March 19
TEXAS:
Spring Break in the Belly of the Beast----At the Anti-Death Penalty
Alternative Spring Break in Texas, students learn what it takes to fight
state killing -- against all odds.
It's easy to pity the Texas death penalty abolitionist. The Lone Star
State is widely recognized as the "belly of the beast" when it comes to
capital punishment. Since 1982, Texas has executed 405 individuals, more
than the rest of the nation combined. Harris County, which includes
Houston, would rank second in the nation for executions if it were its own
state. Quite simply, no state in the union is more willing to administer
lethal injections to the convicted. This would not be possible without
broad statewide support for capital punishment, and an accompanying sense
of "frontier justice" infused with the specter of Jim Crow.
Organizing against this state killing machine can be grueling -- even
devastating. Yet there are reasons to press forward. Take the recent
victory in the case of Kenneth Foster, Jr., a man sentenced to death for
driving the car occupied by a man named Mauriceo Brown when he shot and
killed Michael LaHood, Jr. in 1996. (Yes, sentenced to death for driving a
car. Welcome to Texas). We saved Kenneth's life by building a vibrant and
well-organized movement that left Governor Rick Perry with no other choice
than to, for the 1st time in Texas history, grant a commutation on the
basis of grassroots pressure.
Another reason for hope in Texas comes every March in the form of the
Anti-Death Penalty Alternative Spring Break. Since 2005, high school and
college students skip drinking on the beach with their friends to travel
to Austin to participate in workshops, lectures and direct actions, all
designed to train them to be better advocates for abolishing the death
penalty. The annual event was founded by the Texas Moratorium Network and
is currently run by Texas Students Against the Death Penalty, with the
sponsorship of Campus Progress. Over the years, it has also enlisted the
tactical support of legislative aids, lawyers, lobbyists, and grassroots
activists to help build and run events.
Scott Cobb of the Texas Moratorium Network has compared Spring Break to
the Freedom Summers of the Civil Rights era. Like the northern activists
who traveled south to fight segregation, Alternative Spring Break
participants travel from across the country to ground zero in the death
penalty fight, to both learn and contribute to the struggle. The death
penalty has been shown time and again to disproportionately impact the
poor and ethnic minorities, punish the innocent, and fail to deter crime.
As I have told students in the debating workshops I have run in the past
couple years, the death penalty is a microcosm of far deeper social
problems and should be targeted as such.
Life and Death Lessons
I first hopped onboard the Alternative Spring Break in 2006. My group, the
Campaign to End the Death Penalty (CEDP) accompanied the students to
Huntsville, Texas, where a man named Tommie Hughes was scheduled for
execution. On the bus down to Huntsville, where all Texas executions are
carried out, members of the CEDP engaged the students in a debate about
the value of vocal and political protest versus the traditional silent
vigils that often take place outside the execution chamber. We all
eventually agreed to lead the small crowd outside the Huntsville unit in
protest chants up until the moment Hughes was to be killed. When the
execution started, we would fall silent out of respect.
Across from the "Walls Unit," where executions are carried out, is the
"hospitality" building. This is where the families of the condemned and
their witnesses spend the day awaiting the 6:00 p.m. execution. We watched
as Tommie Hughes' family left the small building for the much larger
facility where they would watch their loved one die. Less then half an
hour later, we watched them walk back. Tommie Hughes was dead. Texas had
killed another. The students of the 2006 Alternative Spring Break had seen
the reality of state killing up close.
The next year, the 2007 Alternative Spring Break coincided with Senate
committee hearings on Texas's "Jessica Law," which would extend the death
penalty to convicted child sex offenders. A number of high-profile death
penalty opponents, including exonerated prisoners Kerry Max Cook and
Shujaa Graham, helped out with the Spring Break and testified before the
committee. Students also testified. Though Jessica's Law was eventually
passed, the opportunity to speak truth to power in such a way, plus a
rally downtown that concluded the spring break, were not in vain. The
students who participated gained a real lesson in grassroots struggle
through losses and victories.
