Nov. 17 NEBRASKA: Let DNA tests hasten death penalty's end On Oct. 15, Joseph White won a historic legal case that overturned his 1985 murder conviction. His was the first post-conviction DNA exoneration in Nebraska's history. Based on eyewitness accounts, White was convicted of the rape and murder of 68-year-old Helen Wilson in Beatrice. In 1989, White was sentenced to life in prison. If that had been the end of the story, we all could assume that the justice system had done its job and a dangerous killer was safely behind bars. This is not that story. In 2000, the Nebraska Legislature passed the DNA Testing Act due in large part to the efforts of State Sen. Ernie Chambers. White filed an unsuccessful motion to have the DNA evidence in his case reviewed in 2006, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in late 2007 and ordered the testing to go forward. Two rounds of DNA testing now have shown that the forensic evidence found at the crime scene came from one man, and that man was not Joseph White. During the original investigation, an FBI report concluded that the killer had acted alone. The recent DNA findings have drawn the same conclusion. Why then did authorities arrest 6 people in 1989? The eyewitness testimony that led to White's conviction came from the 5 co-defendants in the case. Of them, 3 received sentences of 10 years in prison in exchange for their testimony, while another was scheduled for release in 2009. The final defendant, Thomas Winslow, pleaded no contest to aiding and abetting 1st-degree murder and received a 50-year sentence. Now you may wonder why 5 of the 6 people charged in this case pleaded to lesser charges when it is clear they were in no way involved in the crime. The answer to these questions has become clear: They did it to avoid the death penalty. We then are left to question why 6 innocent people would fear being convicted and sentenced to death. Given that the only person to maintain his innocence in court was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, it becomes clear that their fears were well-founded. On Nov. 7, Attorney General Jon Bruning announced that DNA evidence shows Wilson was murdered in 1985 by Bruce Allen Smith, who died of AIDS 16 years ago in Oklahoma City. The state has released Ada Joann Taylor, the last person who was in prison in the case. Bruning said the state will seek pardons for everyone convicted. It is cases like this that should strengthen the convictions of Nebraskans in opposing the death penalty. All too often, we find that eyewitness testimony has been tainted by overzealous and sometimes malicious police tactics or at the very least is subject to human error. Additionally, anyone who has read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham knows just how corrupt the justice system can be. Many will say that the advent of DNA technology will lead to a more perfect justice system. To that, I respond there are many cases in which no DNA evidence is available and eyewitness testimony is nearly the only evidence presented at trial. This is exactly what has taken place in the state of Georgia, where Troy Anthony Davis has been convicted of a crime where there is no physical evidence implicating his guilt just the words of 9 eyewitnesses. At this time, 7 of those 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony. Many believe that one of the remaining 2 may be the actual killer. Twice in the last 2 months, Davis has come within hours of being executed due to the inability of the Georgia justice system to see innocence as a good enough reason to review this case. After seeing the 1st post-conviction DNA exonerations in Nebraska, I am certainly heartened that justice has finally been served for Joseph White. But I am left wondering how many other innocent people are sitting in jail in this state right now. We know that there have been more than 220 similar exonerations around the country, and it seems safe to assume that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Now I must ask the most difficult question of all: Is the State of Nebraska willing to continue pursuing the death penalty when we can so clearly see that the system is not working? Are we all willing to accept responsibility for the possibility that we could execute an innocent person, that we could take an innocent life? This debate may not actually come down to how we all personally feel about capital punishment. It may require that we simply look at the facts and say that we will no longer be part of this accident waiting to happen. (saource: Jill Francke--The writer, of Lincoln, is statewide coordinator for Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty; Op-ed, Omaha World Herald, Sunday, Nov. 16) KANSAS: Man avoids death sentence by pleading guilty in slayings of pregnant ex-wife and children Prosecutors in Kansas are seeking a life sentence for a man who killed his pregnant ex-wife, her unborn child and the woman's 8-month-old daughter. Andrew Anthony Guerrero avoided a possible death sentence by pleading guilty Friday to one count each of capital murder and felony murder. Guerrero shot his pregnant ex-wife, 23-year-old Nicolette Lyons-Reed, and her daughter, Leah, in February at their home in Kansas City, Kan. Prosecutors say he was charged under a statute known as Alexa's Law, which makes killing or injuring an unborn child during an attack on the mother a crime. The law is named for the unborn daughter of a 14-year-old girl killed in Wichita. (source: Associated Press) NEW HAMPSHIRE: Addison penalty: Is death an option? The same jury that last week found Michael K. Addison guilty of capital murder returns to court this morning to decide whether he is eligible for the death penalty. The Hillsborough County Superior Court trial now moves into its second phase, during which the state will attempt to prove Addison, 28, acted purposely when he murdered Officer Michael L. Briggs and that he did so to avoid arrest or to escape being taken into custody. If the state fails to prove these 2 mandatory aggravators to a unanimous jury, the case ends and Addison automatically will be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. Addison would be eligible for the death penalty if the jury found the aggravators exist, and the trial would progress to the sentencing stage. During this final stage, the jury of 6 men and 6 women would decide which sentence to impose: life in prison without parole, or death. Capital murder is not only the state's most serious crime but also the only one in which the jury -- not a judge -- imposes the sentence. Both the state and the defense will present opening arguments today. The jury may consider testimony and evidence already presented in the trial's first phase. The state said it would present one new witness. Judge Kathleen A. McGuire said the case could go to the jury today. In convicting Addison of capital murder, the jury found he knowingly killed Briggs, 35, a bicycle patrol officer who attempted to stop Addison and his accomplice, Antoine Bell-Rogers, 23, in a city alley early on Oct. 16, 2006. At the time, both men were wanted by police in connection with an armed robbery and a shooting. Bell-Rogers complied with Briggs' order to stop, but Addison continued walking before he turned and fired one shot into Briggs' skull at close range. Briggs, a decorated, 5-year veteran of the Manchester force and a father of 2, died the next day. (source: Kathryn Marchicki; New Hampshire Union Leader) ***************** Capital questions: How much do death penalty cases cost? With 2 capital murder cases tried in the last month, some in New Hampshire are now questioning how much the cases will wind up costing the state -- in dollars and in the handling of other cases by the Attorney General's Office. State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro wants a detailed explanation of how Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is spending the extra $1.4 million the legislative Fiscal Committee approved for prosecution of 2 capital murder cases. And former prosecutor Barbara Keshen says other criminal cases must be getting short-changed because so many resources are being devoted to those cases. D'Allesandro, a Manchester Democrat, said he supports the death penalty, but still wants to know where the money is going as the state scrambles to close a $200 million budget gap. "I went to the governor's office and asked for an accounting of the money we have given (the Attorney General's Office.) There's got to be an accounting," D'Allesandro said. D'Allesandro, vice chairman of the Fiscal Committee, wants the spending details before the committee meets Friday. Costly convictions The 2 unrelated capital murder cases, the first two to go to trial in New Hampshire in half a century, already have cost the state millions of dollars. And that may be just the beginning if Michael Addison is sentenced to die for killing Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs 2 years ago, experts say. A jury last week found Addison, 28, guilty of capital murder in Briggs' death. Starting tomorrow, jurors will determine if Addison should die. Earlier this month, a jury spared millionaire John J. Brooks the death penalty, saying the state failed to prove his murder of handyman Jack Reid Sr. in 2005 in Deerfield was committed in an "especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." Orville "Bud" Fitch, deputy attorney general, responding to the New Hampshire Sunday News' request last week for itemized costs, said those numbers won't be available until next week. Fitch did research how much was spent on two women who were to testify as Brooks' former mistresses. They were quickly sent back to Las Vegas when the judge ruled they couldn't testify. Fitch confirmed the state spent more than $2,000 to bring the two women to New Hampshire. That includes round-trip tickets from Las Vegas at $854.50 each. One woman stayed 2 nights at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester; the other stayed two nights, costing the state either $99 a night or $109 a night, the government rate that included a shuttle from the airport, Fitch said. Each was allowed $35 a day for food, and $12 per half-day for witness fees, Fitch said. "This was a difficult case. A lot of people came from Nevada," Fitch said, adding that he doesn't yet have a full accounting of travel costs for all witnesses flown to New Hampshire, nor for police and prosecutors who were flown to Nevada to conduct interviews before the trial. Expending resources Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said it is likely other criminal cases will suffer because of the resources put into the 2 capital cases. "We're not a wealthy state. The Attorney General's Office . . . needs to use its resources in a way in which they can get the most justice for each dollar given. If you have to expend such vast amounts prosecuting 2 people, the quality of justice will have to suffer in other cases," Keshen said. Keshen represented Gordon Perry, who was charged with capital murder in the August 1997 death of Epsom police officer Jeremy Charron. Perry cut a deal, pleaded guilty to capital murder, and was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. Keshen, who also formerly worked as a state homicide prosecutor and public defender, said there is no way of figuring future appeal costs because the state hasn't had a capital murder trial in so long. And the last execution New