July 17 TEXAS: Mother declared unfit to stand trial in baby's death A woman accused of leading authorities on a high-speed chase that ended with her infant daughter's death has been found incompetent to stand trial for murder. A psychologist who examined Aimee Andrea Fisher-Riza this month found she was agitated, has impaired judgment, illogical thought processes and was uncooperative and hostile. Fisher-Riza suffers from bipolar disorder and has psychotic features, according to a report by forensic psychologist J. Randall Price. Fisher-Riza led authorities from Somervell and Johnson counties on a high-speed chase in April that ended when the sport utility vehicle she was driving crashed into a concrete median and rolled several times in Alvarado. Her daughter, Alexxus Andrea Riza, had been in the SUV unrestrained and died after being ejected from the vehicle. (source: Houston Chronicle) ******************* Texas signs off on strict child predation bill Gov. Rick Perry and others appeared Monday at the Capitol to sign a bill to increase punishment for sexual predators whose victims are under the age of 14. Texas House Bill 8, also known as Jessica's Law, makes repeat offenders eligible for the death penalty and tracks sexual predators using global positioning devices, among other provisions. "The purpose of House Bill 8, as I said on the floor of the House, was to make Texas safer for our children and more dangerous for their predators," said State Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston. Jessica's Law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a nine-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and killed by a convicted sex offender in February 2005. Her father, Mark Lunsford, has been touring the country to promote similar laws. "I want to see all 50 states make tougher changes," said Lunsford, who attended the ceremony. "Not changes like some states try to do things to make people feel good. That's kind of worthless." For Lunsford, the most important provisions of the bill were those calling for GPS tracking and a minimum punishment of 25 years to life in prison without parole for aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 6 for continuous sexual abuse of any young child. The tracking process takes time, Lunsford said. Florida, where the 1st Jessica's Law passed, is still working on finding all registered sex offenders two years after the law took effect, he said. The most controversial aspect of the bill is the possibility that 2-time offenders could be sentenced to death, said John English, chief of staff for Rep. Riddle. "There are people who are not deterred by any level of penalty," English said. "Those are people that the death penalty is for. If you're not going to be deterred by anything and if the penalty won't keep you from committing the crime in the first place, then we want you to be removed from society permanently, either through life without parole or execution." Several organizations in opposition to the bill support harsher punishment of sex offenders and greater child-protection measures, but many of them are fundamentally opposed to the death penalty. "In these cases, the use of the death penalty is disproportionate for the crime," said Bob Van Steenburg, vice president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said in an e-mail. "No murder has been committed. Life without parole can both protect society from offenders as well as provide a severe punishment. The state does not need to take a life to accomplish its goals of punishment and protection." House Bill 8 becomes effective Sept. 1 and applies only to crimes committed on or after that date, according to Texas Legislature's Web site. "It's time to turn the tables, and instead of them stalking our kids, we will stalk them," Lunsford said. "Instead of them being our worst nightmare, we become theirs." Lunsford said he would like to make a difference at the national level and has formed a coalition of parents lobbying for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The federal act, signed in July 2006, mandates that a national sex offender registry be created and that the most severe offenders update authorities of their whereabouts every three months. "It takes money," Lunsford said. "Unfortunately, the federal government will sometimes pass bills without funding them, and then after 3 years, they die." (source: The Daily Texan) ILLINOIS: Death penalty sought in slaying----Woman was raped, beaten on Christmas DuPage prosecutors announced Monday that they will seek the death penalty for Robert Rejda, 25, the Oakbrook Terrace man accused of the 2006 Christmas rape and murder of Lauren Kiefer, a former classmate and neighbor. DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett told Judge Michael Burke that prosecutors think the death penalty would be appropriate if Rejda is convicted because the crime was committed during the course of felonies: aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion and residential burglary. Rejda, in court in an orange jail jumpsuit and wearing ankle, waist and wrist restraints, showed no emotion or expression as Birkett officially declared his intentions. Rejda is being represented by the DuPage County public defender's office. The victim's parents, Nick and Janice Kiefer, were present, but they declined to comment Monday. Lauren Kiefer, 24, celebrated Christmas with her family at a sister's home in Lombard, then returned home alone at 6:20 p.m. A window in the home near Oakbrook Terrace where Kiefer lived with her mother was broken, indicating that Rejda may have broken in before Kiefer's arrival, authorities said. Janice Kiefer returned home and discovered her daughter's battered body in the entryway. Rejda has a record of arrests and convictions dating to 1999. He has been in custody since Jan. 1, when he was arrested on traffic and drug charges, Birkett said. Rejda was charged Feb. 1 with the sexual assault of an Aurora woman in her home in October, prosecutors said. His DNA matched evidence gathered at the scene, according to law-enforcement sources. Birkett said Monday that he intends to ask Burke to use evidence from the Aurora case to bolster his request for the death penalty in the Kiefer case. Kiefer was a 2005 graduate of Columbia College in Chicago and had worked as a model in clothing ads. Rejda had known Kiefer since childhood and the 2 attended grade school together, but Birkett said there was no romantic link. The