Spring Break 2008: The Case of Rodney Reed
This year's spring break took place between March 10 and March 14th,
coinciding with important developments in a high-profile Texas death row
case. Rodney Reed is a black man who has lived on Texas' death row since
1998, convicted of the rape and murder of a white woman named Stacey
Stites. Though a semen DNA sample connects Reed to Stites' body, other
evidence in the case strongly implicates a former police officer named
Jimmy Fennell, who was engaged to Stites at the time of her death. Several
witnesses -- none of whom were called to that stand during the trial --
claim that Reed and Stites were having a consensual sexual affair
(explaining the semen sample) at the time she was killed. Fennell, who
failed two lie detector tests when asked if he strangled his fianc, is
believed by many to have lashed out at Stites in a jealous rage and then
framed Reed for the crime.
The CEDP has organized alongside the family of Rodney Reed for years to
win a new trial -- and an upcoming hearing before the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals may result in just that. Fennell was recently indicted
for kidnapping and raping a woman in his custody. The charges have shined
new light on the Reed case and bolstered the defense's claim that Fennell
is an explosive, misogynistic and potentially violent individual. For all
these reasons, the CEDP and the Alternative Spring Break organizers saw
fit to build the week's events around Rodney Reed's case.
On March 12, the spring breakers held a "people's tribunal" in front of
the Texas State Capitol. A theatrical event that adopted the form of a
court hearing -- complete with a "judge" in a gown and a "prisoner" in
stripes -- participants took the microphone and spoke out against capital
punishment. People talked about racism, the opposition to state killing by
murder victims' families, international human rights standards, and the
myth of deterrence, as passerbyers stopped to listen in. We described the
conditions and dimensions of a death row prison cell (6-by-7 feet) to show
how "cruel and unusual" begins well before the condemned enters the death
chamber.
That night, the students, along with several local activists, made signs
and banners for a rally in support of Rodney Reed. Starting in front of
the Capitol, the March 13th rally included the Spring Break participants
and several local activists. After a march downtown, the group returned to
the Capitol to speak some final words into the bullhorn and display their
signs for passing traffic. "The turnout wasn't the biggest we've ever
seen, but it was vibrant and inspiring," said CEDP activist Lily Hughes.
Hooman Hedayati, of the CEDP and Texas Students Against the Death Penalty,
called the 2008 Spring Break a success. "A group of energetic students
came to Austin to learn to be better activists and were able to pull off a
direct action for Rodney Reed."
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears the Reed case on March 19th,
after which they may take as long as they please to make a decision.
Whether Reed wins a new trial or not, one thing remains certain: the
struggle will continue. As I write this, the Supreme Court is determining
whether Kentucky's method of lethal injection constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. Nationally, more individuals than ever prefer life
without parole to the death penalty. We are living in exciting times in
the history of American capital punishment. If the students who came to
this and previous years' Alternative Spring Breaks left with one lesson,
it was hopefully that such change is in no way automatic. Through each
loss and victory lie a growing number of committed activists who do the
unglamorous work of attending meetings, making pickets, and fretting about
strategic choices. As the students bid goodbye to Austin, one can only
hope that they left the belly of the beast with a sense of not only what
is possible, but what is necessary to wage an uphill battle against a
particularly macabre expression of state power that will not leave the
stage of history without a fight.
(source: AlterNet.org)
LOUISIANA:
U.S. overturns Jeff death penalty case
Allen Snyder is taken into custody at his home in Kenner, Aug. 17, 1995,
in connection with the murder of one man and the stabbing of his estranged
wife, Mary.
The U.S. Supreme Court today threw out the death sentence and conviction
in a Louisiana murder case, citing racial prejudice in the actions of a
prosecutor who kept black people off the jury.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices said Jefferson Parish prosecutor Jim Williams
improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted Allen Snyder of
killing his estranged wife's companion. Snyder is black and the jurors
were white.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the trial judge
should not have allowed Williams to strike a black juror. He was joined by
Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, John Stevens, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
During jury selection in the trial, Williams disqualified all 5 black
people in the pool of prospective jurors.
The prosecutor's explanation for striking a prospective black juror was
"suspicious," said Alito. The prospective juror's supervisor said he did
not think a schedule conflict between the upcoming trial and the
prospective juror's work would be a problem.
In contrast, the prosecutor accepted white jurors who disclosed
conflicting obligations, Alito pointed out in the majority opinion.
