Aug. 16 TEXAS: Death row inmate gets new attorney for appeal A Tri-City Bomber on death row got a new attorney for his appeal Wednesday. And the reason behind the dismissal has nothing to do with the lawyer's competence. Instead, Juan Raul "Ram" Navarro Ramirez says his court-appointed attorney made a sexually explicit comment about Ramirez's wife. Judge Noe Gonzalez did not issue any ruling, but asked David K. Sergi to step down because regardless of the accusations veracity, he and Ramirez would not be able to work well together. Ramirez was convicted in 2005 for his role in the murder of 6 men during a botched home invasion on Jan. 5, 2003. He and 12 other men, mostly members of the Tri-City Bombers, were indicted in 2003 for what has come to be known as the Edinburg massacre. According to prosecutors and court documents, TCB members raided 2 Monte Cristo Road homes looking for drugs. They found 6 men who they killed instead. So far, Ramirez and 2 other men have been sentenced to death. Another defendant was already on death row for a related murder. Charges against 3 were dismissed after prosecutors cited a lack of evidence. 2 men are still on the run. 1 man was acquitted. And 3 others have pleaded guilty. (source: The Monitor) NEW HAMPSHIRE: Prosecutors, defense attorneys argue over death penalty in shooting case Prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case of Michael Addison, accused of killing a police officer last year, are arguing over the use of the death penalty as possible punishment. Addison was charged with capital murder in connection with the October shooting of Michael Briggs, who was responding to a call of a domestic dispute in a Manchester neighborhood. New Hampshire law allows for the death penalty in limited circumstances, including when a person is convicted of killing a police officer. In the past several weeks, Addison's attorneys have filed various motions challenging the death penalty, including saying that it would be hard to find an unbiased jury. 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 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 Addison, who is black, 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's team of three public defenders have filed 15 death penalty challenges in Hillsborough County Superior Court. Prosecutors have filed rebuttals to all 15. Some arguments were heard in court Wednesday. "The court should not allow the jury to impose the death penalty if there are any reasonable doubts about whether it be imposed," defense attorney Richard Guerriero said. The statute says that a jury can impose the death penalty if aggravating factors "sufficiently outweigh" mitigating factors, which the defense said is a confusing and inadequate standard. But the state said there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the punishment is just. "The state has to prove that the defendant is eligible to receive the death penalty by proving 2 aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt -- factual determinations," Assistant Attorney General Will Delker said. More motions are scheduled to be heard in January. Anderson's trial is not scheduled to start until the fall of 2008. 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. (source: Boston Globe) CALIFORNIA: Don't rush to execution----California must reject the U.S. attorney general's effort to bend death penalty rules. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales is about to adopt an unnecessary and mean-spirited regulation that will make it harder for those on death row to have their cases reviewed in federal court. State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown should make clear that California wants no part of this. To understand what's going on here, you need a little background. Let's say you were convicted of murder in California. Generally, as soon as you have exhausted your appeals in state court, the clock starts ticking: You have one year to file a petition for habeas corpus in federal court. (A writ of habeas corpus is a request for federal court review of a conviction on grounds that a person is imprisoned in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.) That 1-year timeline was set by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, adopted in 1996. But that law also allows a shorter time limit -- 6 months -- in death penalty cases. Why less time for death penalty cases? It seems perverse, but Congress was actually trying to encourage states to provide lawyers for those on death row. The Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney at trial when you're facing imprisonment or death and when you appeal your conviction at the state level. Beyond that, you're on your own. But the proceedings that come next -- collectively called "collateral review" -- can be crucial. It's at this stage, which includes habeas corpus petitions, that serious flaws in trial are often exposed, including the kind of mistakes that lead to the execution of innocent people. Almost no states provide counsel in these crucial proceedings. So the 1996 law laid out this deal: If a state starts providing lawyers to capital defendants, it will get the benefit of a shorter, six-month statute of limitations. So far, only Arizona has complied. Other states have decided that it's not worth the expense. Enter Gonzales and the Patriot Act. When it reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, Congress added a little-noticed provision that lets the attorney general, rather than federal judges, decide whether states are complying with the 1996 law. No one paid much attention, until now. Gonzales, it has been widely reported, is about to certify California and other states as being in compliance with the 1996 law, in essence just giving them the six-month statute of limitations. But these states have done nothing that this law requires. Everywhere but Arizona, death row inmates still have to pay for their attorneys (unlikely), get pro bono representation (difficult) or represent themselves (unwise). Any "certification" is a lie. Those who favor the shorter statute of limitations are frustrated by the long delays before executions are carried out. But Gonzales' move is not about preventing delays; at most, it speeds things up by 6 months. It is about preventing some inmates from having a habeas corpus petition heard at all. Death row prisoners will still be without free attorneys, trying to file habeas corpus petitions on their own. But that process is rife with complex rules and technicalities. The U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, ruled this year that the habeas clock is ticking even while an inmate is asking for the high court to review state post-conviction proceedings. So inmates have to file both requests at the same time. All of this creates serious pitfalls even for well-informed and highly diligent prisoners. 