Sept. 27 ALABAMA: Alabama changing lethal injection procedure Attorneys for Alabama death row inmate Tommy Arthur sought a stay of his execution based on Gov. Bob Riley's decision Wednesday to change the state's lethal injection procedures. Riley decided to change the procedure to provide additional safeguards to make sure inmates are unconscious before administered drugs to stop the lungs and heart, said Jeff Emerson, Riley's communications director. Arthur is scheduled to die at Holman prison near Atmore at 6 p.m. Thursday, and the change can't be accomplished in time for it, Emerson said. The change came one week before a federal court trial challenging whether Alabama's lethal injection procedures allow inmates to remain partially conscious and suffer unconstitutionally cruel pain during their deaths. Arthur's attorney sought to delay the execution based on Alabama's planned change and on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing Tuesday to review Kentucky's lethal injection procedures. In papers filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, Arthur's pro bono attorney, Suhana Han of New York, argued that the planned change in Alabama's procedures should prompt the postponement of Arthur's execution. "At this point, we are hopeful the fact that the state of Alabama is essentially conceding deficiencies in its protocol will help Mr. Arthur gain a stay," she said. Emerson and Assistant Attorney General Clay Crenshaw said the state is not conceding any deficiencies. "This is being done even though we believe the current protocol is constitutional," Emerson said. Crenshaw, who opposes a stay, characterized the change as very minor and said it was not in response to Arthur or other inmates challenging Alabama's procedures. "It's just another way to ensure the inmate is unconscious before drugs two and three go into the bloodstream," he said. The details of the change are still being worked out, but Emerson said it could include more anesthetic and an additional check for unconsciousness. Court papers filed by the state attorney general's office late Wednesday afternoon said that in addition to having the warden watch the inmate for any signs of consciousness, someone else would be in the execution chamber with the condemned "to assess consciousness." The court papers did not identify the person's profession or training. Arthur, 65, was sentenced to death for the 1982 murder-for-hire killing of 35-year-old Troy Wicker of Muscle Shoals. Emerson said the governor's legal adviser began to review Alabama's procedures after a federal judge ruled last week that Tennessee's procedures are unconstitutionally cruel. "Their protocol is very similar to what Alabama does," Emerson said. Arthur's attorneys also asked the Alabama Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of his execution based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to review lethal injection as a form of execution in Kentucky. Alabama's attorney general urged the justices not to step in, arguing that Arthur is merely trying to delay his execution and that his case is significantly different from the one in Kentucky. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review Kentucky's lethal injection policies didn't prevent an execution Tuesday night in Texas. (source: Associated Press) ********************** Governor Riley Issues 45-Day Stay of Execution for Tommy Arthur Governor Bob Riley granted a brief stay of execution to Thomas Arthur, a death row inmate who was scheduled to die by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Thursday. The Governor made the decision to grant a stay of 45 days and met with Commissioner Richard Allen of the Alabama Department of Corrections on Thursday morning. "The evidence is overwhelming that Thomas Arthur is guilty and he will be executed for his crime. The decision to grant a brief stay is being made only because the state is changing its lethal injection protocol, and this will allow sufficient time for the Department of Corrections to make that change," Governor Riley said. "It is my desire that, as soon as the stay has expired, justice will be administered to Thomas Arthur. I have encouraged the Attorney General to make a motion with the Alabama Supreme Court for a new date of execution as soon as possible." (source: nbc15 news) ************** Individual DAs ripped in release from King As part of an ongoing dispute over a death penalty case, Attorney General Troy King last week sent out critical news releases to members of the media that in some instances named individual district attorneys across the state. 15 district attorneys were targeted with the customized statements. Their names were inserted into the releases that went to media in their jurisdictions. A King spokesman said the releases were simply designed to get across his side and to alert local news outlets that their local district attorney was involved. An official with the Alabama District Attorney's Association said the releases were out of line. "The district attorneys of Alabama find his conduct unfortunate, inappropriate and sad," said Randy Hillman, executive director of the Alabama District Attorney's Association. "That is all we are going to say about this situation." The releases are the latest episode in the ongoing public dispute between King and a majority of the district attorneys in the state after the attorney general took a capital murder case away from Shelby County District Attorney Robby Owens. "My instructions to