said. "People won't think it through very carefully: 'Rape a kid, you deserve it.' " Judicial preview Fort Worth defense lawyer Greg Westfall, who has worked on several death penalty cases, said he has no doubt that the high court will find it unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court of the United States right now is in the business of pulling back on the death penalty and restricting who it applies to," said Mr. Westfall. "When the rubber meets the road, and somebody is getting the death penalty for child molestation, I think the Supreme Court is going to turn around and say that the death penalty is reserved for the worst offenses." He cited high court decisions ruling out death sentences for the mentally retarded and those under 18 when the crime was committed. The court also recently overturned the 1986 death penalty conviction of Thomas Miller-El over concerns that Dallas County prosecutors intentionally excluded minorities from the jury in the robbery-murder case. The district attorney's office has said it will again seek the death penalty at Mr. Miller-El's retrial. In April, the court tossed three Texas death row sentences, chastising lower courts for not allowing juries to consider childhood abuse and other mitigating factors. Mr. Hagood, the defense lawyer and former prosecutor, said that even though he supports the change in the law, he doesn't believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold it. But, he said, it's impossible to know how the justices will rule. If Texas passes this law, the Legislature will help sort out the answer to an important question. "Let's find out," he said. "You're never going to get an answer before you put the question before a tribunal." PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS BILL The House gave final approval Friday to a compromise on a "Jessica's Laws" measure, sending the bill to toughen penalties for sex assaults against children to Gov. Rick Perry for his signature. The Texas version would heighten punishment for many sex offenders, including giving certain repeat child sex predators the death penalty. The bill, which passed the House, 122-17, "will make Texas safer for children, and more dangerous for their predators," said Rep. Debbie Riddle, the Tomball Republican who authored the bill. Under the agreement: - A 1st conviction for raping a child under 6 would come with a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence, as would cases against youths between age 7 and 14 that involve a weapon, bodily harm or kidnapping. - The death penalty would be reserved for offenders who have been convicted twice of this aggravated child rape charge. - A new charge - continuous sexual abuse of a child - would punish habitual child-sex offenders, including those charged with below-the-waist indecency with a child, with a 25-year minimum sentence. - Texas would become the 6th U.S. state to allow capital punishment for certain sex crimes against children. It's unclear, though, whether such a penalty is constitutional. WHAT'S NEXT - Gov. Rick Perry is expected to sign the bill into law. - The U.S. Supreme Court probably will decide the constitutionality of the law with a Louisiana case or another case. (source: Dallas Morning News) ************************* 80TH LEGISLATURE----House passes child predator legislation; Lawyers disagree on whether measure, dubbed Jessica's law, is substantive change. House members signed off Friday on a proposal that would enable Texas to execute predators convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting children. Following the lead of the Senate, the House approved the final version of House Bill 8 on a vote of 122-17. The day before, the upper chamber approved the measure 30-1, with Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, voting no. The measure now awaits the signature of Gov. Rick Perry, who declared the topic an emergency this year. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, was a centerpiece of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's 2006 re-election campaign. Dewhurst said Thursday that passing the legislation sends a "message to those monsters who want to hurt our children: 'Not in Texas.' " Called the Jessica Lunsford Act, after the 9-year-old Florida girl who was killed by a sex offender, the prospect drew support even as legislators scrambled to avoid unintended consequences such as charges against consenting participants in teenage relationships. Opposition came from death penalty opponents and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, whose legislative director, Keith Hampton, said: "Jessica's Law really isn't much more than a television commercial at election time." Hampton, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to uphold the death penalty for crimes short of killing someone, said: "It's not constitutional a huge waste of time, a meaningless piece of legislation." Shannon Edmonds, legislative liaison for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said prosecutors will benefit from an ability to alert juries during trials to defendants' previous crimes against children. Edmonds singled out the designation of a new crime, continuous sexual abuse of a child. "It allows us to introduce more evidence at trial regarding multiple acts of abuse that oftentimes we can't get in right now. It gives the jury a fuller picture of the defendant and what he's been doing," Edmonds said. Broadly, the proposal defines sexual crimes against children and specifies how offenses could lead to sentences of up to life without parole or the death penalty. It also erases the statute of limitations for felony indictments of certain cases of sexual assault or continuous sexual abuse of a young child and indecency with a child. Lawmakers tucked in a provision saying that if the law is struck down because of its death penalty provisions, it would not affect other death penalty cases. The proposal also includes a "Romeo and Juliet" provision excusing from prosecution consenting teenagers separated by up to five years in age. And it contains language exempting the touching of a child's breast through clothing from being rated a sexually violent offense, potentially leading to charges punishable by 25 years to life in prison. Last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states created