Aug. 15
PENNSYLVANIA:
Killer's life sentence still is justice
When the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out the death sentence of murderer
Ronald Rompilla in 2005, the prison door was cracked open to injustice. In
a 5-4 ruling, the court set aside the killer's death sentence because his
public defenders failed to present abuse he suffered as a child and his
low IQ as factors mitigating against capital punishment.
The decision raised the prospect that Lehigh County prosecutors might have
to ask another jury --almost 20 years after the crime -- to resentence the
killer to death. That's a daunting challenge after so much time has
elapsed. It further prolongs the suffering of the victim's surviving
family members, making them relive the horrific details of the murder yet
again. Part of the process is to turn the page on a crime so those wronged
by it can move on with their lives, assured that justice was served.
It's not that Mr. Rompilla's conviction was set aside. He was justly
convicted of the brutal murder of Allentown bar owner James Scanlon in
January 1988. He beat and repeatedly stabbed Mr. Scanlon in the Cozy
Corner Cafe on N. Seventh Street before setting him on fire. He was later
arrested with money he stole from the bar cash register and the victim's
wallet. A Lehigh County jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and
sentenced him to death.
The U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the death penalty in recent
years. There needs to be evaluation of how the ultimate punishment is
administered. But it remains a legal punishment and prosecutors and juries
have a right to seek it when they think it is warranted. In the Rompilla
case, the Court has tried to eliminate the death penalty by requiring
perfect defense, an unreasonable standard.
It's possible that prosecutors could have persuaded another jury that Mr.
Rompilla deserved to die. But that would have set off another round of
appeals, torturing Mr. Scanlon's family with further replays of the
details of his death. Instead, prosecutors and the family agreed to
sentencing the murderer to a life sentence without parole -- or further
appeals. That's acceptable justice.
(source: Editorial, The Morning Call)
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
State: Race won't sway Addison jury ---- Defense argues Black man faces
bias at trial
New Hampshire's court system has several ways to prevent prejudiced
juries, state prosecutors said in a motion last week. In rebutting a claim
by Michael Addison's lawyers that in a mostly white state such as New
Hampshire, the risk of subtle racial bias "will be ever present" at the
trial of a black man such as Addison, prosecutors pointed to pamphlets and
videos that warn jurors to be unbiased.
In addition to quoting the New Hampshire Judicial Branch's Juror's
Handbook and its Jury Service Video, prosecutors reiterated that Addison's
attorneys would have the opportunity to question potential jurors about
racial bias during jury selection. Court procedure also allows them to
dismiss without question 20 potential jurors, which is twice as many as
prosecutors can dismiss, they said.
"Given the existence of these procedures," state prosecutors wrote,
"(Addison) cannot exclude the possibility that his jury will be
sufficiently composed so as to eliminate the risk of discrimination."
Addison, 27, is charged with capital murder in the shooting death of
Manchester Officer Michael Briggs. Briggs, a 35-year-old Concord father of
two, was killed last October while on patrol. Addison is currently being
held without bail. If convicted, Addison could face the death penalty.
Addison's team of three public defenders have pledged to challenge the
death penalty in myriad ways. So far, they have filed 15 death penalty
challenges in Hillsborough County Superior Court.
Prosecutors with the state attorney general's office have now filed
rebuttals to all 15 challenges. Judge Kathleen McGuire will hear arguments
on all of them in court today.
In addition to rebutting the defense's argument that the state's death
penalty law doesn't safeguard against racial discrimination, prosecutors
last week rebutted 5 other challenges.
Addison's lawyers had argued that the state's death penalty law is
unconstitutional because it doesn't allow a trial judge to overturn a
death sentence. Instead, it requires the judge to impose the jury's
verdict. Non-capital defendants can ask a judge to set aside a verdict,
his lawyers said.
But state prosecutors argued that it was within lawmakers' purview to
write the law that way.
