[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 11



CALIFORNIA:

Chester Turner's guilt in slaying 10 women was established 'beyond all
doubt,' judge says.


Chester Turner, the most prolific serial killer in the history of Los
Angeles, was sentenced to death Tuesday for the murders of 10 women, most
of them prostitutes.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William Pounders said Turner's
guilt was established "beyond all doubt."

"I don't think any jury would arrive at a different conclusion," Pounders
told Turner, 40, who had repeatedly proclaimed his innocence.

Turner was found guilty April 30 of killing 10 women, including one who
was pregnant, in South Los Angeles and downtown's skid row between 1987
and 1998. He strangled 8 with his bare hands. 4 of the killings took place
within 6 blocks of Turner's home.

DNA evidence linked him to all his victims. His identification cleared
another man who had been wrongly convicted of two of his crimes.

Turner's brutal actions show "a level of cruelty rarely seen in murder
trials," Pounders said. The judge denied motions for a new trial and
agreed that the jury's finding that Turner deserved death was "proper
according to the law."

Turner joins the roster of L.A. area's most notorious killers: Charles
Manson, "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, "Freeway Killer" William Bonin
and "Hillside Stranglers" Angelo Buono Jr. and Kenneth Bianchi.

Turner also raped his victims, most of them women in South Los Angeles
addicted to crack cocaine.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Bobby Grace urged Pounders to impose a sentence of
death. Probation officials reported that they could find no factors that
mitigated Turner's culpability.

Turner "not only took pleasure in torturing and killing the women, but he
apparently got pleasure from seeing the pain he caused their families to
endure when he went to dinners held in the homes of the victims' families
after the funerals," according the report filed by probation officer Leon
Alberts.

The victims, in the order they died, were Diane Johnson, 21; Annette
Ernest, 26; Anita Fishman, 31; Regina Washington, 27, who was pregnant;
Andrea Tripplett, 29; Desarae Jones, 29; Natalie Price, 31; Mildred
Beasley, 45; Paula Vance, 38; and Brenda Bries, 37. Many of their
relatives said the victims were not professional prostitutes, but had been
driven to it by their addiction to crack cocaine.

"It's your turn now," said Frank Jones Jr., son of victim Desarae Jones.
He is one of six survivors who spoke in court of their loss. Turner looked
steadily at each speaker.

Survivors lined up to excoriate Turner and to praise both Grace and Cliff
Shepard, the Los Angeles Police Department detective who cracked the case.

"The hole he has punched in our hearts will never close," Jerri Johnson
Tripplett said of Turner. Tripplett's daughter, Andrea, died in 1993.
Referring to Andrea's child, Tripplett said, "There is no more mommy to
hug and kiss you. Mommy never had a chance to say goodbye. No more mommy
at all. Only Granny." Mildred White, mother of Annette Ernest, a 1987
victim, said, "I've turned over all of my grief, all of my revenge over to
the Lord," then described her agony as "a hurt that will never end."

Turner made no statement, nor did his lawyer, John Tyre. Turner receives
automatic appeals, which often stretch out for decades. Grace predicted
that before Turner is executed at San Quentin State Prison, as Pounders
ordered, "I'll be retired."

Turner becomes the 665th inmate on California's death row. The state,
however, is currently barred by a federal judge's order from executing any
inmate until issues with the execution protocol are resolved.

Turner, dressed in orange jail garb, watched intently as the judge
pronounced his sentence.

"He's doing the same now as he was before," Tyre said of Turner. "He
claims he's innocent. He's very inquisitive about going over the
transcripts, the police reports and reviewing what happened in trial, in
anticipating the appeal."

Tyre said they had not discussed the possibility of his execution.

"No," Tyre said. "We don't talk about that."

(source: Los Angeles Times)

*****************************

Home sweet San Quentin?----Bill moving toward governor would pave way for
homes on unused prison grounds


Regular citizens may yet live in new San Quentin-area homes in Marin
County with breathtaking views of San Francisco Bay.

Perhaps frustrated commuters also will take ferries from the site.

Democratic legislators Tuesday, joined by Republicans, sent a bill on
controversial San Quentin Prison for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign
that matches his philosophies of cutting government costs and forging
deals with the private sector to avoid tax increases.