Hampshire carried out was a hanging in 1939. "Anyone who puts a price tag on this is guessing. This is a whole new path for New Hampshire," Keshen said. The state has no protocol for putting someone to death, she said. And the state would have to construct a death chamber to kill a convict by lethal injection, the state's primary method of execution. But Jane Young, chief of the Attorney General's Office criminal bureau, insisted no cases have been short-changed. "There is no additional plea bargaining or other cases suffering because of two capital murder cases," Young said. "Tuesday was a holiday, and besides the attorney general herself and the deputy, in the criminal bureau a substantial number were working -- not just death-penalty cases." Court costs Capital murder cases cost more, according to Judge Robert Lynn, head of the Superior Court system and the presiding judge in the Brooks trial. "I don't think there is any question a capital case is significantly more expensive, if for no other reason (than) it involves a second sentencing proceeding. And, of course, from the beginning everyone has to plan for that possibility," Lynn said. Howard Zibel, legislative counsel for the court system, said every day of trial in a capital murder case costs an estimated $1,663. That's $707 for the judge, $177 for the court monitor, $154 for a deputy clerk, $157 for an average of 2 1/4 bailiffs, $360 for jurors ($20 each), and $108 for juror mileage. The count doesn't include deputy sheriffs to guard prisoners. The costs would be less for 1st-degree murder and other crimes because there would be 4 fewer alternate jurors seated, less court clerk time, and fewer bailiffs. Funding public defense Chris Keating, executive director of the New Hampshire Public Defender's Office, said to defend Michael Addison, his office spent about $200,000 in fiscal 2007 and almost $400,000 in fiscal 2008. That's about 10 times what he would expect a first-degree murder defense to cost, he said. Manchester attorney Richard McNamara, a former prosecutor who wrote "New Hampshire Criminal Practice and Procedure," successfully defended a man originally accused of capital murder in the early 1980s. "The only thing that strikes me about the costs (of capital murder cases) is the state pays both ways, not just the prosecution," McNamara said. The state also usually pays for the defendants' defense and appeals because, unlike Brooks, most can't afford private attorneys. In the end, McNamara said, cost shouldn't be the overriding factor. "The one thing we need to say at the end of the day: If it's the correct thing to do, cost shouldn't stop people from doing it. But, he added, "With all the vaguery, the ambiguity in the public mind about the death penalty and practical considerations," it is worth closer examination. Rep. Marjorie Smith, D-Durham, chairman of the Fiscal Committee, was critical of the Attorney General's Office coming back for more money. "I have difficulty in accepting that 10 members of the Legislature make those decisions, rather than 424 (lawmakers)," Smith said. Smith said she is opposed to the death penalty for several reasons, the cost of capital cases among them. Cost of execution Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said some states are looking more closely at costs associated with capital cases in determining whether to do away with the death penalty. "It costs $3 million for typical states to arrive at one execution, allowing all costs of the death penalty system," Dieter said. New York and New Jersey have both eliminated their death penalty statutes within the last year, citing cost as at least one of the factors, he said. Colin Manning, spokesman for Gov. John Lynch, said Lynch backs the death penalty and "believes these cases should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." According to Manning, Lynch believes the attorney general, like all department heads, can look at other areas for cuts. D'Allesandro said he, too, wants the attorney general to look at areas outside capital cases for cuts. "Our death penalty was structured to be used narrowly," he said, especially when protecting police officers. "Those are public servants. We owe them that respect." (source: Union Leader) ********************* NH jury says Addison eligible for death penalty The jury in the Michael Addison case decided Monday that he is eligible to be sentenced to death for killing Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs in 2006. The Hillsborough County Superior Court jury will reconvene Thursday for judicial instructions, then Friday to start hearing testimony to help it decide whether to actually sentence Addison to die or to spend the rest of his life in prison. New Hampshire has not executed anyone since 1939. Monday's decision was expected, and attention is focused on the penalty phase ahead. Nonetheless, there was a round of hugs and thank-yous for prosecutors, as there had been when the jury convicted Addison, 28, of capital murder on Thursday. Addison's lawyers have admitted Addison shot Briggs, but said he acted recklessly, not with intent. The jury mostly rejected that claim on Monday. In order to find Addison eligible, the state had to have proven at least one of the following: -- That Addison purposely killed Briggs. -- That he purposely inflicted serious bodily injury on Briggs. -- That he purposely engaged in conduct to create "grave risk" of death to Briggs. The jury rejected the 1st statement, but agreed with the other 2. It also agreed, as it had to, that prosecutors had proved that Addison shot Briggs to escape arrest. In the penalty phase, expected to last three weeks, Judge Kathleen McGuire has ruled that Addison will be allowed to make a statement in