our press office on sending this out was to go to the media in the circuits of the district attorneys who have either publicly committed to support and condone Mr. Owens' actions through press accounts or who physically stood with Mr. Owens at the press conference called by the District Attorney's Association," said Chris Bence, chief of staff for King. Bence said sending out releases with a local connection is standard operating procedure and said it is something the office does with safe school awards, senior conferences and some crimes. The disagreement started Sept. 12, when King's office sent out a release stating it was taking the case from Owens to try to maintain the death sentence of a man who did not kill the victims, but was an accomplice. Both men received the death penalty, but a later U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed the younger man from death row because he was a minor when the crime occurred. Owens argued, and a judge agreed, it would not be equitable to keep the accomplice on death row and not the shooter. King's first release not only said he was taking over the case, but said Owens acted on the side of the criminal and shirked his duty. The Alabama District Attorney's Association supported Owens and asked King to apologize. Several members said King's actions were political and initiated because Owens supported Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. in last year's campaign for attorney general. (source: Press-Register) ************************************************ Troy King misjudges role THE ISSUE: Attorney General Troy King's job is not to win convictions or death sentences at all costs. It's to do justice. Give Troy King credit for appreciating a good sound bite, if not the pivotal role prosecutors are supposed to play in the criminal justice system. Alabama's attorney general demonstrated as much in his recent actions with regard to a death-penalty case in Shelby County and again Saturday in his remarks to a rally in Birmingham to memorialize homicide victims. "No more standing with criminals. No more standing against victims," King said at the National Day of Remembrance for Homicide Victims. "I may stand alone, but I stand with you." Of course, nobody wants to stand against those who are traumatized by brutal, senseless crimes. But King's words - coupled with his actions of late - suggest the attorney general truly does not grasp the real role prosecutors are supposed to play in courts of justice. Justice is the key word here. In the course of doing their jobs, prosecutors certainly give voice to the pain and injuries suffered by crime victims. But their job is not to represent victims or their survivors, or to win convictions, or to ensure the maximum punishment is inflicted. Their job, simply put, is to see that justice is done. Sometimes, that might even mean taking a different view than crime victims or their loved ones. King demonstrated a lack of appreciation of his responsibilities this month in seizing control of a Shelby County death penalty case after accusing District Attorney Robby Owens of taking the side of the defendants who held up a pawn shop in 1996 and killed the store's owner and manager. Owens' infraction? He concluded that since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made it impossible to execute the 16-year-old triggerman, it wouldn't be fair to execute a 19-year-old co-defendant who didn't kill anyone. He concluded it wouldn't be justice to execute an accomplice if the actual killer escaped the ultimate punishment because of his age at the time of the crime. As Owens acknowledges, none of this can be expected to be welcome news to the families of victims John Burleson and Janice Littleton; their personal loss is too great. But victims are not required to be dispassionate. Prosecutors are. All but one of the state's 42 district attorneys joined in criticizing King for the "scathing verbal attack" on Owens. A statement from the Alabama District Attorneys Association said Owens did what prosecutors are supposed to do - that is, seek justice. Owens' stance in the LaSamuel Gamble case "epitomizes the fairness and courage that should be demonstrated when a district attorney is faced with the daunting task of making a decision concerning the most important and undeniably the most controversial issue within our criminal justice system - the fair and equal application of the death penalty," the statement said. True, some of these district attorneys don't, in our estimation, always practice this principle as well as they preached it last week to King. But that doesn't excuse King's conduct. King came to the job lacking prosecutorial experience, so maybe he just doesn't get it. Or maybe he does get it, and he just doesn't care. Either way, that's not what Alabama needs in its top prosecutor. (source: Opinion, The Birmingham News) GEORGIA: Georgia death penalty will die The death penalty is destined to die a slow, lingering death in Georgia. The Legislature will take no action to end it. Juries in the state may still impose it from time to time. But the number of convicted murders who make it to the state's lethal injection chamber will slowly decline over the next few years to the point where prosecutors will no longer think it is politically necessary to spend the time, energy and money to seek the death sentence. And voters, the prosecutors will eventually discover, won't hold it against them. They'll be satisfied that putting a convicted killer away for