6 months leaves little room for error. Undoubtedly, many more habeas petitions, including highly meritorious ones, will wind up dismissed, deemed too late. We now know of more than a dozen innocent people whose convictions were overturned on a writ of habeas corpus in recent years. Last year, John Grisham published a bestselling nonfiction book about one: Ron Williamson, whose death sentence in Oklahoma was overturned by a federal judge. Shortening the statute of limitations risks that others like him will never get their day in court. Gonzales' certification can be challenged before a federal appeals court in Washington. But it shouldn't have to go that far. Brown should make clear that California will not invoke the 6-month statute of limitations, no matter what Gonzales does. (source: Opinion, Erwin Chemerinsky, Los Angeles Times) **************** The abuse of justice in California's prison system FinalCall.com One-on-One with human rights activist and author Barbara Becnel The legacy of Stanley "Tookie" Williams will not only be remembered by many for what true redemption of the human spirit is about, but also the true injustices being faced by millions of men and women incarcerated in Americas prison systems due to judicial inequalities and hypocrisy. For as long as she could, Barbara Becnel, a human rights activist, author and the executor of Mr. Williams estate, fought for his life and for justice she believed worthy of a man who was self-rehabilitated and who was proving every day that he was willing to do what he could to help rehabilitate others. Although the immediate subject of her fight for justice was stripped away by San Quentin State Prison executioners in 2005, she continues to battle for his legacy and work, assured that it will save the young lives he intended. Ms. Becnel has always maintained, as she and friends (Shirley Neal and Rudy Langlais) declared after they witnessed their friends execution, that "The State of California just killed an innocent man!" In the July 30 edition of The New Yorker magazine, Vernell Crittendon, former San Quentin State Prison spokesperson, admitted to writer Tad Friend that he helped to wage a state-sanctioned smear campaign against Mr. Williams, in an effort to green light his execution. During an interview with Final Call Staff Writer Charlene Muhammad, Ms. Becnel outlined her battle plans in light of Mr. Crittendons admissions. FINAL CALL (FC): According to the article, Mr. Crittendon's smear campaign included suggesting to the media that Mr. Williams' heart had not changed; that he was still orchestrating gangland activities and had a suspiciously large bank account. When asked whether he now considered his campaign unusual or unwarranted, Mr. Crittendon said it, "was approved through the department." The article states that he had approval to "correct public misimpressions" from the state attorney generals office and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) spokesman in Sacramento, also a liaison to the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office, which would have to rule on Mr. Williams petition for clemency. Do you feel any type of vindication from this? BARBARA BECNEL (BB): I do feel vindicated, but that doesn't make me feel good because I still have to remember that what they did to Stan was dishonorable, unethical, disgusting and possibly criminal. I can't feel good about it because I know what it meant, how badly Stan was treated as a consequence, and that he's not alive in part because of their antics. FC: How has this impacted your current work of fighting for justice in his physical absence? BB: We are looking at the fact that the California State Attorney General's Office, according to Vernell Crittendon, approved him making false statements to help kill a human being. This is our highest level of law enforcementof prosecutorial arm of the stateso typically when something bad happens within a state government, you go to the state attorney general's office for them to prosecute, but they are at fault. The federal government has to be brought in to oversee and investigate the state office. We will also demand that the California State Legislature investigates and holds him immediately to investigate the CDCR. They, as well as the attorney generals office, are funded by the State Legislature and it has oversight and the responsibility to see to it that the CDCR behaves in a lawful manner. And we want the Office of the Inspector General to investigate whether the office of Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved. Prosecutors are attorneysfirst. The Bar Association is supposed to oversee the unethical behavior of attorneys, and we want to turn them in and file a formal complaint against the primary attorneys who are the leadership in the California Attorney Generals Office. FC: Do you believe the smear campaign conspiracy reaches far beyond California? BB: First, how could he have agreed to an article where he said all of these things and how did he even have the presence of mind to be a part of a conspiracy to initiate a public media campaign to help execute a man where the campaign is based on lies? The only thing I can assume from that and all of these institutions to be involved with him in doing this is that there's arrogance and they have gotten away with institutional abuse, maybe for years, decades. In life, part of the human condition is we do what works. We learn from what works and I have to assume that this has worked for him and for the Office of the Attorney General and for the CDCR. Do I think that the only ones who do this is the State of California? No. Does California have the only high level law enforcement officials who are arrogant? No. I've never known one to do an article and tell on himself before. That's a first. FC: What is most striking to you about his statements? BB: There are several things, including when he talks about all of those people who have been executed and sacrificed for the greater good of him being able to serve as an example to Europeans and a role model, of an articulate Black man on public occasions. Another is when he said that he tried to talk me into "persuading Williams to renounce the Crips" and so on. We never spoke of any such thing on any occasion, and he had to admit that he in fact lied to the writer after The New Yorker magazine called me to fact check his statements. FC: What is your plan of action? BB: Foremost, to continue the work of the Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Network, which is a membership network (www.stwlegacy.net) that promotes his street peace work for youth, advances his literacy project by donating books to high schools, and supports opposition to the death penalty. They may have killed his body, but they did not kill his legacy. FC: Thank you. (source: FinalCall.com) ILLINOIS: Death penalty to be sought in case of slain children Tiffany Hall admitted drowning her longtime friend's 3 young children in a bathtub where shed already cut a fetus from their mother's womb, authorities say. Now prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty if the East St. Louis woman is convicted of first-degree murder in the childrens slayings. Hall, 24, already faced a possible death sentence if convicted of killing the children's mother, Jimella Tunstall. Prosecutors filed their intent to seek the death penalty in the childrens deaths in St. Clair County Circuit Court on Wednesday. One of Hall's attorneys, James Gomric, declined to comment Wednesday night. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TEXAS, N.H., CALIF., ILL.
Rick Halperin Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:55:42 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