trial is not expected to start for at least a year. NEW YORK: Cop-killing suspects not eligible for death - yet Police Officer Russel Timoshenko's killers can't face the death penalty - for now. But if federal prosecutors do what police union officials want and take over the case, that could change. Because of a state appellate court ruling, New York's death penalty law no longer exists, but federal prosecutors have and will continue to bring death-eligible prosecutions. Yesterday, Patrolmen's Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch called on federal prosecutors in Brooklyn to take over the case of the killing of Timoshenko. It was the office of U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf that earlier this year got the death penalty against cop killer Ronell Wilson and has several other cases pending. But, for the moment, the staff of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' office bristled at that suggestion. "This is a Brooklyn district attorney's office [case]," said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for Hynes. "We will present to a grand jury and we will prosecute this case." Privately, a number of law enforcement sources said state and federal prosecutors are unlikely to be stampeded into shoehorning the Timoshenko case into a federal matter. But the sources concede that could change if evidence develops that suspects Dexter Bostic, Lee Woods and Robert Ellis were part of a gun trafficking, stolen car or prostitution ring, crimes that could give federal officials jurisdiction - at least on paper. "This case will be prosecuted by the Brooklyn district attorney's office," was all Robert Nardoza, a spokesman for Mauskopf, would say in response to Lynch's request. Ephraim Savitt is a Manhattan defense attorney who has been a special court-appointed counsel in federal capital punishment cases in Brooklyn, including the Wilson case. He believes U.S. prosecutors have a number of laws they could use to mount a death penalty prosecution against the suspected killers of Timoshenko. "It doesn't take much," Savitt said yesterday. A key statute is the federal racketeering law, which provides for the death penalty if a murder is committed in aid of racketeering, Savitt said. "If they have committed 2 crimes together and are out together, you can call it an enterprise," Savitt said. A federal obstruction of justice law also is so elastic that it could be stretched without much trouble to cover a cop killing like Timoshenko's, Savitt said. Frustrated by the lack of capital punishment in New York State, even for a police killing, Lynch implored federal prosecutors to take over the case. Tatyana and Leonid Timoshenko, the slain officer's parents, again applauded as Lynch called for federal intervention during a news conference outside the courtroom. "He's not facing that penalty at this time," said Patrick Megaro of Uniondale, attorney for Woods. "If the federal government picks it up, it's a different story. ... I wouldn't want the federal government to take the case." Timoshenko's parents didn't comment during Lynch's news conference, but stood, teary-eyed and clutching each other's hands, with Tatyana Timoshenko taking deep breaths. The parents left by a side door to the courthouse for a waiting police car that took them away. The Latest Robert Ellis, 34, and Lee Woods, 29, continued to point the finger at their co-defendant as the shooter. The judge allowed prosecutors to take a DNA sample from Woods in court, as he did last week with Ellis and Dexter Bostic, 34. Investigators think the DNA will help show who shot Timoshenko. The judge also ordered the suspects held without bail. (source: Newsday) ****************** New York Senate passes death penalty legislation In response to last weeks shooting in Brooklyn that led to the death of one New York City Police officer and serious injury to another, the State Senate Monday passed legislation to establish the death penalty for criminals who kill police officers. The legislation, which originally passed the Senate in May, would establish the death penalty for the intentional murder of a police officer, peace officer or an employee of the Department of Correctional Services. The legislation also addresses the concerns with respect to the murder of a police officer, peace officer, or correctional officer by mandating the sentence of life without parole if the jury is deadlocked and unable to agree on the death penalty sentence. The bill was sent to the Assembly. (source: Empire State News) ************************ News from New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty For more information contact: Bob Liff at 212-608-0333, George Arzt Communications, Inc. Statement by David Kaczynski, Exec Dir. of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty Calls Repeated State Senate Passage of a Death Penalty Bill an "Empty Gesture," New Yorkers Support Swift, Sure Punishment for Violent Criminals - The Death Penalty is Neither State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno knows that today's passage of a death penalty bill all but identical to one passed earlier this year is a cynical and empty gesture that has no chance of becoming law. It is unconscionable that he has led his chamber in this cynical exercise without addressing the plague of wrongful convictions that has seen 26 New Yorkers exonerated and freed after serving long sentences for murders or rapes they did not commit. We join all New Yorkers in grieving for the recent loss of Police Officer Timoshenko, and other officers and troopers who have died in the service of all of us. But Senator Bruno knows, as New Yorkers have learned, that the death penalty does not represent swift or sure punishment. No one has been executed in New York in 44 years. The principal effect of the death penalty is to create a lot more work for lawyers at the taxpayer's expense without any public benefit. A mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for those who murder police is a tough sentence fully enforceable in New York State. It protects those who protect us without wasting untold millions of dollars on a decades-long appeals process and without risking the execution of an innocent person. The death penalty is a system that buries its worst mistakes. Trying to reinstate the death penalty before tackling the plague of wrongful convictions is a cynical gesture aimed at diverting attention from other issues before the legislature. Senator Bruno