a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life for certain sexual offenses against children. About half the states now provide for a life sentence for certain sexual offenses. Jessica Lunsford's father Mark Lunsford, who has become an advocate of laws penalizing predators, said this week: "I didn't have any doubt in the lieutenant governor." Lunsford said the change "creates a steppingstone to better prosecute those people to keep them away from our children." How they voted: Austin-area representatives voting in favor: Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin Rep. Robby Cook, D-Eagle Lake Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs. Austin-area representatives voting against: Rep. Valinda Bolton, D-Austin Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin Key provisions: Establishes crime of continuous sexual assault of child, holding that two or more sexually violent acts against a child younger than 14 by anyone 17 or older occurring over 30 days or more can be charged as a first-degree felony, punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison and up to life in prison without parole. A second offense would be punishable by life in prison without parole. Unlike an earlier House draft, the charge of continuous sexual assault no longer carries the potential for the death penalty. Creates what prosecutors dub the crime of super-aggravated sexual assault imposing a possible sentence of death or life without parole on anyone convicted twice of an aggravated sexual assault of a victim 5 years old or younger. Under the language, an initial assault committed before the law takes effect could be counted if the person later commits an offense. Certain sex offenders released from prison would be required to be tracked by a GPS system. (source: Austin American-Statesman) *************************** Gunman kills 2 deputies----2 Texas deputies killed, suspect held A gunman shot and killed 2 Henderson County sheriff's deputies and wounded another Thursday, hours after the deputies participated in a memorial to honor peace officers slain in the line of duty, authorities said. The deputies were shot while responding to a domestic disturbance near this East Texas town, sheriff's Lt. Pat McWilliams said. McWilliams said the gunman was shot in the elbow and side and taken to a hospital. He did not know the man's condition. A woman who was in the home was not injured. McWilliams said the wounded deputy's injuries did not appear life-threatening. The three deputies were shot by a high-powered rifle, he said. One of the officers killed was in uniform and the other was a plainclothes investigator, McWilliams said. The uniformed deputy who died was wearing a bulletproof vest "but that doesn't protect you from a high-powered rife," he said. (source: Associated Press) **************** Child Rape Bill With Death Penalty Provision Goes To Governor Texas sex offenders who are twice convicted of raping children under 14 could get the death penalty under a bill given final approval by state lawmakers Friday and sent to Gov. Rick Perry. House lawmakers approved Texas version of "Jessicas Law," a crackdown on sex offenders who prey on children. The Senate approved it Thursday. The bill is named for Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was abducted and killed. More than a dozen states have passed versions of Jessicas Law, and Perry, who has said he was open to the idea of the death penalty in child sex cases, deemed passage of a child sex offender bill a legislative emergency. Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said the governor will wait to read the final version of the bill before deciding whether to sign it into law. "This bill is for the children of Texas," said Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, the House sponsor of the measure. "The purpose is to make Texas a safer place for children and a more dangerous place for their predators." Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst had made the bill one of his top priorities for the legislative session. The death penalty "sends a message to those monsters who want to hurt our children: 'Not in Texas."' Dewhurst said. Texas would be the 6th state to add the death penalty for some child rape cases, although legal experts debate whether the punishment would be unconstitutional in cases where the victim did not die. Louisiana has an inmate on death row in a child sex crime, but the case is still subject to appeals in state and federal courts. Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said the state that executes more inmates than any other should not expand its use of the death penalty. While calling child sex crimes "horrendous," Burnam said the bill "is just one more example in the Texas Legislature where we think we have some God-given right to kill another human being." Victim advocates have warned that the death penalty could do more harm than good if they lead perpetrators to kill victims who may be the only witness to the crime. The bill also creates a new category of crime continual sexual abuse of a young child or children, carrying a minimum penalty of 25 years to life in prison. The Jessicas Law bill is HB8. (source: Associated Press) ****************** Execution dates at record pace in Bexar County The record pace of Bexar County execution dates continued Thursday when a judge scheduled what could be the year's seventh lethal injection for a local murderer. The August 29th date for John Joe Amador set the stage for 2 such executions in 2 nights. Kenneth Foster, the getaway driver in 1996 when one of his friends shot college student Michael LaHood Jr. during an attempted mugging, is currently slated to die on August 30. Amador, 31, was condemned for the 1994 robbery and slaying of cabdriver Mohammad Reza Ayari. Texas has never put to death more than 4 murderers from Bexar County in a single year since the state instituted the electric chair in 1924. (source: San Antonio Express-News) PENNSYLVANIA: Federal hearing may be pivotal for Abu-Jamal An appellate court heard his arguments that blacks were excluded illegally from the jury that convicted him of killing a policeman in 1981. MOVE member Pam Africa is among Abu-Jamal supporters listening to a post-hearing report yesterday from his lawyer, Robert R. Bryan, outside the federal courthouse at Sixth and Market Streets. While supporters of Philadelphia's most notorious death-row inmate demonstrated outside, a federal appeals court wrestled yesterday with the question of whether the prosecution intentionally kept blacks off the jury in the 1982 murder trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter then driving a cab, is seeking a new trial for the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner - or at least a chance to get off death row. If he loses this round before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Abu-Jamal, now 53, will be more at risk of execution than at any point in his 25 years of appeals. So the stakes were high yesterday in a court proceeding that focused squarely on the law as the three judges pressed prosecutors and Abu-Jamal's lawyers about the key points in the case - especially about how to determine if blacks were unfairly excluded from the jury. Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Robert R. Bryan, contends that there was a "culture of discrimination" in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office around the time of the 1982 trial, and that the prosecutor used 10 of 15 challenges to strike potential jurors who were black. But prosecutors contend that there was no evidence of racial discrimination and that Abu-Jamal waived any chance to make that argument now by failing to raise any objections during jury selection in 1982. "There was no timely objection. That defeats the claim," Hugh J. Burns Jr., chief of the appeals unit in the District Attorney's Office, told the judges. While the high-level legal debate continued for more than two hours, a quiet audience of about 200 people listened intently. Abu-Jamal supporters from Germany and France, along with activist Dick Gregory and local MOVE activist Ramona Africa, sat amid family members of the slain officer, including his wife, Maureen, who traveled from California for the hearing. Maureen Faulkner said at the end of the court proceeding that she remains convinced of Abu-Jamal's guilt. "No matter who was on the jury, I think they would have come to the same conclusion," she said. As the audience poured out onto the plaza, which was filled with placards and banners in support of Abu-Jamal, people on both sides of the case seemed to agree, finally, on something: The judges were well-prepared and had held a fair hearing. "The judges were very professional," said Claude Guillaumaud, who was part of a French delegation that came from Paris for the hearing. She said she has studied the case and read the transcript of the trial before Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Albert Sabo. "I don't know what the conclusion will be, but it was very different than Judge Sabo," she said. Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death in July 1982 by a predominantly white Philadelphia jury. The state Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1989 and also refused to grant him subsequent relief. When the case moved to federal court, U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr. rejected 28 of the 29 defense claims. But Yohn did rule in favor of Abu-Jamal in deciding that the jury may have mistakenly believed it had to agree unanimously on any "mitigating" circumstance that might have persuaded jurors to decide on life rather than death. And in turn, Yohn said that Abu-Jamal should be sentenced to life, instead of death, or get a new hearing only on what his sentence should be. The Third Circuit panel - Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen - peppered the lawyers with questions about the ambiguous jury instructions and whether the prosecutor made unfair remarks during his closing argument. A decision is not expected for several months. But it was questions about jury selection that dominated the argument. All three judges have granted relief to death-row inmates in cases in which they found that prosecutors had unfairly struck jurors for racial reasons. Burns contended that the trial prosecutor, Joseph McGill, had wanted blacks on the jury, but Bryan argued the case was infused with racial elements at a time when the District Attorney's Office was known for trying to exclude blacks from juries. "Discrimination was at work by the D.A.'s office during this period," said Bryan. The Third Circuit will now review Yohn's reasoning on the jury instructions, and also consider whether there was racial bias during jury selection and whether Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's closing argument and by the alleged bias of the trial judge during post-conviction review. The Third Circuit could: Reverse Yohn and uphold the death sentence. Uphold Yohn and order a new sentencing hearing. Grant a new trial. Send the case back to Yohn for a hearing. Even if the court upholds the death sentence, Abu-Jamal could attempt to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, or try to go back again to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where he still has one petition pending. (source: Philadelphia Inquirer) ******************* Citing Racist Bias, Attorneys for Mumia Abu-Jamal Urge a Federal Appeals Court to Grant the Former Black Panther a New Trial Attorney Robert Bryan says a racist judge and racist jury practices contributed to the sentencing of Abu-Jamal to death row. Bryan joins us in New York one day after he argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. For our first segment, we turn to Philadelphia and a pivotal court hearing for the imprisoned journalist and former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal has spent a quarter-century on death row. He was convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly white jury. In 2001, a judge overturned Abu-Mumia's death sentence but upheld his conviction. On Thursday, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison without parole, or execution. Hundreds of people packed the courtroom while an even larger crowd rallied in support of Mumia outside. A decision may not come down for months. We are joined now by Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. Robert Bryan has represented Mumia since 2003. He is a fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers and the former Chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Robert Bryan, Mumia Abu-Jamal's lead attorney. He is a fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers and the former Chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. JUAN GONZALEZ: For our first segment, we turn to Philadelphia and a pivotal court hearing for the imprisoned journalist and the former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal has spent a quarter-century on death row. He was convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly white jury. In 2001, a judge overturned Mumia Abu-Jamals death sentence, but upheld his conviction. On Thursday, a 3-judge panel heard oral arguments to decide whether Mumia gets a new trial, life in prison without patrol, or execution. Hundreds of people packed the courtroom, while an even larger crowd rallied in support of Mumia outside. A decision may not come down for months. AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Mumia Abu-Jamals lead attorney. Robert Bryan has represented Mumia since 2003. He's a fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers and the former chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Welcome to Democracy Now! ROBERT BRYAN: Its a pleasure to be here, Amy AMY GOODMAN: Why don't you lay out what happened in the courtroom for -- what was it? -- two hours yesterday? ROBERT BRYAN: Well, it was over two hours. We argued before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is just below the US Supreme Court. The court seemed really interested. There are a number of issues pending before this court. They involve the death penalty, racism in jury selection, the racism and bias of the trial judge, Sabo, who referred to my client during the trial, to use his words -- Im quoting him -- "I'm going to help them fry the nigger," referring to Mumia Abu-Jamal. AMY GOODMAN: Who heard that? ROBERT BRYAN: Pardon? AMY GOODMAN: Who heard that? ROBERT BRYAN: A court stenographer. It was just outside the courtroom. She was going with her judge to another courtroom, and they passed Judge Sabo in an antechamber adjacent to the courtroom where the trial occurred, and Sabo started talking about the trial and made those comments, which are as offense as -- I mean, as you may know, I specialize in death penalty litigation. I've handled hundreds of death penalty trials and cases in post-conviction proceedings in the past 3 decades. I even went and spent three days in jail in a murder case for contempt of court, in which my client was acquitted -- African American. I've seen a lot of racism, but I've never heard anything like that, except in this case in Philadelphia. It's unprecedented. JUAN GONZALEZ: And that court stenographer's statement, has it ever gone before a judge on this case? ROBERT BRYAN: Juan, it went before the court yesterday. I said -- from my lips -- and I said, "Understand, these are the words of Judge Sabo, not Robert R. Bryan." But our focus yesterday is interesting, with all the energy by the prosecution to kill my client. The focus yesterday was on constitutional crimes committed by the prosecution. What the whole focus was primarily was on the death penalty, I'd say 20% and 80% on racism in the District Attorney's office of Philadelphia. And in all of my years of doing this kind of work, I find yesterdays hearing, as I think back on it this morning, as unprecedented. These judges, how they'll rule, we do not know, but they were very troubled -- that was very clear -- about the racism in this case. JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the main points that you were raising was the jury selection process in the original trial, right? ROBERT BRYAN: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: The number of challenges of potential white jurors versus black jurors. Could you talk about that? ROBERT BRYAN: Yes. The US Supreme Court has been very clear in recent years, beginning with a 1986 decision, that racism in jury selection offends the US Constitution. And in this case, the prosecutor used over 2/3 of his strikes to remove people of color, African Americans, only 20% to 25% white people. I mean, you know, you have all of these African American people removed and very few white people. And it's well-documented that the District Attorney's office of Philadelphia during that period in the early '80s, and certainly going back, were very active in employing racism in jury selection discrimination. And the big question yesterday, in my words, was -- an issue for the court was and is -- was race, was discrimination at work in this case? And it seems like not only the statistics, but a wealth of other evidence, certainly seems to establish that. Let's just hope that the judges agree with us. AMY GOODMAN: Robert Bryan, the Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns told the appellate panel that Judge William Yohn erred when he overturned Abu-Jamals death sentence, because he should have deferred to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had already held that the penalty phase jury instructions were not confusing. Please explain that, because most people think Mumia Abu-Jamal remains on death row. ROBERT BRYAN: That is true. He is still on death row. He's in a cell today, Amy, that's smaller than most of our bathrooms at home. And from there, he does his journalism, which is another story, and it's phenomenal. But the lower US district court reversed the case in December 2001, because of a misuse of the death penalty by Judge Sabo, the trial judge. He instructed the jury that they could not return anything less than death, unless they all agreed on any one particular special circumstance, such as his good works in his life. In other words, you couldn't have one juror feel that he should not get death for one reason, another or different reason; they had to all agree, which is nonsense and contrary to US Supreme Court precedent. Immediately after that decision, he reversed it. In other words, he said there had to be a trial on the question of life or death, a new jury trial. The prosecution immediately appealed it, so thus the death penalty remained in effect. Mumia remains on death row, where he sits today, as we're here in this nice studio. And the court started out yesterday just ripping into the prosecutor. He had the opening comments, because he's the one who initially appealed. Then we cross-appealed. And they just could not understand how one could logically find that what the judge