The measure could give the governor a politically safe way to retain San
Quentin Prison and drop expansion as he embraces a decade-old legislative
quest to open at least the unused southwestern portion of the 275-acre
plot to developers' dreams of housing and other uses.

Lawmakers' attempts to close the aging prison since at least 1986, and
more recently to block a $336.5 million expansion of its death row, have
failed in the face of inmate overcrowding and numerous prison system woes
that have ended up in the courts.

Assembly Bill 1743, by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, would
block spending on the new death-row complex without legislative approval
while state auditors explored alternative sites for housing some of the
condemned inmates.

Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco,
and Marin County supervisors support the measure. The nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst's Office also has recommended against proceeding with
death-row expansion.

But the governor has not taken a position on AB1743, which passed the
Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-0 bipartisan vote.

Huffman testified his bill "would leave San Quentin and the existing death
row right where it is."

Meanwhile, the state Audits Bureau would study "noncorrectional" uses of
extra land, including lucrative state partnerships with local governments
and the private sector to provide services such as affordable housing and
a public-transit hub featuring ferries.

"This bill says let's do a very quick study that will be completed by next
April to see if there aren't some smarter options available before we
write a blank check to the Department of Corrections," Huffman said.

Republican Sen. Dave Cogdill of Fresno said the bill "falls in line" with
more efficient use of prison funds.

The study for alternative sites for death-row prison expansion also would
include the Central Valley. Prisons bring business to the surrounding
community.

Migden, a bill co-author, cited in particular the need for affordable,
subsidized Bay Area housing that could be placed on unused San Quentin
land.

"We have a problem with affordable housing for new residents in Marin
County, probably the gravest in the state," Migden said.

"I don't mean affordable by Bay Area standards, which means your income is
$150,000 to $200,000 annually," she said. "I mean housing really for the
working population  agricultural workers, oyster shuckers, farm and dairy
workers."

San Quentin's death-row expansion has been plagued by problems including
escalating cost estimates but has its supporters beyond the
administration.

Inmate attorneys argue the expansion should go forward because it would
ease their ability to communicate in person with clients.

The prison guards' union wants the expansion to lessen pressure on its
correctional officers to work overtime in the current, inadequate
facility.

(source: Inside Bay Area)

**********************************

High time the hands-off approach to prosecutorial misconduct changes


I am a former prosecutor and longtime observer and critic of prosecutorial
behavior. I believe that most prosecutors conduct themselves
professionally and ethically. Some prosecutors occasionally deviate from
proper standards of conduct through negligence or zeal. But there are some
prosecutors who regularly break the law, and it is those rogue prosecutors
who should be held accountable for their abuse of power. Regrettably, as
many empirical studies have shown, nothing happens to such prosecutors,
even if they regularly engage in misconduct.

Consider the case of People vs. Hill, a death penalty case reversed by the
California Supreme Court for what it described as "serious, blatant and
continuous misconduct" by the prosecutor. The court noted that the same
prosecutor had been cited for misconduct in 3 other appellate cases. Yet
state bar records of that prosecutor reveal she has no record of being
disciplined.

The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice is about
to hold a public hearing on how to address the problem of unethical
prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers. With respect to California,
there is general agreement that, as in the rest of the United States,
professional discipline of prosecutors is extremely rare. The absence of
significant discipline is particularly noteworthy in cases in which
prosecutors have deliberately suppressed evidence that led to the reversal
of a defendant's conviction and a stinging rebuke by a court.

The most disturbing examples are those cases involving defendants who were
wrongly accused and convicted and later exonerated. Although one would
realistically expect disciplinary bodies to proceed aggressively against
such unscrupulous conduct, that isn't the case. And ironically, of all the
ethical rules regulating the conduct of prosecutors, the ethical rule
governing a prosecutor's suppression of evidence is the most explicit and
the easiest to enforce. Yet, even when faced with this most dangerous
misconduct, disciplinary bodies typically look the other way.

Why the hands-off approach? There are several reasons. First, disciplinary
groups believe that internal controls in place in prosecutor's offices are
sufficient to address the problem. Although some prosecutor's offices have
established guidelines for compliance with discovery obligations, most
offices do not monitor the problem effectively and do not impose sanctions
even for willful non-compliance.