life, with no chance for parole, makes more sense than taking years and spending millions of dollars adjudicating the sentence, not the crime. The trends are already apparent. According to an investigative project by reporters at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, juries have grown increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty over the last five years, and prosecutors are taking capital cases to juries only about half as often as they did in the 1980s and '90s. Then there's Brian Nichols and Stacey Ian Humphreys, the death-penalty defendants du jour. Attorneys for Nichols, the accused Fulton County Courthouse killer, have already charged the state nearly $2 million for defending him, and are now demanding even more. The Georgia Public Defenders Standards Council, which is paying the tab, says it has no more money, and wants Fulton County to pick up more of the costs. On Monday, the state Supreme Court said Fulton County isn't responsible for some of the expenses the defense wants paid. Delays in deciding who pays for these and other defense needs may delay the trial again. It has already been delayed twice. The Nichols' courthouse rampage that spilled into Atlanta streets and claimed four lives occurred in March of 2005. The defense team's strategy has been to delay the case as long as possible, putting pressure on the prosecutor to end the ordeal by taking the death penalty off the table and racking up an enormous bill for state taxpayers. Humphreys, on the other hand, was accused of killing 2 Cobb County real estate agents in cold blood in November 2003. Humphreys robbed them in a west Cobb model home, stole their ATM cards and killed them. When police arrested Humphreys a few days later in Wisconsin, he had hundreds of dollars in cash, a gun with DNA of one of the victims on it and evidence of blood from the other victim on a floor mat of his vehicle. He told detectives that he would rather plead guilty than face the victims' families. Humphrey is defended by 2 lawyers, whose fees are being split between Cobb County taxpayers and the state. In the nearly 4 years since the murders, the defense has filed numerous procedural motions, including a failed effort to suppress Humphrey's statements to police. Citing pre-trial publicity, they did succeed in getting the case moved to Brunswick, Ga. On Monday, when it came time for attorneys to present the defense that taxpayers had financed, they offered none. Not a single witness was called. The Brunswick jury convicted him Tuesday in less than 5 hours. But Humphrey's guilt or innocence was never in real question in the trial. The question has always been whether he deserves to die. That's also what the Nichols trial is about. In fact, that's why all death penalty cases cost so much and take so long to come to trial. That's also why the death penalty in Georgia will slowly die. The Legislature will never proclaim that the risk of killing an innocent defendant outweighs the retribution we think we get from executions. It will never accept that there's no good evidence backing up the claim that death sentences deter crime, and it will never claim the high moral ground by banning state-sanctioned murder. Instead, we'll just figure out it's not worth it. (source: MIke King, Opinion, Atlanta Journal-Constitution) ********************* Death penalty unfair, must be abolished----Georgia sentences arbitrarily driven by race, politics, geography For criminal cases involving the most severe punishment that society can inflict, justice has never been blind. As we're learning, it probably never can be. In the 4-part series "A Matter of Life or Death," a team of reporters for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed Georgia murder cases dating between 1995 and 2004 that could have qualified the killer for the death penalty. They found that in many cases, the final sentence was influenced more by trivial circumstances such as geography, a prosecutor's personal politics or the victim's race than it was by more important considerations, such as the nature of the killer's crime or its relative brutality. Many of the cases profiled in the series involve acts of horrific and sickening violence that justify harsh, even lifelong punishment. The killers did more than cut short the lives of innocent victims, they attacked the community at large, assaulting the sense of safety that makes it possible to live together in peace. Some of those defendants also showed no remorse for their actions, a lack of repentance that makes it easier to dismiss them as hopelessly depraved creatures who are deserving of death, the ultimate penalty. But if society chooses to inflict death, it has an obligation to do so fairly. A death sentence should not be arbitrary and capricious, imposed on some but not on others who are guilty of even more heinous crimes. And because a death sentence is absolute, it should be imposed only in cases where the person's guilt is absolutely certain, and it should be imposed based on clear standards in the law, not on the human biases and prejudices that afflict all of us. The death penalty as it is imposed here in Georgia does not meet those minimum standards. For example: District attorneys in metro Atlanta counties such as DeKalb and Fulton routinely offer defendants in capital crimes the option of pleading guilty and facing life sentences without hope of parole. But in similar cases elsewhere in the state, prosecutors seek and win death penalty sentences, making