did in this case in instructing the jury would pass muster with the US Constitution. So the court seemed very troubled by that. What we're interested in are the other issues. Of course, I do not want my client to be executed. I do not want to have to go and watch my friend, who has first asked me to represent him in 1986, twenty-one years ago -- I do not want to lose him. But I want a new trial for him. And at that trial -- Ive won countless murder cases through the years -- this case deserves an acquittal. I want him to go home to his family. JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, in terms of the move from here, the court -- you expect a decision sometime in the next few months? ROBERT BRYAN: Yes. And there's really no way of predicting. I can only give a guess, a guesstimate, not even an estimate. I would predict that we would probably have a decision in forty-five to ninety days. Now, I just received an email last evening from the court, which is -- Ive never had this happen in the hundreds of death penalty cases Ive handled through the years, in which they want us now to order transcripts of the hearing. Now, this isn't a trial. This is before a US Court of Appeals 3-judge panel. And so, I will deal with that later today. So they actually want transcribed -- I don't know why theyd want to read what I had to say, but maybe my associates, maybe they want to see what they had to say. But they want transcripts of the hearing, which is unusual in a case at this stage. JUAN GONZALEZ: And it was also a unusual that they allowed the NAACP to actually argue an amicus brief. ROBERT BRYAN: Yeah, and one of the first things I did when I -- even though Mumia asked me to represent him in 1986, and I turned him down; I was just too busy with other cases -- when I finally took over the case -- he came back to me 4 1/2or 5 years ago -- one of the first things I did was, I started talking with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund here in New York, because they are very well-known for their great work and particularly in racism in jury selection, which is one of our big issues. And so, they argued -- Christine Swarns of that office argued yesterday. I shared some of -- and I was able to persuade the court -- I filed a motion asking if they'd be able to share some of my argument time. Normally, what they would call amicus curiae, friend of the court people, organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, only submit briefs. I asked the court if they could also join me in argument, and the court granted it, which was wonderful. And so, here I was here up arguing then, and my associate Judith Ritter, who's a law professor, argued. And she argued strictly on the death penalty issue. And then the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was able to argue. And then I wrapped up. I argued twice. But it was marvelous to have them join us. So I think it indicates the concern this court has. They seem to be trying to grapple with trying to do the right thing. Only time will tell. But also the National Lawyers Guild filed an amicus curiae brief. They did not argue yesterday, because we just didn't have enough time. AMY GOODMAN: Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, was the DA at the time in 1982 -- ROBERT BRYAN: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: -- when Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried. His wife is a judge on the Third Circuit? ROBERT BRYAN: But she recused herself, disqualified herself. She does in every case down in Philadelphia, so that was a non-issue. The prosecution tried to use that red herring to get rid of this court, and, of course, the court slapped them down and rejected that. She always steps aside in these type of cases. AMY GOODMAN: Mumia Abu-Jamal was not at the hearing yesterday? ROBERT BRYAN: No, unfortunately, because it wasn't a trial. AMY GOODMAN: How is he doing? ROBERT BRYAN: I talked with him at length, Amy, last night, and he was very humble about what happened yesterday. And his comments to me -- and, incidentally, he wanted me to say hello to both of you this morning -- his comments to me was, "You know what I want, Robert: people to understand that this is not about me, Mumia Abu-Jamal. This is about everybody on death row around the world. This is about all political prisoners around the world. And I hope that, through what the court does in this case, it will help other people." It's a typical Mumia comment and attitude, and he's very humble about his position in this. JUAN GONZALEZ: And also, for some of our listeners or viewers who may not be as familiar with Mumias case, how would you estimate the impact of his case -- given the virtual blackout that you have in the commercial media of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case, what is the impact of this case around the world? ROBERT BRYAN: Well, the impact in commercial media, as were speaking today, has been shifting and changing. I've worked hard to try to bring it to everybody, the message in this case. But it's a worldwide issue, Mumia Abu-Jamal. I have given a number of talks in Paris, in various places in France. I spoke to 2,500 people in January in Berlin, Germany. And there's world interest, standing ovation at the end of all of these talks. And it's not about me. It's not about Mumia, as he keeps reminding me. It's about him as a symbol in the fight against the death penalty. And you have to remember that he's unique in the world, because Mumia Abu-Jamal is not just a death row prisoner, a brilliant one at that, but he is a journalist. When he was arrested, he was already known as the voice of the voiceless, and he continues from this tiny bathroom-sized cell to turn out weekly these commentaries that are read and heard by people, not only here, but around the world. And it just -- there's nothing like what's happening with Mumia around the world. So he's important to people everywhere. AMY GOODMAN: Robert Bryan, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Robert Bryan is the lead attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal, fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers, former chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. And we will certainly continue to follow this case. Thank you. ROBERT BRYAN: Thank you. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877. (source: Democracy Now) *********************** Group protests US, supports jailed journalist A group of activists yesterday protested the United States for not releasing journalist and political activist Mumia Abu-Jamal who has been in jail for 25 years and is currently on death row. Journalist, intellectuals and political activists gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy in Ankara under tight security. "We protest the American administration's stance against Abu-Jamal," said the group in a written statement. Abu-Jamal, a black journalist with a past of Black Panther activism, was convicted in 1982 of killing a police officer in Philadelphia. Anti-death penalty activists worldwide claim he did not get a fair trial. (source: Turkish Daily News) ************************* Spectators Pack Courtroom as 3rd Circuit Hears Appeal in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case Nearly a quarter century has passed since Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to die for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, and in that time his case has become perhaps the world's most closely watched death penalty case. In December 2001, a federal judge overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence due to confusing jury instructions, but upheld his conviction. Now, in an appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors are asking that the death sentence be reinstated and Abu-Jamal's lawyers are asking for an entirely new trial, arguing that the conviction must be overturned because there is evidence that prosecutors improperly struck black jurors in his 1982 trial. Thursday, a 3-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Robert E. Cowen heard oral arguments that lasted more than 2 hours, far longer than the ordinary 15 minutes per side. For many of the hundreds of spectators who packed the courtroom, the arguments were likely difficult to follow as the judges and lawyers spoke in a lexicon specific to modern-day death penalty litigation, often referring to case law from the 3rd Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the arguments focused on highly technical and complicated questions about how the federal courts should weigh such claims when a state court system has already rejected identical arguments and upheld both the conviction and death sentence. But the bottom line was fairly simple: prosecutors insist that Abu-Jamal got a fair shake in the Pennsylvania courts and that the federal courts should not second-guess those rulings, while Abu-Jamal's lawyers insist that no court has ever given their client justice since his trial was unfair from the start due to a racially biased jury selection process and a racist trial judge. Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns told the appellate panel that Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William H. Yohn Jr. erred when he overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence because he should have deferred to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had already held that the penalty-phase jury instructions were not confusing. Yohn, in his 2001 decision, found that the jury instructions and the verdict form could have left jurors with the incorrect perception that they needed to be unanimous on any "mitigating factor" that would support a vote against death. Such jury instructions, Yohn said, violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Mills v. Maryland. "The jury charge and verdict form in this case created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed that it was precluded from considering a mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist," Yohn wrote. But Burns said the jury instructions in fact contained no such flaw. Instead, he said, they merely failed to explicitly inform jurors that they need not be unanimous on mitigating issues. Such silence on an issue, Burns said, is not a Mills violation on its own, and Yohn erred by holding that jurors in Abu-Jamal's case would assume the unanimity requirement. But Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Judith L. Ritter, urged the judges to focus on the 3-page jury verdict form that, she said, made it impossible for the jury to understand that any one juror had the right to vote against the death penalty on the basis of a mitigating factor even if no other juror agreed. The verdict form, Ritter said, used the word "unanimously" twice in connection with the death sentence, including once just before a list of mitigating factors. Ritter asked how the form could possibly be filled out to reflect a non-unanimous finding and suggested that the only possible interpretation the jury could have had was that it was required to be unanimous -- a situation that would clearly violate Mills. For Abu-Jamal, who has always insisted he is innocent, the more important argument came next when attorney Robert R. Bryan argued that a new trial must be ordered because of racial bias by prosecutors in the jury selection process, a so-called Batson claim. Abu-Jamal's Batson claim attracted the attention of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief supporting his claim. And in a rarely seen step, the court agreed to hear oral argument on the issue from NAACP attorney Christina Swarns. In his Batson claim, Abu-Jamal complains that Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGill peremptorily struck only four of 28 white potential jurors, but struck 11 of 15 black jurors. But Yohn found that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly rejected that claim, because Abu-Jamal had failed to meet the first prong of the Batson test. Prosecutor Burns told the court that Abu-Jamal's Batson claim is fatally flawed because his lawyers never made any complaint during the jury selection process. Instead, he said, Abu-Jamal's lawyers conceded at the time that many blacks were being excluded from the jury for valid reasons when they told the judge that they were opposed to the death penalty. Burns also said the statistics are troublesome because there is no evidence of the racial make-up of the entire jury pool. Without that statistic, he said, it's impossible to make sense of a Batson claim. But Swarns told the judges that no court has ever given Abu-Jamal a fair shake on his Batson claim. Under the Supreme Court's