Second, disciplinary bodies believe that courts have the ability to
supervise prosecutorial excesses. But courts do not impose sanctions
against prosecutors. Courts decide cases, and when convictions are
reversed for prosecutorial misconduct, courts assume that they have done
their job and that some other body will take over.

Third, there is a political ingredient in the unwillingness of bar
associations to investigate prosecutors. Most bar associations view
prosecutors, who are, after all, part of the executive branch, as the
champions of public justice and typically defer to the power of the
executive branch even in instances of egregious misconduct.

The California Rules of Professional Conduct, as presently codified, are
unduly lenient to prosecutors. For example, only in cases of reversal or
modification of judgment by an appellate court is the judiciary required
to notify the state bar disciplinary body. But the standard for reversal
or modification has almost nothing to do with whether a prosecutor has
violated ethical rules. Even in the face of blatant unethical conduct by a
prosecutor, an appellate court will not undo a criminal conviction unless
the evidence against a defendant was particularly weak or there were other
judicial errors.

The California rule should explicitly state that whenever a prosecutor is
found by a court to have violated his or her ethical obligations, the
court must notify the state bar. Moreover, there should be a presumption
that in such cases professional sanctions are appropriate.

Finally, I have for a long time advocated the creation of an independent
disciplinary body - separate from the State Bar discipline committee - to
investigate misconduct by prosecutors, similar to those commissions that
investigate misconduct by judges. As a quasi-judicial official ethically
obligated to seek justice, a prosecutor is more like a judge than a
private practitioner, and should be subject to special oversight by a
disciplinary body that possesses expertise in criminal procedure, with
resources that need not be shared with oversight of the private bar.

Making prosecutors accountable for their misconduct is a difficult task.
It is much easier for disciplinary bodies to look the other way.
Hopefully, the commission's hearing this week will provide greater insight
into the deficiencies in the professional discipline of prosecutors and
point the way to much-needed ethical reforms.

(source: Editorial, Bennett Gershman, Mercury News)






USA:

The death penalty: Is it time for a national moratorium?


President George W. Bush's recent commutation of convicted felon I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby's jail sentence confronts the nation with a startling
contrast in unequal justice. As governor of Texas, Bush refused to spare
the lives of over 150 people, all impoverished and the majority of color,
while as president he mercifully rescues a wealthy White colleague from
his 30-month prison sentence. This and other related events around the
country have inspired MSR Staff Writer Charles Hallman to take an in-depth
look at why we as a nation continue to condone a form of punishment
consistently applied so disproportionately by race and class.

According to Amnesty International, over 300 countries worldwide have
abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice. Yet, since the
death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, judicial
killing continues in this country.

38 U.S. states still have the death penalty. The U.S. Department of
Justice's 2006 Capital Punishment Statistics reveal that 53 persons, all
males, were executed last year: 32 were White and 21 were Black.

Texas led with 24; Ohio had 5, with 4 each in Florida, North Carolina,
Oklahoma and Virginia, and 1 each in Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee, California, Montana and Nevada. All 53 were executed
by lethal injection except for 1 who was electrocuted.

Minnesota is one of 12 states without the death penalty. The state
legislature abolished it in 1911, 6 years after executioners botched the
hanging of 28-year-old William Williams, who was convicted to death for
murdering a 16-year-old. It took almost 15 minutes for him to die by
strangulation in the Ramsey County Jail in 1906 because the executioners
used a rope that was too long.

Although there have been many attempts to have it reinstated, including
current Gov. Tim Pawlenty's 2004 death penalty plan in response to the
abduction and murder of Dru Sjodin, Minnesota lawmakers have refused to
bring capital punishment back to the state.

The federal government and the military also allow the death penalty, but
according to a 2000 U.S. Justice Department report on the federal death
penalty system, the federal government executed only 33 defendants during
the period from 1930 to 1999. During the same time period, however, the
report found that state governments executed over 4,400 defendants.

Is the death penalty applied fairly among racial groups? Proponents argue
that it is because there are more White inmates on death row than any
other group. However, according to an Amnesty International report, Blacks
account for more than 40 % of the country's death row inmates.

Furthermore, the report surmised that at least one in 5 Blacks executed
since 1977 has been convicted by all-White juries, and that over 300
Blacks have been executed in the United States since 1976.

"I don't think the average person in this country has an idea of the
extent to which [the U.S. justice system] is flawed and messed up," noted
Laura Moye of Amnesty International's Southern Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia.