the punishment irrational. "It would make as much sense just to execute every 10th or every 100th murderer [as] it would be to figure out the rhyme or reason for why we're picking the ones to get the death penalty," as Atlanta defense attorney Jack Martin noted. Race has played a role in the administration of justice in this country since its founding. That ugly and intractable dynamic is still evident today; according to a statistical analysis of more than a thousand cases, prosecutors in Georgia were twice as likely to seek the death penalty if the victim was white than if the victim was black. In the more specific category of murders carried out during an armed robbery, defendants were an astonishing six times as likely to face death sentences if the person they killed was white. The Georgia Supreme Court has the responsibility to scrutinize death sentences to ensure the penalty is being applied uniformly statewide, based on precedents set in earlier cases. But former and sitting justices openly admit that their "proportionality reviews" have often been woefully sloppy and inaccurate. In the vast majority of 159 such reviews undertaken since 1982, the justices have cited cases as precedent that had actually been dismissed, overturned or reversed on appeal, including some that had been overturned by the justices themselves. Only 14 of those 159 proportionality reviews cited no cases that had been reversed. In 1972, citing evidence that the death penalty in Georgia was being applied in a similarly arbitrary manner, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out death-penalty laws here and in 39 other states as well. Since then, laws have been rewritten and processes and safeguards allegedly tightened, but to little apparent effect. The difficulties of fairly, accurately and efficiently carrying out the death penalty in Georgia are further illustrated by 2 prominent cases in the news. The first involves Brian Nichols, charged in a sensational 2005 killing spree that left four people dead, including a judge, his court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent. The proceedings have been repeatedly delayed by controversy over the cost of Nichols' state-appointed legal defense, which has now reached more than $1.8 million. The multiple crimes alleged to have been committed by Nichols are at least as heinous as those that have put other people on Death Row. But even if Nichols is found guilty, at this point the odds of a death sentence being imposed and carried out against him appear pretty slim. If that assessment proves valid, it would add to the already overwhelming evidence of the arbitrary nature of the death penalty in Georgia. The 2nd Georgia case involves the fate of Troy Anthony Davis, who was convicted in 1991 of killing a Savannah police officer and has been sitting on death row ever since. Davis was convicted based exclusively on eyewitness testimony, which in other cases has proved notoriously unreliable, especially when no supporting physical evidence existed. For example, in cases in which DNA evidence has exonerated felons of crimes they did not commit, faulty eyewitness reports often turns out to have played a central role in the original conviction. In the Davis case, the uncertain nature of eyewitness testimony is compounded by the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses have since recanted or contradicted their testimony naming Davis as the killer. Yet Davis was one day from execution before state officials agreed to a temporary stay to examine his case more carefully. Georgia's death penalty law can and should be updated to try to wring as much unfairness as possible from the system, but reform can never eradicate the possibility of error, and it can never remove human bias and prejudice from the process. Imposing the absolute penalty requires absolute justice, and in the absence of that, the death penalty ought to be abolished. (source: Lyle V. Harris, for the editorial board, Atlanta Journal-Constitution) NEW YORK: DA candidate supports death penalty for cop killers Broome County District Attorney Candidate Michael Korchak is calling for the death penalty for convicted cop killers if he is elected as the next District Attorney. In May, the state Senate passed a death penalty bill for the intentional murder of an officer. Korchak says he will join the New York State Senate and Governor Eliot Spitzer in lobbying for the state Assembly to act. Korchak is running against current DA Gerald Mollen, who is in favor of the death penalty in limited situations. But Korchak says he will seek the strongest penalty available when prosecuting criminals responsible for the death of an officer. Broome County District Attorney Candidate Michael Korchak is calling for the death penalty for convicted cop killers if he is elected as the next District Attorney. "It really doesn't seem a coincidence that in the past few years since the death penalty laws have been stricken down, that there seems to be an increase on shootings of police officers," said Korchak. "I understand there might have been some statements made that the death penalty might lower the crime rate. I think that's kind of a silly statement, but I think thats not the reason for having the death penalty. I think there's some heinous crimes where the only just outcome would be the penalty of death," Mollen said. Mollen has served as District Attorney for the past 20 years. Korchak worked as a senior assistant DA in the county for 11 years. (source: 10now News) ILLINOIS: Feds accuse suspended Chicago officer of planning hit, investigate cop torture allegations The reputation of the Chicago Police Department has received a battering at the hands of a federal prosecutor. First, authorities announced Wednesday that a suspended police officer is accused of planning the murder-for-hire of a fellow police officer he feared would testify against him. In connection with that case, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald revealed a federal investigation of a Chicago police unit that targets drugs and gangs. He also announced his office is investigating perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice allegations tied to current federal civil lawsuits resulting from claims of torture by Chicago police in the 1980s. A group of Chicago alderman urged Fitzgerald last week to take action in the torture case, in which detectives in a violent crimes unit were accused of dunking suspects in water, beating them and subjecting them to electric shocks to wring out confessions. While Fitzgerald wouldn't reveal many details, he said the investigation has been "ongoing a while." And he warned people approached by federal investigators that they "should be very clear that we expect the truth and no one should be foolish enough to contemplate lying to us." A $6 million investigation by two special prosecutors produced a 300-page report in July 2006 that said police tortured suspects, but the cases were too old to warrant criminal charges. Police department critics denounced the report by the special prosecutors, who were appointed by the chief judge of Cook County's criminal courts, as politically motivated and a whitewash. While the statute of limitations may have expired, they said there was plenty of opportunity to bring criminal charges against any former officer who lied in pending civil lawsuits. The allegations focus on activities of the Area 2 violent crimes unit under the command of then-Lt. Jon Burge, who has denied he ever engaged in torture but was fired after a police investigation found a suspect was mistreated in his custody. "I'm happy to hear that the government has announced that they are investigating at long last the torture at Area 2 by Jon Burge and his men," said G. Flint Taylor, an attorney for several men bringing lawsuits. Telephone calls Wednesday to Chicago police for a response to Fitzgerald's comments were not returned. When notified of Fitzgerald's remarks, Burge attorney Richard Sikes said the allegations "have been fairly investigated by the special prosecutors" who found there were no grounds for criminal charges. In a related matter, Fitzgerald said the federal government is investigating a January 1987 arson that killed seven people and injured many more, a crime that former death row inmate Madison Hobley said he confessed to after being tortured by Burge and his men. Fitzgerald did not say that investigators were zeroing in on Hobley, 1 of 4 inmates pardoned by former Gov. George Ryan in January 2003 as he was preparing to leave office. But Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges told a City Council Finance Committee hearing that Hobley was the target of the investigation. Taylor, who is Hobley's lawyer, said the remarks represented "a smear campaign by Mara Georges." While Fitzgerald never used Hobley's name, he did answer a question about trying a person for the same crime twice. "If we file charges against someone, if we believe there is evidence sufficient to prove that they carried out this murder, it would be irrelevant legally whether or not that person was charged or convicted or pardoned in the state system," Fitzgerald said. "This would be a federal offense." Meanwhile, Chicago police officer Jerome Finnigan, 44, appeared in federal court Wednesday on charges he considered hiring street gang members to kill a former fellow cop and potential witness against him killed. Finnigan is 1 of 6 members of an elite Chicago police unit already accused of using their badges to shake down residents and intimidate people. He has pleaded not guilty to state charges including armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping. According to federal authorities, the man targeted for death could be a witness against Finnigan in both the federal investigation of the unit and the ongoing state criminal prosecution. Over the past weekend, Finnigan discussed killing three other police officers he believed to be cooperating in the investigations, according to the affidavit and Fitzgerald. "When the person who seeks to hire someone to kill a witness against him is a police officer, it doesn't get any more serious than that," Fitzgerald said. During his brief court appearance, Finnigan - wearing a green sweat shirt turned inside out and shackled at the ankles - said he understood the charges against him. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole ordered Finnigan held until a Monday detention hearing. Finnigan declined to talk to reporters as marshals led him away, and defense attorney Michael Ficaro said he would have no comment until he learned more about the case against his client. Finnigan is charged with using a telephone to commit murder-for-hire. The harge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, uthorities said. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ALA., GA., N.Y., ILL.
Rick Halperin Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:27:02 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