decision, she said, a defendant must make out a prima facie claim that racially motivated jury strikes occurred, and the burden then shifts to the prosecutor to explain his or her reasons for the strikes. "What we're talking about is smoke, not fire," Swarns said. But Swarns said the courts have never reached the 2nd step of the Batson process because they have always imposed too strict a burden on Abu-Jamal in the 1st phase. Bryan urged the judges to look beyond Abu-Jamal's case, saying the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Batson that racially biased jury selection was a "widespread" practice and that numerous other Philadelphia murder trials from the same period have later spawned successful Batson claims. "Are we to believe that this case is the exception to the rule?" Bryan asked, noting that Abu-Jamal's case was "highly charged" from the outset since he was a former Black Panther and was accused of killing a white police officer. (source: Legal Intelligencer) **************** Death penalty off the table in Chadds Ford shootings A former handyman accused of shooting an elderly Chadds Ford couple he said he thought had poisoned his coffee will not face the death penalty, at the request of the victims family members, prosecutors said. If Walter James Rosengarth, 67, is found guilty of the most serious charge, first-degree murder, he would face life in prison in the deaths of Miles Warner and his wife Mary, both 81, Deputy District Attorney James Mattera said Thursday. The gray-haired Rosengarth stood quietly at his arraignment. When asked how he was pleading, his attorney, David Sigismonti, said his client would stand mute. Judge Robert C. Wright entered a plea of not guilty. Sigismonti has said he will pursue an insanity defense. He described Rosengarth as "a very unusual man. Hes very convinced of his position, that he was poisoned and other elaborate details." Rosengarth is already serving an 18- to 36-year sentence for shooting and wounding 2 Chester County sheriffs deputies who came to his home to serve an eviction notice in 2003. Assistant District Attorney Joseph Brielmann said factors considered in the decision not to seek the death penalty included the wishes of the victims' relatives. "The victims' family indicated the death penalty was not something they would like to see pursued," Brielmann said. The victims' bodies were found in their home near the Brandywine Battlefield on Dec. 10, 2002. (source: Associated Press) GEORGIA: Ex-prisoner sues, alleges care denied----State allegedly released woman to skip medical bill Cornesa Gilliard got violently ill five times while incarcerated in the state prison system's Macon Diversion Center. 3 times, she visited an emergency room. Three times, she was told she needed follow-up medical care. But state prison officials refused to send Gilliard - sentenced on bad check and credit card fraud charges - for medical care, according to a federal lawsuit Gilliard filed Thursday in Macon. Doctors eventually had to perform a hysterectomy, hernia surgery and remove a large fibroid tumor from her uterus. The lawsuit further claims the head of the Macon Diversion Center informed Gilliard she was free of the facility the day of her surgery - leaving her to foot the $20,000 medical bill - even though the center had a policy of not releasing inmates until they had paid all of their debts. The lawsuit, filed by lawyers at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, claims the prison system denied Gilliard access to medical care in violation of the U.S. Constitution's protections from "cruel and unusual punishment." Gilliard is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as attempting to recoup medical and legal costs. Yolanda Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Corrections, declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the agency had not yet seen it. The Southern Center for Human Rights, best known for representing poor people facing the death penalty, is also going after prisons and jails such as the diversion center that charge indigent inmates room and board. Prisoners in these facilities generally hold jobs during the day and return to the center at night to sleep, paying the Department of Corrections for room and board. Lawyers for the Southern Center have derided the diversion centers as modern-day debtors' prisons, because inmates barely make enough money to pay room and board and other incidental expenses, but can't be released until they've paid off fines ordered by the courts. Gilliard's lawsuit says she worked long hours at a chicken processing plant. After lifting heavy boxes, Gilliard began to suffer from severe stomach pain and vomiting. In August 2006, she was taken to an emergency room, diagnosed with an umbilical hernia and told to return for a follow-up. She was not allowed to return to a doctor, the lawsuit contends. In November, she was again taken to an emergency room and was told she had fibroid tumors in her uterus. She was discharged with instructions to schedule surgery. She was again denied a follow-up visit, according to the suit. Gilliard's lawyers say the fibroid tumor was so large it made her appear to be about 5 months pregnant, and made it difficult for her to walk. "I said 'I've got this hernia and it's protruding from my stomach,' " Gilliard, 35, said in a phone interview from a motel room on Thursday. "It's the worst pain I've ever had in my life. I was told ... 