March 24
NEBRASKA: No urgency this time on executions The Nebraska Supreme Court last month decided to pull the plug on the electric chair. This week, the Legislature will consider whether to close the execution chamber for good. Lawmakers on Tuesday will begin debating Legislative Bill 1063, which would abolish the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without parole. It will be the third time in a little more than a year that the Legislature has debated capital punishment. In 2007, lawmakers fell one vote short of advancing, from first-round debate, a bill to repeal the death penalty. Death penalty opponents then regrouped and proposed to sharply restrict death sentences. That fell 2 votes short of advancing. The 2007 debate came before the State Supreme Court's decision to ban the electric chair, before the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection, and before New Jersey became the 1st state in more than 40 years to abolish capital punishment. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, long the Legislature's leading opponent of the death penalty, already has declared a victory of sorts. For more than 10 years, Chambers had blocked legislation to switch from the electric chair to lethal injection. In the aftermath of electrocution being ruled cruel and unusual punishment, Nebraska is left without a legal means to carry out executions. Chambers has vowed to keep any new execution method from being approved before he leaves the Legislature at year's end because of term limits. Amy Miller, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union-Nebraska and board president of Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty, said opponents are in a better position to defeat capital punishment. "We're fighting a proactive battle because we want to eliminate the death penalty. But people who want to keep the death penalty have to come up with a new recipe for death,'' she said. "We need to just say we're done and walk away from it,'' she said. Attorney General Jon Bruning said a proposal to authorize lethal injection will be put before lawmakers in 2009 at the latest. It's also possible that Gov. Dave Heineman could call the Legislature into a special session to consider lethal injection, Bruning said. "Lawmakers should vote no on the repeal and on any amendments that claim to be a compromise,'' Bruning said. "This is one of these issues where you're either for it or you're not. There really isn't a lot of middle ground on the death penalty.'' Bruning and other death penalty supporters dispute any argument that Nebraskans may be turning away from supporting the death penalty. Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha noted that the Supreme Court disapproved only of the method of execution, not the death penalty itself. "I am a strong supporter of the death penalty, and nothing has occurred to change that,'' Lautenbaugh said. "I feel I am in tune with my district wants.'' Some lawmakers said Nebraska's lack of an execution method takes the urgency away from calls to repeal capital punishment. "It's been 10 years since we've had an execution. We don't have a workable death penalty. Let's still leave it on the books,'' said Sen. Carroll Burling of Kenesaw. Death penalty opponents may be unable to garner more than the 24 votes they collected last year. In a pre-session survey of lawmakers, 26 of the 49 told The World-Herald they would vote to keep capital punishment. Heineman has promised to veto a repeal bill if it reaches his desk, meaning death penalty opponents would need at least a 30-vote majority to override a veto if they are to succeed. "This issue is difficult and emotional, but ultimately our justice system operates most effectively if we do not tolerate atrocious criminal acts,'' Heineman said. In interviews, some lawmakers who previously voted to repeal indicated they may be wavering. "I don't know how I'm going to vote,'' said Sen. Kent Rogert of Tekamah. "It will pull me back and forth the entire day. It always does.'' Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha will lead the debate, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He said the death penalty does not lend itself to vote-counting in advance. "It's a life-and-death issue,'' he said. "It will be decided on the floor as part of the debate.'' (source: Bellevue Leader) ********************* Death Penalty Debate Scheduled Tuesday A heated topic returns to the state legislature this week. On Tuesday, lawmakers will debate repealing the death penalty. It comes at a time when the state has no legal means of executing prisoners on death row. Last month the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled the electric chair cruel and unusual punishment. Now Senator Ernie Chambers of Omaha will try for the last time to do away with the death penalty all together. Every year for more than 3 decades, Chambers has tried to have Nebraska's death penalty replaced with life in prison without the chance of parole. Every year he's failed. "If there's ever a time to sit and watch the legislature, it's while we're discussing the death penalty," said State Senator Amanda McGill, who represents District 26 in Lincoln. Last session the bill failed to advance to second round debate by only 1 vote. Polls show the majority of Americans support the death penalty but the numbers are dropping. "If someone killed someone and has no remorse, the same thing should happen to them," said one death penalty supporter. Others disagree. "Living thru it and having to go day by day with what you did, and being punished for it would be more of a punishment than just dying," said Samantha Mitchell. McGill says last year's vote is misleading because she says some lawmakers voted for the repeal just so it could be discussed further. But she says it will be interesting to see what happens now because term limits are forcing so many senators, including Chambers, from office. "When you know you're time limited, it can change the dynamics of how you might vote on various issues, especially a big and really deep and moral issue for people," McGill said. The issue could also force the governor to call a special legislative session. If lawmakers don't get rid of the death penalty, they'll have to come up with a new way to carry it out. The most likely is lethal injection. "I think it would be wisest, just from the governor's standpoint, to wait until Senator Chambers is gone," McGill said. McGill says a special session is unlikely because for years, Chambers has blocked any attempt to change the method for carrying out the death penalty. Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on a challenge to a type of lethal injection this summer and that could change everything. (source: KTPM) GEORGIA: Murder-arson case heads to court----Scrutiny placed on suspect's attorneys An Auburn man accused of killing 4 family members then setting their house on fire nearly 2 years ago heads to court Tuesday for the 1st in what could grow into a long series of hearings. At the first hearing, a Jackson County Superior Court judge is expected to rule on whether Henry Lee Stringer's lawyers are fit to try his death penalty murder case. Stringer, 34, faces 10 counts of murder and 6 other felony charges for allegedly killing his 2 young children, their mother and their grandmother May 30, 2006, then setting fire to their home at 8063 Georgia Highway 332 in Hoschton. Investigators believe Stringer stabbed 29-year-old Marvelette Strickland and her 68-year-old mother, Evelyn Strickland, before setting their home on fire. Stringer's and Strickland's children, J'Majuan Stringer, 4, and J'Lasia Stringer, 2, both died in the fire, according to an indictment filed in December. Tuesday's procedural hearing will be the first since Piedmont Judicial Circuit District Attorney Richard Bridgeman announced that he wants Stringer to face the death penalty for the killings. The hearing is designed to allow Jackson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Booth to rule whether Stringer's lawyers, Christian Lamar and Joe Vigneri, both of the Office of the Georgia Capital Defender, are qualified to try the case. "By Georgia law you have to have at least 2 attorneys handling a death penalty case," Vigneri said. "That same law requires the attorneys who try these cases to meet certain criteria in terms of education and experience. "That's part of what the judge will be trying to find out (about us) on Tuesday." The Office of Georgia Capital Defender is the branch of the Georgia Public Defenders Standards Council that handles death penalty cases in Georgia. Currently, the group is handling about 50 cases, Vigneri said. Booth also is expected to set a filing deadline for any defense motions to remove the death penalty from the table, Vigneri said. Vigneri and Lamar haven't filed anything on Stringer's behalf yet, Vigneri said. "It is really very early in these proceedings," he said. "But there will be several motions filed before we go to trial." Bridgeman, who became district attorney in August, said there is not much he could say about the case until it goes to trial. This will be the 3rd death penalty case Bridgeman has helped prosecute, and the 1st death penalty case he has handled as lead counsel. Stringer's case was delayed for months because he was hit by a train June 8, 2006 - the day before the family's funeral. Stringer was in the hospital for two months and could not be interviewed by investigators. A changeover in the district attorney's office also slowed down the case. Still, authorities arrested Stringer last June, almost a year to the day after the killings, and a Jackson County grand jury indicted Stringer on 15 charges, including murder and aggravated assault charges and an arson charge. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, then-district attorney Tim Madison resigned amid a theft investigation. Bridgeman was appointed to replace Madison and dismissed the original charges against Stringer so he could reindict him and pursue the death penalty. "In order to seek the death penalty, that (notice of intent to seek the death penalty) has to begin prior to the arraignment," Bridgeman said previously. "He had already been arraigned, so we had to go back to the grand jury." The later indictment charges Stringer with 4 counts of malice murder, 6 counts of felony murder, 2 counts of aggravated assault, 1 count of aggravated battery, 2 counts of 1st-degree cruelty to children and 1 count of 1st-degree arson. (source: Online Athens) NORTH CAROLINA: Death sentences rare in county Orange County's historical reluctance to issue capital sentences could come into play down the road for one of the men charged with Eve Carson's murder. Demario James Atwater, 21, will appear in court today for a probable cause hearing for first-degree murder. At that hearing, prosecutors will present evidence to the public to back up that charge for the first time. If he is charged with 1st-degree murder, the jury could sentence him to capital punishment or a life sentence in prison without parole. Orange County jurors have consistently shown a disinclination to issue capital sentences. The last time was in 1970 and it was overturned on appeal, said Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Carl Fox, a former Orange County district attorney. An Orange County jury last issued a death sentence that was carried out in 1948. "There's little question in my mind that Orange County, as well as Chatham, probably would be one of the most challenging districts in North Carolina to have a death sentence returned by the jury," said District Attorney Jim Woodall in reference to local legal tradition. "It tends to be a fairly liberal area, so our jury pool tends to be very liberal. Generally speaking, that makes it a bit more difficult to get the death penalty," he said. Death penalty verdicts have decreased since 2001, when state legislation began allowing prosecutors in first-degree murder cases to seek life sentences without parole as an alternative to a capital sentence, Fox said. Before that legislation, prosecutors had to seek the death penalty if they wanted to try the case as first-degree murder. To seek an alternative sentence, the case had to be reduced to second-degree murder, he said. "You just don't see jurors giving the death penalty as much as they used to since the advent of legislation allowing life without parole," Fox said. Carson's murder bears some similarities to the 1993 murder of Kristin Lodge-Miller, a 26-year-old Chapel Hill speech therapist, who was shot on Estes Drive after being attacked during her early morning jog. Prosecutors chose to pursue a second-degree murder charge against 18-year-old Anthony Georg Simpson, accused in that case, rather than pushing first-degree murder charges. That case