"The provision requiring a trial court to impose a death sentence, upon
the jury's recommendation, falls squarely within the legislature's
authority to prescribe criminal punishments," prosecutors wrote.
Addison's lawyers had claimed that state lawmakers failed to do their own
homework when they wrote New Hampshire's death penalty law, instead basing
it on a now-superseded federal law.
Prosecutors didn't disagree that the state's law is based on a federal
one, but they said that there's nothing in the law that makes it
unconstitutional.
Addison's lawyers had said that the death penalty should be barred
because it's "unusual" and the state constitution prohibits "cruel or
unusual punishment," as opposed to "cruel and unusual punishment." It's
unusual, they said, because no one has been executed in New Hampshire
since 1939.
But prosecutors said the use of the word "or" instead of "and" doesn't
provide defendants any more protection; courts have for a long time used
the words interchangeably, they said.
They also argued that the infrequency of executions does not render them
"unusual." There are several reasons why the death penalty is invoked so
rarely here, they said; among them, the state's low homicide rate, its
narrow death penalty law (only six crimes qualify under the law) and the
fact that parts of the law were declared unconstitutional in 1990, sparing
anyone found guilty before then.
"Capital murder is not a crime that has simply become antiquated from
neglect and disuse like some offenses," prosecutors wrote. "Rather, the
legislature has continued to debate, expand and refine the scope of
capital murder up to the present. The death penalty thus retains a current
application in the criminal justice system in this state."
Addison's lawyers had argued that the use of the word "recommend" in the
state's death penalty law was confusing and did not convey to jurors the
finality of their verdict. The law says that the jury "may recommend that
a sentence of death be imposed." It then goes on to say, "upon the
recommendation . . . the court shall sentence the defendant to death."
Prosecutors claimed that the law, read as a whole, "makes clear that the
jury's decision is binding."
"When read in its entirety, the (law) clearly informs the jury that . . .
it is not a 'mere' recommendation," prosecutors wrote.
The judge could also clear up any confusion when she gives the jury its
instructions, prosecutors said.
"Equipped with the law and the instructions, the reasonable juror will
understand the gravity and importance of (his or her) role and decision,"
they wrote.
Lastly, Addison's lawyers said that their 15 death penalty challenges,
when considered as a group, demonstrate that the state's death penalty law
is "unconstitutionally flawed."
Prosecutors called that argument "inadequate" and reiterated that "there
is no constitutional error in the New Hampshire death penalty (law)."
Addison's lawyers have also filed a death penalty challenge in the state
Supreme Court, alleging that the high court has never written rules for
how a death sentence appeal would work. All death sentences in New
Hampshire are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court.
But the state attorney general's office argued that special rules
governing death sentence appeals are not needed. The regular appellate
rules are sufficient, they said.
The high court has not yet ruled on whether or not special rules are
needed. It has given Addison's lawyers and state prosecutors until Monday
to file proposed court rules for death sentence appeals.
(source: Concord Monitor)
******************
Quick executions will deter crime
Elaine Smith's letter to the editor ("Execute him," Monitor, Aug. 13)
strongly expresses my feelings regarding Michael Addison.
He absolutely should be executed - without hesitation. There are many
against the death penalty. Ms. Smith makes the observation that Addison's
execution might help decrease this type of crime. Others say the death
penalty is not a deterrent to crimes against society, such as rape and
murder. To that argument, I would say I have to agree - if the death
penalty continues to be carried out as it is today, i.e., convicted today,
executed in 20 years, if the sentence is not overturned before that.
I believe, however, if someone like Addison is executed immediately
following his sentencing, there is likely to be a deterrent to future
crimes.
Like Elaine Smith, I do not want my tax dollars going to support the likes
of Michael Addison. He deserves nothing short of immediate execution.
RICHARD BOLDUC ---- Penacook
(source: Letter to the Editor, Concord Monitor)
USA:
Bush's lethal legacy: more executions ---- The US already kills more of
its prisoners than almost any other country. Now the White House plans to
cut the right of appeal of death row inmates...