'Well, we're not going to pay for any cosmetic surgery because you don't like the way your stomach looks.' " On Jan. 31, she went to the emergency room for a third time. This time, the superintendent of the diversion center, William Powell, informed her she had "completed" the diversion program even though she had not paid back any of the $5,200 she was required to pay in restitution. She later had surgery. Powell, who now works at Central State Prison in Macon, also declined to comment. Sarah Geraghty, an attorney who filed the suit along with lawyers from King & Spalding, criticized the prison system's handling of Gilliard's case and others. "Nonviolent offenders enter this facility to pay off their fines and leave, months later, with grievous bodily injury and still in debt," she said. The GDC's [Georgia Department of Corrections] prioritization of dollars over inmate welfare has made Macon Diversion Center a dangerous place to be." (source: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) OKLAHOMA: McCarty's Family Speaks Out Curtis Edward McCarty was released from prison last week after more than 20 years on death row. The McCarty family held a press conference Friday morning. The family was there to talk about how there should be stronger reviews of cases involving death sentences. However, when the conversation turned to how the Oklahoma City Police Department handled the McCarty case some interesting allegations against Chief of Police Bill Citty were made. Shirley McCarty, the mother of Curtis McCarty, says, "It's beyond words the joy that we finally have our son back after 22 years." She says, "I could not believe we were in that jail hugging him and holding him." McCarty was released from prison after an Oklahoma County judge ruled there was no longer enough evidence to keep him there. Shirley says, "If I had believed that Eddie was guilty then I would not have done anything to get him out of prison." During the news conference, McCarty's attorney, Perry Hudson, said he doesn't believe Joyce Gilcrest is the only one to blame. Hudson says, "What Joyce Gilcrest did was incredible and other people had to know about it." He went on to say a witness in the case told him she was pressured into making statements. Hudson says, "It was Detective Citty that sat down with her and essentially said, 'Listen, here's the evidence as we see it," and he gave her the story that was ultimately going to be presented to the jury by the state." That detective is now the chief of police. Chief Citty says he wasn't the original detective on the case, but he did handle it starting in 1984. Chief Citty says, "Witnesses came forward later on, several years later with statements that implicated McCarty in the homicide." He says nothing he did in that or any other case was inappropriate. Chief Citty says, "I think most defense attorneys are going to tell you I wouldn't compromise my reputation to try to make a case for any reason." Chief Citty went on to say it is Mr. Hudson's job as a defense attorney to tear holes in the case. He also said he worked on the investigation which led to the firing of Joyce Gilcrest. Without his work on that investigation McCarty might not have been released. (source: KSBI-TV News) ************************* Attorney calls for prosecution of fired police chemist An attorney for a man who spent 16 years on Oklahoma's death row before he was freed said Friday a former Oklahoma City Police Department chemist who lost or destroyed evidence in the case should be prosecuted for her conduct. Curtis Edward McCarty was twice convicted of murder and sentenced to death three times. The charge was dismissed on May 11 after a state district judge ruled the case was hopelessly tainted by Gilchrist's "bad faith" conduct in the case. "I think she ought to be prosecuted," said McCarty's attorney, Perry Hudson. Gilchrist initially cleared McCarty of culpability in the 1982 murder of 18-year-old Pamela Kaye Willis after reviewing hair samples from the murder scene. Gilchrist later changed her interpretation of the evidence, altering records and destroying evidence to cover her tracks, Hudson said. "She destroyed this evidence to hide what she had done," Hudson said. Courts ruled that the evidence could have been used to show McCarty's innocence. "She acted to frame this man," Hudson said. "It is pure luck that Curtis McCarty is still alive today. "What Joyce Gilchrist did was incredible and other people had to know about it." Gilchrist was fired in 2001 after questions were raised about cases she testified about. She was investigated by the FBI and investigations were launched into more than 1,400 of the cases assigned to her. Scott Rowland, 1st assistant district attorney for Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater, said the statute of limitations bars prosecution of such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice to just 2 or 3 years after the crime occurs. "It's easy for people to sit back and call for this," Rowland said. It can be a difficult task for investigators to determine whether a crime has been committed and when, he said. Gilchrist's attorney, Melvin Hall, did not immediately return a telephone call from The Associated Press. Hudson spoke at a news conference where McCarty's parents, Joe and Shirley McCarty, joined others in calling for better oversight of the state's criminal justice system to prevent people from being wrongfully convicted while the guilty go unpunished. "Somebody needs to oversee this," Mrs. McCarty said. Christy Sheppard of Ada, whose cousin, 21-year-old cocktail waitress Deborah Sue Carter was murdered in 1982, called for creation of a commission to investigate what went wrong when convicted defendants are later exonerated. The 2 men originally convicted of Carter's murder, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, were later exonerated by DNA evidence and freed after 12 years in prison. Their experiences are chronicled in two books, John Grisham's first nonfiction book, "The Innocent Man," and Fritz's "Journey Toward Justice." "This is not just about wrongful conviction. It's about failure to convict the guilty," Sheppard said. "I think it's really important that we take a look at all aspects of these cases." She said legislation that would have created an Exoneration Commission was filed in the Senate this year but not heard. Rowland said he supports the idea. "Nobody in this office would oppose any commission that is on a search for truth or justice. We welcome that," Rowland said. But he cautioned that that the criminal justice system will never be free from error. "If they think we're going to build a perfect system, we won't," he said. Emily Lang, spokeswoman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson, said that when requesting an execution date for a death row inmate the office reviews the facts of the case and investigates whether DNA evidence should be tested again to verify the defendant's culpability. "We want to make sure absolutely when we get to that step in the process that we're comfortable with that person's guilt," Lang said. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., GA., OKLA.
Rick Halperin Sat, 19 May 2007 18:46:52 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