was brought to trial before legislation permitting alternative sentences to the death penalty in 1st-degree murder cases. Orange County's liberal reputation does not mean it is alone in edging away from capital punishment, said Tom Maher, director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. "We tend to think of Orange County as this liberal oasis. It's not out of step with a lot of counties," he said, explaining that more than one-third of North Carolina counties have no one on death row. Maher said that the strong emotional reaction to Carson's murder means that the case needs to be handled carefully and that time needs to pass before punishment for the suspects can be fairly discussed. "It's really way too early, given that, to be talking intelligently about what the appropriate punishment is," he said. History of capital punishment in Orange County and North Carolina: 1948: Last time a capital sentence issued by an Orange County jury was carried out. 1977: Death penalty restored for first-degree murder cases in North Carolina. 1970: Last time an Orange County jury issued a capital sentence; the sentence was overturned on appeal. 2001: N.C. legislation passed that allows prosecutors to pursue 1st-degree murder charges without having to seek the death penalty; the other option is life without parole. (source: Daily Tar Heel) NEW YORK----federal death penalty Brooklyn Trial of Drug Dealer May Constitute Double Jeopardy In what may be a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn are seeking the death penalty against a drug dealer for killing a man in a housing project in 1999. The drug dealer, Gerard Price, was acquitted of that crime during a 2001 trial in state court, where his lawyer claimed that Price had acted in self-defense. It's conceivable that Price would have been better off had he been convicted in 2001; the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes, who was prosecuting him then, wasn't seeking the death penalty as the U.S. attorney, Benton Campbell, is now. Legal experts could not recall a single similar case in which federal prosecutors have retried an acquitted man, and sought his death, where state prosecutors had not. Over the last 3 years, federal prosecutors have either sought the death penalty or said they would against about a dozen defendants under indictment for murders in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. This rise in death penalty proceedings in Brooklyn has caused controversy, and delayed for about half a year the nomination to the bench of a former U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, Roslynn Mauskopf. The Price case has received far less attention than the other capital murder charges in the U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn. Price, a reputed member of the Bloods street gang, faces several charges in the federal indictment, ranging from 4 attempted murders to dealing heroin and crack cocaine near the Gowanus Houses. One of the charges carries the prospect of the death penalty: murder in aid of racketeering. Price is charged with murdering an acquaintance, Ronald Chavis, and shooting in the face another man, Michael Brown, during a single act of violence. At the state trial, Price's attorney, Howard Greenberg, argued that the shooting happened after Price had taken a gun away from Chavis during an elevator ride. Mr. Greenberg asserted that Chavis and Brown were trying to kill Price. "Simply put," Mr. Greenberg, said at the time, "this is a case of self defense." The jury acquitted Price, who did not testify in his own defense, of 2nd degree murder. The gun was never found. Testimony suggested that Price had taken a nap immediately after the shooting. Since the acquittal, Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to federal drug charges and is currently in prison. His name featured frequently during the drug trial of his older brother, Robert Price. Testimony from that trial apparently implicated him in at least 3 attempted murders. It is unclear what new evidence the federal government has uncovered in the Chavis murder. The only eyewitness to the shooting, Brown, who was shot himself, never testified in the state trial. Brown is currently incarcerated in federal jail, raising the possibility that he will testify at Price's coming trial. Legal precedent suggests that the federal government has wide authority to retry defendants who have already been tried in state court. Lemrick Nelson was convicted in federal court of stabbing a chasidic Jew during race riots in Crown Heights in 1991 after a state court had acquitted him. There have also been both state and federal trials in crimes ranging from the Rodney King beating to the Oklahoma City bombing. One legal expert said it is an open question if the federal government can retry Price for the same alleged facts on a nearly identical legal theory, without violating the Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy. "I think this would certainly be challengeable on federal constitutional grounds," the director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., Richard Dieter, said. "He was dragged into court on that same set of facts and acquitted, and that's what double jeopardy is all about." A professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, David Rudstein, said the federal charges against Price do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. "The federal government is treated as a totally different entity as the state government," Mr. Rudstein, who has written a book on double jeopardy, said. The lawyer representing Price against the federal charges, Bobbi Sternheim, could not be reached for comment. "If ever a case cried out for federal prosecutors to take a pass on at least seeking the death penalty never mind prosecuting the case this is that case," the lawyer who won Price's acquittal, Howard Greenberg, said in a phone interview. The federal trial of Price is still a year away and the question of double jeopardy does not appear to have come up in court. But the judge, Nicholas Garaufis of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, has requested that Attorney General Mukasey reevaulate the Justice Department's decision to seek the death penalty. Judge Garaufis has given no indication of what prompted him to make that request, saying during a public court hearing, "I'm agnostic about the outcome." (source: New York Sun)