The Bush administration is preparing to speed up the executions of
criminals who are on death row across the United States, in effect,
cutting out several layers of appeals in the federal courts so that
prisoners can be "fast-tracked" to their deaths.
With less than 18 months to go to secure a presidential legacy, President
Bush has turned to an issue he has specialised in since approving a record
number of executions while Governor of Texas.
The US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales - Mr Bush's top legal adviser
during the spree of executions in Texas in the 1990s - is putting
finishing touches to regulations, inspired by recent anti-terrorism
legislation, that would allow states to turn to the Justice Department,
instead of the federal courts, as a key arbiter in deciding whether
prisoners live or die.
The US is already among the top 6 countries worldwide in terms of the
numbers of its own citizens that it puts to death. 52 Americans were
executed last year and thousands await their fate on death row.
In some instances, prisoners would have significantly less time to file
federal appeals, and the appeals courts significantly less time to
respond. On the question of whether defendants received adequate
representation at trial - a key issue in many cases, especially in
southern states with no formal public defender system - the Attorney
General would be the sole decision-maker.
Since Mr Gonzales is a prosecutor, not a judge, and since he has a track
record of favouring death in almost every capital case brought before him,
the regulations would, in effect, remove a crucial safety net for
prisoners who feel they have been wrongly convicted.
Elisabeth Semel, a death penalty specialist at the University of
California law school in Berkeley, said the intention of the proposed
regulation was clear: "To make it more difficult for people who have been
sentenced to death in state courts, including those sentenced without
adequate representation and resources, to avoid being executed."
The regulations, first made public by the Los Angeles Times, will be
subject to a public comment period extending into September. They will
then be enacted "as quickly as circumstances allow", according to a
Justice Department spokeswoman.
The administration's enthusiasm for capital punishment runs counter to the
recent trend away from the death penalty in many states. Last year saw the
lowest number of capital convictions across the country - 114 - since the
death penalty was reintroduced in the early 1970s. The development of DNA
testing has raised uncomfortable questions about the safety of many
capital convictions, prompting Illinois to call a halt to all its
executions and triggering reviews in many other states.
Over the past 2 years, doubts have also arisen over the most popular
method of execution - death by lethal injection - because medical research
has suggested prisoners may die in agony. One of the cocktails of drugs
typically administered, pancuronium bromide, paralyses the body, masking
any pain without necessarily alleviating it.
California and half a dozen other states imposed moratoriums pending a
study of a new cocktail of drugs that would overcome the constitutional
ban on "cruel or unusual" punishment. Some states, including Tennessee,
South Dakota and Florida, have either resumed executions or are planning
to do so. But California, which has 600 prisoners on death row, shows no
signs of executing anybody in the near future.
President Bush has always been a death penalty enthusiast. The 152
prisoners he dispatched to their deaths in his 8 years as governor of
Texas set a high-water mark unmatched before or since.
According to official memos, Governor Bush would give the green light to
executions based on no more than a half-hour briefing from Mr Gonzales. Mr
Gonzales, in turn, often omitted mitigating evidence.
At no time has Mr Bush seen any contradiction with his avowed commitment
to the sanctity of life. As President he has even instituted a National
Sanctity of Human Life Day, which, he has said, "serves as a reminder we
must value human life in all its forms, not just those considered healthy,
wanted, or convenient".
If the regulations come into effect, they would raise serious questions
about the ability of wrongfully convicted prisoners to overturn sentences.
Kenny Richey, a Scot who has been on Ohio's death row for close to 20
years, is still alive - and, it appears, on the verge of having his
sentence quashed - because of the intervention of a federal appeals court
on his behalf.
4 years ago, a Missouri man, Joe Amrine, was released after 17 years on
death row after the collapse of all evidence that led to his conviction
for a jail murder. The state argued, with a straight face, that even the
establishment of innocence was not a reason to stop his execution, because
nothing had been procedurally incorrect about his original trial. Again,
it was a federal appeals court that weighed in on Amrine's behalf.