"The implausibility of the prosecutor's explanation is reinforced by his
acceptance of white jurors who disclosed conflicting obligations that
appear to have been at least as serious as Mr. Brooks'," the majority
ruling said.
Snyder was convicted of 1st-degree murder in Jefferson Parish. He was
found guilty of repeatedly slashing his estranged wife, Mary Snyder, and a
man, Harold Wilson, with a knife when he found them in a car outside her
mother's home in August 1995. His wife survived, but Wilson died.
In an earlier 4-3 decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that race
had no part in the state's decisions involving black potential jurors in
Snyder's trial. Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturns the state
court's finding and returns it to the state court system.
When the case was argued in December, the justices were critical of the
trial judge, Judge Kernan "Skip" Hand, for overruling many defense
objections about the prosecutor's use of race.
Stephen Bright, Snyder's Atlanta-based lawyer, told the Associated Press
the ruling shows there is broad agreement among the justices that courts
must closely examine the reasons given for excusing potential jurors when
racial motives might be present but not acknowledged.
"The disturbing thing is that courts in Louisiana and elsewhere were just
deferring to trial judges, no matter the reasons," Bright said.
Snyder will get a new trial as a result of the ruling, Bright said.
During the first phase of jury selection, "the trial court screened the
panel to identify jurors who did not meet Louisiana's requirements for
jury service or claimed that service on the jury or sequestration for the
duration of the trial would result in extreme hardship," the ruling said.
In the next phase, panels of 13 people each were selected for random
questioning.
"The defense and prosecution addressed each panel and questioned the
jurors both as a group and individually," the ruling said. Then attorneys
were able to recommend eliminating specific jurors "for cause," with the
judge having the final say on that.
And following the elimination for cause, the prosecutors and defense
attorneys each had 12 peremptory challenges, with which they could exclude
a juror without having to give a reason. 85 jurors were questioned as
members of the panel, of which 36 survived the challenges for cause.
5 of the remaining 36 were black; and all 5 of the prospective black
jurors were eliminated by the prosecution through the use of peremptory
strikes, the ruling pointed out.
(source: The Times-Picayune)
********************
Court finds flaws in La. jury choice
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Wednesday that the trial judge in a
Louisiana murder case one that involved a prosecutor's use of the O.J.
Simpson case to try to help win a death sentence against a black man was
wrong in rejecting a challenge to the denial of a seat to 1 black juror.
The strike of 2 black jurors by prosecutors led to the seating of an
all-white jury trying Allen Snyder of Kenner, La. The Courts decision was
confined to the rejection of 1 of the 2 blacks on the panel.
The ruling came in the case of Snyder v. Louisiana (06-10119). Although
the case had gained prominence because it appeared to be a test of the use
of racially charged comments by prosecutors to win either convictions or
death sentences when blacks were on trial, that aspect did not figure in
the final ruling. In announcing its decision in the case, the Court did
not mention the episodes in which the prosecutor referred to this as his
"O.J. Simpson case" to draw a parallel to Simpson's prosecution,
suggesting that there a black man had gotten by with murder.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence
Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. This was the only
ruling on the merits Wednesday.
The Court's decision appeared to be a straightforward application of the
1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky and sequels to it decisions that
barred race-based uses of automatic ("peremptory") challenges in criminal
trials. Justice Alito's opinion, while reciting familiar legal principles,
focused his opinion primarily upon the specific facts in prosecutor's
removal of a black college student 1st because, prosecutors said, he
appeared nervous, and 2nd because, they argued, the young man had
obligations as a student teacher. Neither of those reasons justified the
strike of that juror, Jeffrey Brooks, the Court concluded. Defense lawyers
objected to that strike, as they did to the removal of another black
juror, Elaine Scott. Justice Alito said that, because it was "clear error"
for the trial judge to reject the Batson challenge to Brooks' strike, "we
have no need" to rule on Ms Scotts removal and the defense objection to
it.
Justice Thomas, in dissent, contended that "none of the evidence in the
record as to jurors Jeffrey Brooks and Elaine Scott demonstrates that the
trial court clearly erred in finding that they were not stricken on the
basis of race."
In Snyder's trial, there was a jury pool of 85, including 9 blacks. The
prosecution struck all 9 4 for stated causes, and 5 with peremptory
challenges. Only 2 of the peremptories were at issue in Wednesday's
ruling.
(source: SCOTUS Blog)
ILLINOIS:
Explanation sought on death penalty
Burt Constable stated in his Feb. 28 column, "Time for state to join
civilized world and end death penalty," as he was discussing the Eric
Hanson trial and sentencing, that the death penalty "costs taxpayers far
more" and "takes too long to impose" (than a life sentence).
What disposal company are we using in Pontiac! We would appreciate an
explanation from Mr. Constable.
Art Zwierlein ---- Glen Ellyn
(source: Letter to the Editor, The Daily Herald)
GEORGIA:
Ga. House votes to allow death penalty by majority jury decision
Georgia lawmakers tried again Wednesday to allow juries to recommend a
death sentence without a unanimous vote, this time pushing it through by
adding it to a separate proposal.
The House voted 112-55 to soften Georgia's capital punishment rules by
allowing judges to consider a death sentence even if one or two jurors
vote against it. It now returns to the Senate, which has yet to debate the
issue but last year scuttled a similar proposal.
The plan was hitched to a popular Senate measure allowing prosecutors more
leeway to push for a sentence of life without parole. Its Republican
sponsors described it as a way to prevent death penalty opponents from
sabotaging capital punishment cases with 1 or 2 "no" votes.
"It raises the standard for better justice in Georgia," said House
Majority Whip Barry Fleming, who has championed the bill in the run-up to
his campaign for Georgia's 10th Congressional District.
It faced fierce opposition from some Republican attorneys who warned it
would put sacred life-or-death decisions in the hands of a government
official instead of a jury.
"This would take away the right of the people to make a decision about a
death penalty verdict and transfer that right to a judge who is the
representative of the government," said state Rep. Mark Hatfield,
R-Waycross, a former prosecutor.
"You're taking away the right of that jury, which is sacrosanct."
Other Republican attorneys were just as blunt in their criticism.
State Rep. Ed Lindsey, R-Atlanta, said it would rob the state of its
"devotion and respect for the people." And state Rep. Robert Mumford,
R-Conyers, called it a "radical and unprecedented attempt to weaken this
time honored process."
There was no immediate comment from Senate leaders or Gov. Sonny Perdue.
A similar cast of characters spoke against the bill last year, when it
passed by a 106-65 vote after about 3 hours of debate. But it was axed by
a Senate panel in the last days of the legislative session.
Fleming, R-Harlem, has quietly worked behind the scenes since then. He
waited for a Senate measure that opened up the same legal section, and
pounced when one reached his chamber.
At a House committee meeting Wednesday morning, he swiftly added his death
penalty proposal to the Senate plan. He had the backing of powerful
allies, as was apparent by the other lawmaker who spoke in support of the
proposal.
In a rare trip to the well, House Speaker Glenn Richardson said he had
blocked the idea in 2005 and 2006 but changed his mind last year. The
turning point: A 10-2 Florida jury verdict in March 2007 that sentenced
John Couey to death for the murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford.
"If you need further convincing, perhaps you ought to go talk to the
family of Jessica Lunsford," he said. "If that trial had taken place in
Georgia ... he would not get the death penalty, because Georgia requires a
unanimous jury verdict."
Richardson, also an attorney, acknowledged that Georgia has required
unanimous jury verdicts in death penalty cases for 2 centuries.
"But I say this planet is a lot meaner place than it was 200 years ago,"
he said. "There weren't people burying little girls alive."
On the Net: Senate Bill 145: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/
(source: Associated Press)
****************
House approves non-unanimous death penalty
Imposing the death penalty in Georgia would take only 10 of 12 jurors
under an amended bill approved by the Georgia House Wednesday.
Senate Bill 145 began as a proposal that would allow prosecutors to seek
sentences of life without parole in aggravated murder cases without having
to seek the death penalty first. But it was amended on the House floor to
permit non-unanimous votes in favor of sentencing a convicted murder to
death. The House approved the amendment in a 100-66 vote after nearly an
hour of debate. The bill passed 112-55.
Democrats on the House committee that approved the bill were indignant
about the floor amendment, which was discussed and rejected in committee.
Some Republicans objected to the changes, too.
"For over 200 years Georgia has recognized and place the power to impose
the death penalty exclusively into the hands of 12 jurors," said state
Rep. Ed Lindsey (R-Atlanta). "Any attempt to shift who decides the death
penalty from a jury to a judge represents a fundamental shift in our
society away from our devotion and our understanding and our respect for
the people and towards the power of the state."
State Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem) authored the amendment which closely
resembles legislation he introduced last year.
(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
*******************
Death penalty trial begins
In Leesburg, a man accused of killing a prominent area real estate agent
will have the first hearing of his death penalty trial today, court
officials said.
Corrie Thomas Denby is charged with killing 79-year-old Pat Murphy, whose
body was found at his home Dec. 6, 2006 by a housekeeper, according to
published report.
District Attorney Cecilia M. Cooper, who has filed a motion with the court
announcing her intent to seek the death penalty against Denby, said
Tuesday that today's hearing is the first of many hearings that state law
requires before a death penalty trial can begin.
"Basically, all of the attorneys will meet and the judge will ay out the
ground rules and how we're going to proceed," Cooper said. "The law says
there have to be certain hearings at certain times when the state is
seeking the death penalty and this is simply the 1st one."
According to GBI agent Rodney Wall, Murphy's housekeeper found his body in
the living room of his house on December 6, 2006. Murphy died fro ma neck
wound and blunt force trauma to the head, Cooper said.
Agents told reporters at the time that Denby was initially linked to
Murphy after investigators recovered Murphy's 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis
at a home near Turner Job Corps the day after his body was found.
According to an April indictment, prosecutors believe Denby killed Murphy
on Nov. 30, 2006.
(source: The Albany Herald)
COLORADO:
Death penalty for rape doesn't protect children
A bill pending in the Colorado Senate that would authorize a death
sentence on a second conviction of raping a child could backfire by giving
some of society's most vicious criminals a perverse incentive to kill
their victims.
Senate Bill 195 by Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, would authorize the death
penalty for people who sexually assault a child 12 years or younger if DNA
evidence links them to the crime.
Ward's bill also could discourage victims from reporting abuse by
relatives, fearing they'd get the death penalty.
The Senate Judiciary Committee amended the bill to allow the death penalty
only for rapists previously convicted of a similar attack on a child. It
then sent the bill to the Appropriations Committee, where it should
receive a quiet burial.
The Post has historically opposed the death penalty. But even supporters
of capital punishment have strong reasons to oppose this bill. First, it
endangers the very children it is designed to protect. If the penalty for
rape alone is death, then a criminal vicious enough to make such a heinous
attack in the first place may reason that he faces no further penalty for
killing the victim.
Granted, most rapists would not even think that far down the road, but why
provide the incentive for those who might?
Whether or not the death penalty deters crime at all is a subject of
endless debate. But what influence the law does have should always be
aimed at shielding victims from even worse harm. Colorado law already
allows a death penalty for a rapist who kills his victim. By executing for
rape alone, Ward's bill strips victims of whatever protection they now
receive under that law.
Ward's bill also violates one of the tenets of Judeo-Christian morality,
the rule that punishment may be proportional to a crime but must not
exceed it an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The notion that life can only be taken from those who have themselves
taken life is so deeply embedded that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977 ruled
that states can only impose the death penalty for murder.
Despite that ruling, 5 states still have laws on the books like the one
Ward wants to bring to Colorado, allowing execution for the rape of a
child under age 12. But only one, Louisiana, is currently trying to
execute a rapist, Patrick Kennedy, for such an offense. That case is now
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
We share Ward's outrage at the kind of sick people who would rape children
but why wait for a second such heinous offense to crack down on these
criminals? Current law allows sentencing child rapists to 20 or 30 years,
depending on the circumstances of the crime. If the legislature wants to
get tough, why not allow a life sentence on the first offense in the worst
cases and thus preclude the possibility of a 2nd offense?
That's the best way to protect children.
(source: Editorial, The Dener Post)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, LA., ILL., GA., COLO.
Rick Halperin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:08:04 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