knows the measure will not become law, no matter how many times he gets his conference to pass it.. New Yorkers have learned we can live without the death penalty. It is time for Senator Bruno to catch up with the people he represents. (source: readMedia) PENNSYLVANIA: !FREE MUMIA! END THE DEATH PENALTY! In solidarity, Laura Herrera and Jeff Mackler, Co-coordinators; The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal---- http://freemumia.org >From the Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan Dear Friends: On May 17, 2007, we presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeal of the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal v. Horn, U.S. Court of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001 (death penalty). It was an extraordinary day in my experience of three decades of death penalty litigation. This was certainly the most promising legal proceeding since the arrest of my client over 25 years ago. At last there is light at the end of the tunnel. Even though there is no way to know when or how the federal court will rule, the 3-judge panel's numerous questions certainly reflected their concern about what the prosecution had done wrong. A decision could be forthcoming anytime from mid-July to the fall. It was encouraging to see the courtroom packed with supporters for my client. A large crowd also waited outside during the hearing. There were international observers from various countries including France, and a prominent human rights lawyer from Berlin who is also a member of the German parliament. The focus of the federal court was on issues concerning the death penalty, misrepresentations by the prosecutor in his argument to the jury, and his racism in jury selection. The atmosphere was far different than previously experienced in this case, as reflected by the judges' overriding concern regarding misconduct by the prosecution. Early on one judge asked opposing counsel in reference to the prosecutor's misrepresentations to the jury during the 1982 trial: "Isn't that a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?" I therefore concluded the hearing by pointing out that even though it is judicially recognized that the Philadelphia District Attorney employed racism in cases both before and after that of Mr. Abu-Jamal, can anyone seriously believe that racism was not at work in this case involving an outspoken journalist who was a former member of the Black Panther Party and a supporter of MOVE's right to exist. Even though Mr. Abu-Jamal began writing me in 1986, it was not until 2003 that I was finally able to agree to take over as lead counsel. Since then my focus has been on raising his level of credibility, convincing courts to give serious consideration to the many constitutional violations what have occurred in this complex case, and overcoming the errors of the past case lawyers. To date we have been largely successful. Interestingly, every motion I have filed since briefing was ordered federally has been granted. Oral argument aimed to calmly and candidly dealing with the questions and concerns of the judges. It was not a time for political speeches or emotional-type arguments which I have successfully made before juries in countless murder cases. All possible arguments with supporting legal authority were previously made in our extensive written briefs. Supporting us with excellent briefs and argument was the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, and the National Lawyers Guild, both of whom I brought into the case some years ago. People frequently ask what can happen now. The federal court's choices involve various scenarios. These include remanding the case back to the U.S. District Court for further hearings, or granting an entirely new trial, or ordering a new jury trial limited to the penalty issue of life or death, or denying all relief with the case headed towards an execution. Our objective is a reversal of the conviction and death sentence, and the granting of a new trial. The primary problem we have experienced in Mr. Abu-Jamal's case, in additional to prosecution misconduct and racism, has been mistakes made by prior counsel ranging from not pursing an adequate investigation to failing to raise certain fundamental issues, e.g., judicial bias at trial. This has been evident in the federal appeal, accentuated by some of the judges' questions on May 17. We have taken all possible steps to overcome these shortcomings. The issues in the case of Mr. Abu-Jamal concern the right to a fair trial, the struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of an outspoken journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration, all of great constitutional significance, are: Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt. Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Whether the jury instructions and verdict form that resulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precluded the jurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular circumstance. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction hearings as the result of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he was "going to help'em fry the ni - - er." It is a pleasure to announce that we are once more engaged in briefing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On June 1, 2007, we filed on behalf of Mr. Abu-Jamal the opening Brief for Appellant. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, Pa. Sup. Ct. No. 485, Capital Appeals Div. (death penalty). The issues presented include the prosecution falsely manipulating eyewitness testimony, and its use of fabricated evidence. There are procedural problems which occurred before I entered the case, these are issues of such constitutional importance that they must be aggressively pursued. A copy of our brief is attached. I am in this case to win a new and fair trial for Mr. Abu-Jamal. That is his and my wish. The goal is for his freedom following a retrial. Nevertheless, Mr. Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. If all is lost, he will be executed. Your interest in this struggle for human rights and against the death penalty is appreciated. Yours very truly, Robert R. Bryan ---- Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal (source: Indybay)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ILL., N.Y., PENN.
Rick Halperin Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:09:37 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