To date, 123 prisoners sentenced to die have been proved innocent and
released. Anti-death penalty activists and lawyers have raised serious
doubts about hundreds of others.
Supporters of a quicker legal process argue that it is unacceptable to
sentence someone to die and then wait 17 or 18 years, on average, for the
sentence to be carried out. Keeping prisoners on death row is expensive -
about $90,000 a year, on average - as are the legal costs of appeals.
2006 executions
China: 1,010+
Iran: 177
Pakistan: 82
Iraq: 65+
Sudan: 65+
USA: 53
Saudi Arabia: 39+
Yemen: 30+
Vietnam: 14
Kuwait: 10+
[source: Amnesty International, based on 2006 figures]
+ symbol indicates that the figure is a minimum one; the true figure may
be higher due to state secrecy or a lack of available information
**********************
A nation's brutal approach to punishment
The persistence of the death penalty is only one way in which the United
States stands out from the rest of the Western world on crime and
punishment.
It also has the highest incarceration rate of any country, with more than
two million people behind bars. (China, second in the rankings, has an
estimated 1.5 million, and Russia just short of 900,000.) The US has just
5 % of the world's population, but 25 % of its overall prison population.
Some of the reasons behind the extraordinary machinery of incarceration -
including the death penalty - is cultural and historical. In the South, in
particular, the phenomenon is inextricably linked to the long history of
racial inequality, with blacks put away in numbers vastly disproportionate
to their overall population.
The states with the highest ratio of prisoners per population are all
former slave states with long traditions of jailhouse brutality, chain
gangs and other barbaric practices: Louisiana (816 prisoners per 100,000
people), Texas (694) and Mississippi (669). In many states, blacks are up
to 15 times as likely as whites to find themselves behind bars. In
Florida, one in three adult black men has a criminal record.
Some trends, though, are more recent - tied, in particular, to the mania
for tough-on-crime legislation that has swept state after state in the
past 25 years.
The national prison population has quadrupled since 1980, the increase
fuelled in particular by the "war on drugs" and the consequent
incarceration of hundreds of thousands of petty drug offenders. That, in
turn, has exacerbated a host of problems from overcrowding to prison rape
to the formation of ultra-violent prison gangs, many of them based on deep
racial hatred.
In many cases, prison has taken the place of social services such as drug
rehabilitation and mental health counselling and, according to critics of
the system, has, in effect, criminalised large portions of the population
who would have been much better and much more cheaply treated elsewhere.
Prison guard unions have become major political players, especially in
California, home to the single largest prison system in the world, where
they bankroll the campaigns of senior state officials and lawmakers. A
whole industry has sprung up to support the burgeoning prison population.
One writer, Eric Schlosser, memorably described the entire system a few
years ago as a "prison-industrial complex".
At a time of tight state budgets, prisons are one area where lawmakers do
not hold back from spending lavishly. From next year, California will be
spending more on prisons than on its entire higher education system,
including close to $1m on a new death row unit at San Quentin outside San
Francisco - despite the statewide moratorium on executions. The United
States as a whole spends an estimated $60bn a year on its prisons.
(source for both: The Independent)
**********************
Gonzales to Get Power In Death Penalty Cases----Rules Would Expand
Fast-Track Authority
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, under political siege for his
handling of the U.S. attorney firings and other issues, is to get expanded
powers to hasten death penalty cases under regulations being developed by
the Justice Department.
The rules would give Gonzales the authority to approve "fast-track"
procedures by states in death penalty cases, enabling them to carry out
sentences more speedily and with fewer opportunities for appeal if those
states provide adequate representation for capital defendants.
Such powers were previously held by federal judges, but a provision of the
USA Patriot Act reauthorization bill approved by Congress last year hands
the authority to the attorney general.
Under the regulations, death row inmates would have six months, instead of
a year, to file appeals in the federal courts, and federal judges would
have less time to consider petitions in capital cases.
The proposed changes, reported yesterday by the Los Angeles Times, would
hand new authority to Gonzales as leading Democrats and some Republicans
have called for his resignation and questioned his truthfulness. Earlier
this month, Congress gave Gonzales greater powers in overseeing the
government's warrantless wiretapping program.
The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)
and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), asked Gonzales in a letter sent earlier this
month to delay implementing the new death penalty rules until October at
the earliest, "to guarantee adequate representation of death row prisoners
before certification occurs."
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department has extended the
time for public comment to Sept. 24 "to ensure ample opportunity" for
advocacy groups to lodge objections.
Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned Gonzales's judgment about the
death penalty, including his refusal to hear the concerns of a federal
prosecutor in Arizona, Paul K. Charlton, who argued against pursuing a
death sentence in a case in which no body had been recovered.
Charlton and several other U.S. attorneys were fired last year in part
because of clashes with Gonzales and his aides over death penalty issues,
according to documents and testimony. Both Gonzales and his predecessor,
John D. Ashcroft, have supported the aggressive use of death penalty
authority in the federal courts.
Many prosecutors and GOP lawmakers have long complained that death penalty
cases are needlessly delayed during the federal appeals process. In 1996,
Congress implemented a system of "expedited review" for death penalty
cases, but required federal courts to first determine that individual
states had good systems in place to provide legal representation for
defendants.
The arrangement languished amid legal challenges, however.
The department's proposed rules to implement the statute, initially
circulated in June, have since come under sharp attack from many defense
lawyers and advocacy groups, including the Judicial Conference of the
United States, a policymaking body of the federal courts.
Kathryn Kase, a Houston lawyer who serves on the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers' death penalty committee, said the Justice
Department's proposed regulations are "severely lacking" because they do
not provide enough oversight to ensure that defendants are receiving
adequate legal counsel.
"In our judgment they allow states to . . . claim they have a capital
representation case that is functional, when in fact it might not be
functional at all," Kase said. "It may not prevent people from being
wrongfully sentenced to death."
Kase and other defense lawyers also say the underlying legislation is
faulty because it allows Gonzales, who is the nation's chief prosecutor,
to effectively determine the pace of executions.
But Roehrkasse said the rules are narrowly tailored and he noted that
Gonzales's decisions about the state programs can be reviewed by a federal
appeals court.
The moves toward speedier federal executions come as the number of
executions nationwide has dropped, in part because of moratoriums aimed at
ensuring that innocent defendants are not wrongfully put to death or
subjected to cruelty.
The number of executions fell from a peak of 98 in 2000 to 53 last year,
according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Several states have
halted executions in recent months because of legal challenges to the use
of lethal injection.
(source: Washington Post)
**************
Senators Question Execution Speedup
2 senators have asked the Justice Department to delay new rules that would
give Attorney General Alberto Gonzales authority to limit the time death
row inmates spend on appeals before being executed.
The bipartisan request, in a letter from 2 of Gonzales' most vocal Senate
critics, questions how strict the federal government will be in deciding
whether states ensure that defendants in capital punishment cases have had
competent legal help.
That's a task traditionally carried out by federal courts. But a
little-noticed change last year in the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act
gives the attorney general the power to decide state requests for speedier
appeals that generally run for years.
"States must be required to take meaningful steps to guarantee adequate
representation of death row prisoners before certification occurs," said
Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in their Aug. 2
letter to Gonzales. "This is especially important in light of the
accelerated timing and abridged federal court review."
"It is crucial that the legislative changes to this complex and heavily
litigated area of the law be successfully and appropriately implemented,
especially given the tremendous stake for individual defendants," the
senators wrote in the letter, which was obtained Tuesday.
The senators want Gonzales to shelve the rules - which lay out
requirements for states seeking to cut short inmates' time on death row -
until after Oct. 5 at the earliest to make sure they will include clear
and specific guidelines. The Justice Department had planned to enact the
rules following a public comment period that ends Sept. 24 - what
spokesman Erik Ablin said was already an extension on its original
deadline.
The senators' request strikes at the heart of a complicated change in
federal law that could affect the estimated 3,350 death row inmates in
prisons around the country.
Gonzales formerly served as a state Supreme Court justice in Texas, a
state that has aggressively pursued the death penalty in criminal cases.
The attorney general also has been criticized for seeking capital
punishment in cases in which his federal prosecutors have not sought it.
Until last year's change, Gonzales did not have authority to determine
whether states qualified to speed the way death penalty cases are
processed in state courts. The Patriot Act gave him new power to approve
requests from states seeking mandatory deadlines for capital defendants
who appealed their cases to federal courts.
Ablin said the new rules merely outline procedures that states will have
to follow to qualify for the faster federal review.
"This has nothing to do with specific cases, and the attorney general has
no authority to change the certification requirements, which are
determined by statute," he said. Challenges to the attorney general's
decision on whether a state qualifies would be reviewed by a federal
appeals court in Washington.
At issue now is how much oversight Gonzales will give to states that claim
they have gone beyond their constitutional duty, as is required as part of
their request, in making sure death row defendants had adequate lawyers.
The debate was first reported in Tuesday's editions of the Los Angeles
Times.
The law only requires the U.S. attorney general to decide whether a state
has a system in place to provide legal counsel to poor defendants
appealing their death penalty sentences, the date it was set up, and
whether there are any standards for determining the lawyers' competency.
"There are no requirements for certification or for application of this
chapter other than those expressly stated in this chapter," the law
states.
That's not a good enough guarantee for critics of the death penalty or
capital punishment defense attorneys.
"All a state has to do is report it has a system," said Kathryn Kase,
co-chair of the death penalty committee for the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers. "There seems to be no mechanism that's going to
hold them to determining if a system is in fact in place, and if it
functions so as to ensure that people are not wrongfully convicted and
sentenced to death. That really should concern Americans."
Kase, a Houston attorney, said it takes an average of 11 years for
information to become known about death row convicts who are ultimately
found innocent. "We really are ensuring that information about innocents
isn't coming to the surface. This is a way of burying our mistakes," she
said.
The proposed deadlines also are problematic, as they could tie up federal
courts already overburdened with growing caseloads. Under the rules, a
U.S. District Court would have 15 months to decide on an inmate's appeal
to stay an execution; federal appellate courts would have 4 months to rule
on an appeal.
"That's remarkably fast - most federal civil cases take longer than that,"
said Rory K. Little, a death penalty expert at Hastings College of Law in
San Francisco who worked at the Justice Department during the Clinton
administration.
Gonzales' recent battles with the Democratic-led Senate, leading to
bipartisan calls for his resignation, could ultimately result in a softer
stance toward death row inmates. Little said it was too soon to draw
conclusions about the rules, especially since "they're not final yet."
"This attorney general in particular, trying to implement changes in what
seems like a damaged Department of Justice is unfortunate," Little said.
He added: "It's premature to think this is the end of the story. It's
not."
(source: Associated Press)
ARIZONA:
Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty against Tucson woman
Pima County prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty against a
Tucson woman in the death of her boyfriend's 2 young children.
Prosecutors say their action against 23 year old Reina Gonzales is based
on three aggravating factors. That more than one death took place, the age
of the victims, and that the deaths were especially heinous, cruel or
depraved.
Gonzales and the children's father, 29 year old Christopher Payne, are
charged with abusing and killing 4 year old Ariana Payne, and 5 year old
Tyler Payne. Ariana's body was found in a storage locker. Tyler's body has
never been found.
Christopher Payne's trial is set for January, 2009.
(source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., N.H., USA, ARIZ.
Rick Halperin Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:43:41 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