court. Prosecutors expect him to express remorse and have asked McGuire to take steps to ensure that he doesn't try to recast facts established in testimony. Laura Briggs, widow of Michael Briggs, is expected to testify in the penalty phase. The defense on Monday filed a motion seeking to limit the state's victim witness list to Briggs' immediate family. According to the motion, prosecutors anticipate testimony about Briggs as a child, his prior employment as a correctional officer, his prior contact with Addison and his opinions on crimes allegedly committed by Addison the week before he died. The defense argues the testimony is prejudicial. In arguments before Monday's verdict, defense attorney David Rothstein said Addison, a Manchester resident, did not act purposely. "Michael Addison did not have the purpose to kill Officer Briggs, or to cause him such injury as to result in his death or the purpose to put him at grave risk of death," Rothstein said. "He had no purpose. He had no plan. He had no conscious object to cause death." "I want you to think about the difference between being aware that death would result from your actions and specifically wanting death to result," he said. Senior Assistant Attorney General Will Delker countered that Addison's eligibility for the death penalty "flows logically" from his conviction. "To try and explain how his conduct could be 'knowing' without 'purposely' would require mental gymnastics that simply defy common sense," Delker said. Rothstein said Addison's actions following the shooting do not demonstrate that he planned to kill Briggs. "It's pathetic and it's cowardly and it excuses absolutely nothing here, but it does not demonstrate he had a plan or acted purposely when he shot Officer Briggs," Rothstein said. (source: Associated Press) GEORGIA: Our system owes Troy Davis another day in court It is wrong to execute an innocent man. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will now consider whether it is constitutional. Troy Anthony Davis, convicted of murder, is asking the courts to hear evidence that key government witnesses have repudiated their testimony against him. But so far the courts have decided that, while he may be innocent, procedural rules prevent them from taking a 2nd look. For 17 years, Troy Davis has been on Georgia's death row for murdering a police officer. As the director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, and as a former federal judge, I believe that there is no more serious offense than the murder of a police officer. However, crucial unanswered questions surround claims of Davis' responsibility for this terrible crime, and I believe that the execution should not go forward until the courts address them and determine whether he is in fact guilty. Police never found a murder weapon. 7 of the 9 nonpolice witnesses recanted or changed their original testimony. Some of these witnesses say police pressed them to implicate Davis. Some also point to another man, 1 of the 2 witnesses who continue to implicate Davis, as the real murderer. Because these revelations came after Davis was convicted, court rules have prevented a full hearing on Davis claim of innocence. These rules, put in place to prevent endless appeals by the guilty, may also cut off a lifeline to the innocent. These rules bar appeals courts from hearing even the most important of claims if the defendant did not properly raise them at trial. This is true even if the failure to raise them was not caused by the defendant. This was the situation in Davis case; his lawyers were overworked and underpaid public defenders who admit they were unable to investigate the facts and provide a comprehensive defense. These procedural rules mean that no court has ever held a hearing on the claims of innocence raised by Davis's current legal team. To send a man to his death because procedural obstacles prevent the courts from considering the merits of his claim of innocence would, in my view, be a travesty. I am a member of the Constitution Projects bipartisan Death Penalty Committee, which includes both supporters, such as myself, and opponents of the death penalty. We have issued a series of recommendations to address the profound risk that the wrong people will be convicted or even executed under a capital punishment system that is deeply flawed. One of those recommendations is that courts must hear the merits of claims such as those raised by Davis, and that procedural obstacles that would otherwise bar such review should be abolished. There are those who say that it is enough that courts have looked at the recanting witnesses' affidavits. It is not. Since there was no physical evidence, this case was built almost entirely on witness testimony. Only a full hearing, with all witnesses subject to rigorous cross-examination and a full exploration of the circumstances of their testimony, will provide a means to determine the reliability of this conviction. This never happened at trial. It must happen now. On Oct. 24, the 11th Circuit judges wisely stayed Daviss impending execution to give him the opportunity to request a full hearing. Yet the law says that, even if Davis can provide compelling evidence that he is innocent, if the court determines that he could have introduced the evidence at an earlier date, that evidence of innocence is not enough to stay the executioners hand. Procedural obstacles would block the truth, and finality would trump fairness. Davis is not asking the court to set him free. He is asking for the courts permission to give his innocence claims the full hearing they deserve. Our justice system should punish the guilty, free the innocent and have the wisdom to know the difference. I hope the 11th Circuit will give Davis his day in court. (source: Williams Sessions, a former district court judge, served as FBI director from 1987 to 1993-- Opinion, Atlanta Journal-Constitution) ************************ Meneguzzo: Nichols wants to escape Brian Nichols made it clear that his main goal is to break out of prison and that he plans to choose the time of his death and it wont be by state execution, his pen-pal paramour testified Monday. "He would say it was not in his DNA to be stuck in a cell for the rest of his life," Lisa Meneguzzo told the Fulton County jury. "He would say, 'I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.'" Prosecutors hope the testimony will persuade the Superior Court jury to sentence Nichols to death for the 4 murders he committed after escaping custody at the Fulton Courthouse where he was on trial for rape. Prosecutors maintain Nichols, who has been convicted of the killings, is an evil, manipulative man who presents an ongoing threat to society. "He would say, 'I won't let them put a needle in my arm, I'll go out on my own terms,'" said Meneguzzo who developed a romantic interest in Nichols after the March 11, 2005 shootings. In the continuing penalty phase of the Nichols trial, Meneguzzo, 39, also implicated a former member of Nichols' defense team as a go-between in smuggling letters in which Nichols outlined escape plans. She said Tamela Hysten, a paralegal for the defense team, also smuggled Nichols a book, "The Special Forces Guide to Escape and Evasion," to help in his plans. Hysten has denied the allegations. She has not been charged and she is no longer associated with the Nichols case. Her lawyer, Akil Secret, denied to comment Monday on the Meneguzzo testimony and said Hysten would also be mum. "She is not going to be making any statements regarding that and neither am I, and thats as far as I'm going to go," Secret said in a telephone interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Meneguzzo is testifying under a grant of immunity. Her agreement with District Attorney Paul Howard says she loses the immunity and is subject to prosecution if she lies during testimony. Meneguzzo, who began testifying Friday, said that she provided money perhaps as much as $3,000 to David Ramsey, a former detention officer at the jail, to get Nichols free-world food, a DVD player and to keep a cell phone charged that Meneguzzo had smuggled to Nichols during a visit. Ramsey eventually demanded about $90,000 to help smuggle in a masonry saw and other tool to aide Nichols in his escape, Meneguzzo said. Nichols rejected the sum as exorbitant, Meneguzzo said. "Brian said, 'He was trippin,'" Meneguzzo said of Ramsey. Ramsey, who testified last week, admitted taking bribes to keep the cell phone charged but he said he balked at assisting in any escape plans. Meneguzzo said she sent $1,500 to Hysten, whom Nichols had code-named Breadbasket, to pass to another deputy whom Hysten was dating. That deputy was a member of an elite jailhouse unit that was guarding Nichols, but she didnt know his name, Meneguzzo said. "Brian was trying to gain his trust so that gentleman would help him escape," Meneguzzo said. Nichols has not escaped from custody since he broke loose during the rape trial and committed the murders that led to his death-penalty trial. Meneguzzo contended she never intended to help Nichols escape and was only giving him hope so he would be able to deal better with jail. But she said Nichols had enlisted the help of his brother Mark Nichols who is also expected to testify and a cousin to ensure he had the support to evade capture once he escaped. Meneguzzo, who manages a small printing company in Connecticut, said she wrote Nichols shortly after the Fulton Courthouse shooting and the following manhunt, which resulted in round-the clock coverage on Atlanta-based CNN until Nichols was captured 26 hours later. Nichols began his escape from a holding cell in 2005 after attacking his female guard and taking her firearm. He then murdered Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes, who was presiding over his rape trial, and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, who were in the courtroom. He fled the courthouse and shot and killed Sheriff's Deputy Hoyt Teasley, who pursued him outside and later murdered David Wilhelm, an off-duty federal agent, at the agents Bulkhead property. On Nov. 7, the jury convicted Nichols of all the 54 crimes the 4 murders, robberies, aggravated assaults and kidnappings conducted after his escape in his indictment after 12 hours of deliberation. Nichols had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, Last Wednesday, the jury began hearing evidence on whether to sentence the 36-year-old Nichols to death by lethal injection or life in prison. Meneguzzo, the 113th witness to testify, said she developed a love for Nichols during their numerous phone calls, more than 100 letters and occasional visits. She said she she spent as much as $20,000 on Nichols, on everything from bribes to phone calls to money she sent to Nichols mother to buy him suits. She said her physical contact with Nichols was a kiss and handholding during jail visits but they exchanged nude pictures via cell phone. She said she eventually figured out that Nichols didn't reciprocate her feelings. Nichols always tried to steer their conversations back to aiding in his escape and asking her for money, she said. "I was nothing more than a dollar sign for Brian Nichols," she said. (source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
[Deathpenalty] [POSSIBLE SPAM] death penalty news----NEB., KAN., N.H., GA.
Rick Halperin Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:06:32 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