Hamline University Law School Professor Robin Magee said that if Minnesota
currently had the death penalty, there would very likely be a disparity in
how it is applied based on race. "We have the worst Black-and-White
disparity in the country in sentencing and other categories in the
criminal justice system," she pointed out.

A second point that death penalty supporters usually argue is that it
deters crime. Economics Professor Naci Mocan at the University of Colorado
at Denver co-authored a 2003 study that concluded that each execution
results in 5 fewer homicides, one of a dozen such studies supporting the
theory that capital punishment had deterrent effects.

A 2003 nationwide study by Emory University professors claimed that each
execution deters an average of 18 murders yearly. And, in the four years
following the 2000 Illinois moratorium on executions, there were 150
additional homicides, a 2006 University of Houston study pointed out.

Opponents, however, argue that the death penalty has shown little or no
effect on violent crime rates. "Clearly there is no proof that it has a
deterrence effect," said Professor Magee.

Third, death penalty proponents believe that execution provides justice
for the victims and relief for their survivors. The victim and the
brutality of the murder "is the foundation of the just nature of the death
penalty," wrote Dudley Sharp, vice-president of Justice for All, a
Texas-based victims' rights group that maintains a website
(prodeathpenalty.com).

"There is no proof that the victim's family report that they feel any
better, even after watching the killer of the loved one executed," Magee
countered. "People could get closure without a death penalty - and people
do."

4th, proponents maintain that the majority of Americans favor the death
penalty. However, a 2006 Gallup Poll reported that 48 % of those asked
support life sentences without parole, up 9 % from the 2005 poll when 39 %
favored life sentences.

Organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations have
long argued against the death penalty, and have consistently called for
the United States, like other countries such as South Africa, to impose a
moratorium against death sentences or abolish them altogether. "While we
say we are champions of human rights around the world, we pick and choose
when it comes to human rights," noted Moye. "While we want the rest of the
world to follow human rights standards, we often take exception when it is
not convenient for us."

A 2000 United Nations report expressed concern "at the discriminatory
manner in which the death penalty is applied in the United States of
America." The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002
called for a death penalty moratorium worldwide, and especially in the
U.S.

"The death penalty is often imposed after trials which do not conform to
international standards of fairness and that persons belonging to national
or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities appear to be
disproportionally subject to the death penalty," the Commission noted.

However, U.S. President George Bush defended the U.S.'s use of the death
penalty in a speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2002. He
criticized the idea of a death penalty moratorium, adding that the death
penalty provides "equal justice" for which the U.S. will "always stand
firm."

Moye said that the primary reason why the U.S. still has the death penalty
is purely political: "The death penalty is very politically driven because
you have elected officials, i.e. district attorneys, who determine whether
or not to seek the death penalty."

Racism and the Administration of Justice, a 2006 Human Rights Watch
report, cited a 2000 U.S. Justice Department finding that 80 % of federal
defendants in capital trials were members of racial minorities, as were 74
% of convicted defendants for whom prosecutors recommended the death
penalty. In capital cases that involve a White victim, the death penalty
is more likely sought and imposed than is the case for non-White victims,
according to a 1990 United States General Accounting Office report on
death penalty sentencing.

"In 82 % of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to
influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving
the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered Whites were found more likely
to be sentenced to death than those who murdered Blacks," the report
surmised.

Also, according to statistics on executions by race in the United States
since 1976 complied by the Death Penalty Information Center in April, only
15 executions took place where the White defendant was convicted for
murdering a Black person, whereas 214 executions were carried out where
the defendant was Black and the victim was White.

The death penalty "is inherently cruel, irreversible, and partly
susceptible to discrimination in its application, [and] should be
abolished," the report concluded. "If we were regularly executing people
of means or White people, I don't think the country would accept it as
well as they do now," Magee believes.

Finally, according to the Death Penalty Information Center Year End Report
released in December 2006, the use of the death penalty in the U.S. has
dropped to its lowest level in 10 years because many states grappled with
problems with wrongful convictions and using lethal injections.
Nonetheless, the death penalty still remains on the books on almost
three-fourths of the states.

"Is it racially discriminatory?" Magee asked rhetorically. "Yes,
abundantly so, and most people in the system understand that."

(source: Charles Hallman, Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder)