[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TENN., ALA., CALIF., OKLA.

[Rick Halperin]

May 21



TENNESSEE:

Political Season: Albertini Hits Bredesen On Death Row Reprieve


Governor candidate Mark Albertini said today the courts and Gov. Phil
Bredesen "have been far too lenient on convicted rapist and murderer Alley
who was supposed to die for the rape and murder of his victim over 20
years ago."

He said, "Even Bredesen said he believes this guy is guilty and the only
reason he is giving the reprieve is out of respect for the Parole and
Probation Board.

"What about respect for the family and memory of their slain daughter? The
parents of Alley's victim said themselves that they are 'sickened' that
the governor gave him a brief reprieve. It's just a further perversion of
the legal system.

"This type gubernatorial leadership is partly why America is suffering
under the pain of sin and crime. A very important part of being a strong
leader is to support the courts in enforcement of punishment. A governor
must set an example that lawbreakers and those who hurt others will not go
unpunished.

"In Tennessee, the governor treats crime and prison as if they should be
cause for mercy, ease and respect for the criminal while victims are
shunned, dismissed and pushed aside. Our first concern and emphasis in the
area of crime control should be to punish those who commit crimes,
especially those who commit heinous ones like rape and murder.

"Criminals should be made to pay completely for their crimes and restore
their victims. I am very much in favor of programs that make convicts work
hard while they're in prison. It is backwards to put a criminal in prison
for life and then make law-abiding citizens support him Tennessee's
constitution supports making a criminal earn his keep and I will seek to
enforce that. When an inmate leaves prison, I want him to vow he'll never
return because of how hard it was. In fact, we should make prison as
miserable a place to be as we can. As far as I'm concerned, a prisoner has
one right, to shut his mouth and do what he's told. Prisoners should pay
for everything they get while locked up including their own room, board
and medical care and they should be made to restore their victims.

"I am thoroughly disgusted to see Bredesen give this guy a reprieve. That
man should be dead and in his eternal destination, wherever that may be.
Our process allows for sufficient appeals, checks and balances. Even
convicted murderers have more sense of God's judgment then our system
today.

"Death row inmate Stephen Hugueley said 'Taxpayers should be outraged,' at
the efforts of the state to stop his execution date. My policy is simple.
Once the system has done its job, the Governor must carry out his. If I
had been in office at this time, Alley would not have gotten a reprieve
from me."

(source: The Chattanoogan)






ALABAMA:

Supreme Court race boils down to 2 court decisions


The June 6 primary for Republican nominees to the state Supreme Court is
remarkably focused. The fighting comes down to issues raised in 2 cases.
One, whether the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its power in ruling that the
execution of juveniles violates the U.S. Constitution. 2, whether the
state Supreme Court was wrong to follow that decision.

In the melee that follows those decisions, a divided Republican Party must
decide whether to run with Justice Tom Parker, who is seeking election to
the post of chief justice, and with the 3 like-minded candidates running
for associate justice seats.

The 3 on Parker's slate are Ben Hand, Alan Zeigler and Henry Fowler.
Parker is hoping to unseat incumbent Chief Justice Drayton Nabers. The
other 3 are seeking to unseat, respectively, incumbents Champ Lyons, Lyn
Stuart and Tom Woodall.

A tale of 2 murders

The battle for control of the Alabama Supreme Court had its birth on Aug.
20, 1997, at 11 p.m.

It was then that Renaldo Adams, 17, raped and killed Missy Mills, a
pregnant Montgomery County woman. There was no significant dispute on the
facts, and the jury took 30 minutes to conclude Adams deserved the death
penalty. The trial judge agreed and Adams appealed.

Rewind to September 1993.

Christopher Simmons, 17, after bragging he would do so, broke into the
Missouri home of a near stranger, Shirley Crook. He wrapped her face and
arms in duct tape, then drove her to a railroad trestle. He bound her feet
and hands together with electrical wire and dropped her into the Meramec
River, where she drowned.

As with Adams, the jury in Roper v. Simmons recommended the death penalty,
a recommendation the trial court accepted. Simmons appealed to the
Missouri Supreme Court. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2005
concluded execution of a defendant who committed a crime when 17 years old
was unconstitutional.

The issue in Simmons, as with all death penalty cases, was whether the
penalty violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a 1789
amendment that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." The prohibition
applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Simmons ruling expanded the age-based Eighth Amendment protection from
defendants under the age of 16 to defendants under the age of 18.

Any new interpretation raises the ire of those who advocate a strict
interpretation of words that have gone unchanged for more than 2
centuries. The words are the same as in 1789 and the intent of the
long-buried drafters cannot have changed. So why a new interpretation?

Near the beginning of the Simmons opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court
broadcast its view on constitutional interpretation. The prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment, the court explained, must be
interpreted with reference to "the evolving standards of decency that mark
the progress of a maturing society to determine which punishments are so
disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."

The "evolving standards" language agitated strict constructionists, who
believe that the Bill of Rights can "evolve" in only one way, through a
constitutional referendum. How else could the U.S. Supreme Court determine
that a "standard of decency" has evolved?

The Simmons court answered the question, but not in terms that endeared it
to Parker. The court cited the following developments as evidence that
ethical standards had evolved to the point that the execution of
juveniles, previously constitutional, was "cruel and unusual" as applied
to 16 and 17 year olds:

Scientific studies suggesting juveniles are more inclined to reckless
behavior.

Recognition by most states that juveniles are sufficiently irresponsible
that they should not be trusted to vote or drive.

Evidence that the prospect of execution is not a deterrent for juveniles.
Difficulties in determining whether a juvenile's conduct demonstrates
"transient immaturity" or "irreparable corruption."

These arguments may have grated on the sensibilities of strict
constructionists, but it was the next rationale that started patriotic
fireworks.

It is appropriate, explained the U.S. Supreme Court, to refer "to the laws
of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its
interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual
punishments.'"

The court went on to note that the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child, ratified by every country in the world "save for the United
States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment
for crimes committed by juveniles under 18."

"The opinion of the world community," the court continued, provides
"confirmation for our own conclusions."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and 3 other justices dissented. O'Connor
complained that an unelected U.S. Supreme Court had no business making a
blanket prohibition that undermined the role of jurors and trial judges.

Parker was not alone in his frustration at the Simmons ruling. Indeed, the
Alabama attorney general filed a brief in the Simmons case - even though
Alabama had nothing to do with it - arguing against constitutional
reinterpretations that increase federal judicial constraints on state
sovereignty.

Most of the justices on the state Supreme Court have said they believe the
Simmons case was wrongly decided. Notwithstanding that belief, the
justices unanimously reversed Adams' death sentence. The sole rationale in
the one-paragraph reversal was that the death-penalty sentence conflicted
with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Simmons.

Parker recused himself from the case because he had been involved in
prosecuting Adams. A few days after the court reversed Adams, Parker wrote
an op-ed piece published in The Birmingham News.

In it, Parker said the U.S. Supreme Court's "liberal activist" justices
"based their ruling ... on foreign law, including United Nations
treaties."

Parker went on to slam his colleagues for deferring to the U.S. Supreme
Court on the issue.

"The proper response to such blatant judicial tyranny," Parker wrote,
"would have been for the Alabama Supreme Court to decline to follow
Simmons in the Adams case."

This approach was especially appropriate, in Parker's analysis, because
the U.S. Supreme Court was in flux, and its 5-4 ruling in Simmons might
change. At least two justices were likely to be replaced, possibly before
an appeal of the Adams case ended up in Washington.

Stuart, in a recent interview, was succinct in her rejection of Parker's
approach.

"I strongly disagree with (the Simmons) decision. Just because I disagree
with the decision does not mean I can ignore it," Stuart said.

Parties to cases may challenge U.S. Supreme Court decisions, she said, but
courts should not.

"It's not the role of our court to be an advocate. Parties can do that
through appeals; we apply the law to the facts," Stuart said.

Any other result, Stuart said, would be chaotic. Our judicial system is
built around the assumption that lower courts will abide by decisions of
higher courts. A lower court may properly express its distaste for the
controlling opinion, but still must apply it.

Stated differently, the Adams case should make it to the U.S. Supreme
Court docket not because a state court refused to abide by a federal
court's interpretation of the federal constitution, but through an appeal
by the Alabama prosecutor dissatisfied with the sentencing decision.

Religious and classical, or strict-constructionist, conservatives
generally agree that the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its authority when it
reinterpreted the Eighth Amendment in Simmons. They part ways, however,
when evaluating the state Supreme Court's deference to Simmons.

Who is right? Stay tuned. Voters get to add their voices to the commotion
June 6.

(source: Decatur Daily (DAILY business writer Eric Fleischauer is also a
lawyer)






CALIFORNIA:

Calif. Supreme Court Slams Former Prosecutor's Credibility


John "Jack" Quatman might have been better off just keeping quiet.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday lashed out at the former Alameda
County, Calif., prosecutor, saying he doesn't have a good reputation for
honesty and integrity and that he had an ax to grind in claiming his old
bosses routinely excluded Jews from death penalty juries.

"We agree," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for a unanimous court, "that
Quatman had a motive to tell a story that predictably caused trouble and
embarrassment for the office, even if his decision to do so was
opportunistic and not especially well planned out and even if Quatman
arguably could have chosen to embarrass the office in other, more direct
ways."

The court's 31-page decision was yet another blemish for Quatman -- who's
now in private practice in Montana -- and an outright loss for Fred
Freeman, a death row inmate who argued that prosecutorial bias against
certain jurors denied him a fair trial.

The Supreme Court affirmed Freeman's death sentence in 1994. But 10 years
later his attorneys filed a 3rd habeas corpus petition in which Freeman --
sent to death row in 1987 for murdering a man during a Berkeley bar
robbery -- claimed it was the policy of the Alameda County district
attorney's office to exclude Jews from death juries.

Those allegations were based on a 2003 declaration by Quatman, who also
accused former Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stanley Golde (now
deceased) of colluding with him ex parte in excluding Jewish jurors from
Freeman's trial in the belief that people with a Holocaust history
wouldn't sentence anyone to death.

Last year, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy, acting as
a referee in a lengthy evidentiary hearing, ridiculed Quatman's
allegations while dubbing him a "dishonest and unethical" man.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court piled on, citing 3 attorneys and 1 judge in
California and two attorneys in Montana who in various forms said Quatman
was dishonest, prone to exaggeration, untrustworthy, not credible and
willing to bend or break the rules to win. Even one Montana attorney who
stood up for Quatman, the court noted, sought sanctions in 1 criminal case
and asked that Quatman be held in contempt.

"There was thus more than substantial evidence," Baxter wrote, "to support
the referee's finding that Quatman's character and reputation for honesty
and integrity was poor."

Likewise, Baxter held, there was strong evidence that Quatman remained
bitter over being transferred in 1993 to the DA's consumer and
environmental protection unit after a female subordinate accused him of
making disparaging remarks. The court noted Quatman considered that a
demotion and was especially peeved because he never got to try another
capital case again.

In particular, Baxter said, Quatman held strong animosity toward Alameda
County DA Tom Orloff, who investigated the 1993 accusation and had other
subsequent run-ins with Quatman.

"It is true that the initial target of Quatman's accusation would appear
to be Judge Golde," Baxter wrote, "but, inasmuch as Judge Golde was
already dead at the time Quatman 1st disclosed this ex parte conversation,
it is the Alameda County district attorney's office that has suffered the
fallout from Quatman's claims."

The high court also cast doubt about whether Quatman actually removed
jurors because of their religion. While his voir dire notes charted the
race, appearance, clothes and possible sexual orientation of prospects,
Baxter held, he never noted religion.

"Indeed," Baxter wrote, "the fact that Quatman did write other identifying
information on his rolodex cards for these 3 jurors -- for Peisker, that
he was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union; for LaPut, that he
was unemployed and never recovered from his father's death; and for
Mishell, that she was "NO DP," meaning that she would not impose the death
penalty -- renders Quatman's assertion that he excused any of these jurors
for a different and unremarked reason (i.e., their religion) unworthy of
belief."

Neither Quatman nor his wife, Phyllis, partners in Whitefish, Mont.'s
Quatman & Quatman, could be reached Thursday.

Nor could Gary Sowards, the staff attorney at San Francisco's Habeas
Corpus Resource Center who pushed Freeman's claims.

Dane Gillette, a San Francisco-based senior assistant deputy attorney
general, called the ruling important for the Freeman case and all other
death penalty cases handled in Alameda County.

"It puts to a lie," he said, "that Judge Golde was advising prosecutors
and any other attorney how to handle cases and shows there's no factual
basis for allegations made by Mr. Quatman."

Justices Carol Corrigan, who was a witness in the Quatman evidentiary
hearing, and Ming Chin, a former Alameda County prosecutor, didn't
participate in the decision. They were replaced by Justices Paul Boland,
of Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal, and Judith Haller, of San
Diego's 4th District.

The opinion is In re Freeman, 06 C.D.O.S. 4085.

(source: The Recorder)






OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma tops in incarcerating women----Report: War on drugs responsible
for increase in female inmates


Oklahoma, Mississippi and the Mountain states have set the pace in
increasing the imprisonment of women, while several Northeastern states
are curtailing the practice, according to a new report detailing sharp
regional differences in the handling of female offenders.

The report, to be released Sunday by the New York-based Women's Prison
Association, is touted as the most comprehensive state-by-state breakdown
of the huge increase in incarceration of women over the past 30 years.

Overall, the number of female state inmates serving sentences of more than
a year grew by 757 % between 1977 and 2004, nearly twice the 388 percent
increase for men, the report said.

Though the surge occurred nationwide, it was most notable in the Mountain
states, where the number of incarcerated women soared by 1,600 %, the
report said.

According to federal statistics cited in the report, Colorado had 72
female inmates in 1977 and 1,900 in 2004, while the comparable numbers
increased from 28 to 647 in Idaho, from 2 to 473 in Montana, from 187 to
2,545 in Arizona and from 30 to 502 in Utah.

Idaho, Wyoming and Montana were among 6 states, along with Oklahoma, North
Dakota and Hawaii, where women comprised more than 10 % of the prison
population in 2004 -- compared to the national average of 7 %. In Rhode
Island, by contrast, only 3.2 % of the inmates were women.

Oklahoma had the highest per capita imprisonment rate for women -- 129
behind bars for every 100,000 women in its population. Mississippi was
second with a rate of 107. Women in those states were roughly 10 times
more likely to be imprisoned than women in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
which shared the lowest rate of 11.

Nationwide, there were 1.42 million inmates in state and federal prisons
at the end of 2004, including 96,125 women -- up from 11,212 in 1977.

Though the overall surge of women behind bars has continued in recent
years, it has tapered off in the Northeast, the report said. From 1999 to
2004, it said, the number of female inmates dropped by 23 % in New York
and 21 % in New Jersey -- part of broader reductions that also cut the
number of male inmates.

The report concurred with previous analyses attributing much of the
nationwide increase in women's imprisonment to the war on drugs. The
proportion of women serving time for drug offenses has risen sharply in
recent years, while the proportion convicted of serious violent crimes has
dropped, it said.

Bob Anez, a Corrections Department spokesman in Montana, confirmed that
drug offenses -- especially related to methamphetamine -- were a major
factor in the high proportion of female inmates in the state. Half the
women imprisoned from January through March had committed meth-related
offenses, he said.

Jerry Massie of Oklahoma's Corrections Department also said rising drug
convictions were a factor in the high number of imprisoned women, but he
noted that Oklahoma has one of the highest incarceration rates for men as
well as for women.

Ann Jacobs, executive director of the Women's Prison Association, said
states with high rates of women behind bars should look closely at
alternative sentencing, particularly mandatory treatment as an option for
drug offenders.

"It's startling to think that Oklahoma incarcerates 129 of every 100,000
women, while other states can provide public safety by incarcerating 11 of
every 100,000," she said. "Women in Oklahoma can't possibly be 10 times
worse."

K.C. Moon, executive director of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource
Center, said the state's high incarceration rate is linked to the types of
crimes that are felonies -- including simple drug possession and
relatively minor thefts.

"Those are 2 types of crimes that are typically committed by women," Moon
said. "In Oklahoma, we choose to make lower-level crimes felonies.
Therefore, we stand out like a sore thumb."

The Women's Prison Association and like-minded groups focus attention on
female inmates in part because they are more likely than men to be primary
caretakers of children, and their incarceration can place severe strains
on families.

The report urged an expansion of research to identify factors that have
contributed to the increase of female inmates and to develop policies
which help at-risk women lead law-abiding, self-sufficient lives. Jacobs
said the reduction of female inmates now occurring in some Northeast
states would be worth celebrating only if coupled with investment in
social programs that could reduce recidivism.

(source: Associated Press)