Nov. 22
TEXAS:
Jo Ann Chavez's mother wants death penalty
It's been more than 8 years since Maria Castañeda's 1st born child, Jo Ann
Chavez was murdered in 2003.
Her remains were discovered 2 years later, buried in a Willacy County ranch.
"We've all been hurting, it still hurts…we miss her,” Castañeda said. “She was
the most lovable daughter that I had." She's never spoken out about her
daughter's death, but Castañeda broke her silence Tuesday as she waited for the
jury's verdict in the capital murder case against Wilfredo Padilla.
He's the alleged Mexican Mafia leader who prosecutors claim ordered Chavez’s
murder.
Castañeda said it's been a long, painful wait in their pursuit for justice and
she can only think of one verdict.
“We're just hoping that he gets the death penalty," Castañeda said.
Jurors began deliberating Monday, after listening to closing arguments from
both defense and state prosecutors.
Tuesday, they deliberated for at least 6 more hours, reviewing some dozen
pieces of notes or evidence presented to them during the trial.
Castañeda said she's ready for their verdict, even if it's not guilty.
"Then I’ll just have to live with it - God will do justice," Castañeda said.
The mother is anxious for the verdict, because after all these years, Chavez
hasn't had a proper burial.
Her remains were kept as evidence for the trial.
"We do already have plans to have the funeral services,” she said.
Most of all Castañeda said after the verdict, they'll have closure and can
continue remembering her daughter's life, rather than her death.
"She was a very, very lovable daughter, understanding,” a tearful Castañeda
said. “When she would see me upset, she would (tell me), ‘mom put a smile on
your face.’ She would hug me, have me up there and give me a kiss.”
(source: Valley Central News)
************
Impending executions in Texas
date------# under Gov. Perry----name------------------# in Texas since 1982
Jan. 26--240--Rodrigo Hernandez-----------------------478----50 % of all Tx.
executions carried out under Gov. Perry, since 2001
Feb. 1---241---Donald Newbury--------------------------479---more than 50 % of
all Tx. executions now carried out under Gov. Perry's tenure
Feb. 29--242---George Rivas-----------------------------480
Mar. 7---243---Keith Thurmond---------------------------481
Mar. 28--244---Jesse Hernandez------------------------482
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
OREGON:
Oregon Governor Says He Will Block Executions
Gov. John Kitzhaber of Oregon on Tuesday said he would halt the execution of a
death row inmate scheduled for next month and that he would allow no more
executions in the state during his time in office.
“It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach,” Governor Kitzhaber, a
Democrat elected last fall, said in a news conference in Salem on Tuesday
afternoon. “I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system
any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am governor.”
Oregon, which uses lethal injection, has executed just two people since its
voters approved the death penalty in 1984, and both of those inmates waived
certain rights to appeal, making them so-called volunteers. The state, which
has 37 inmates on death row, last executed someone in 1997. It has been one of
at least 7 states that allow the death penalty but have not used it in more
than a decade, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
But Oregon’s status appeared likely to change after Gary Haugen, a
twice-convicted murderer, waived several appeals and asked to be executed. Mr.
Haugen, convicted of killings in 1981 and in 2003, has testified that the death
penalty wastes taxpayer money and is unjustly carried out. But in a court
appearance in October, Mr. Haugen said: “This is going to be one time where I
just don’t do a lot of talking, because I’m ready, your honor. Because I’m
ready.”
Outside groups fought to stop the execution, but late Monday the Oregon Supreme
Court ruled, 4 to 3, to allow it to go forward. By Tuesday morning, Governor
Kitzhaber’s office had scheduled his afternoon announcement.
The governor, a physician who served 2 previous terms, from 1995 to 2003, noted
that he had allowed the two earlier executions to go forward under his watch.
“They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as governor
and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14
years,” Governor Kitzhaber said. “I do not believe that those executions made
us safer; certainly I don’t believe they made us more noble as a society. And I
simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally
wrong.”
Noting the length of time many inmates spend on death row, often more than 20
years, he said Oregon had an “unworkable system that fails to meet basic
standards of justice.” He said there was a wide sense the death penalty process
was flawed but that the state had “done nothing; we have avoided the question.”
“It is a perversion of justice when the single best indicator of who will and
will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the
findings of a jury,” he said. “The only factor that determines in Oregon
whether someone sentenced to death will actually be executed is that they
volunteer to die.”
The governor did not commute the sentence of Mr. Haugen or any of the other
death row inmates. He granted Mr. Haugen what he called a temporary reprieve.
He asked the Legislature “to bring potential reforms before the 2013
legislative session” and he encouraged “all Oregonians to engage in the long
overdue debate that this important issue deserves.”
In all, 34 states allow the death penalty, but only 27 have executed someone in
the past decade, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit
group that has been critical of how the death penalty is carried out around the
country. The annual number of executions nationwide has declined by about half
over the past decade.
Gov. George Ryan of Illinois halted executions in that state in 2000, then, as
he was leaving office in 2003, commuted the sentences of all death row inmates.
The Illinois Legislature banned the death penalty this year. New Jersey
abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death
penalty in 2009.
Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information
Center, said that states could be forced into the death penalty debate when
inmates volunteered.
“An execution focuses everybody’s attention,” Mr. Dieter said. “It becomes real
and people have to decide. And of course the governor has a personal
responsibility.”
Governor Kitzhaber said he would be criticized, and he was.
“If the review system is broken such that nobody but volunteers are being
executed, the answer is to fix the review system,” said Kent S. Scheidegger,
the legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports
the death penalty.
Mr. Scheidegger said the authority some governors had to commute or delay death
penalty sentences “is given for the purpose of correcting injustices in
individual cases. It’s not given for the purpose of negating an entire law.”
Governor Kitzhaber said his decision was rooted in policy and personal views.
He noted he had taken an oath as a physician to “never do harm.” Asked with
whom he had consulted, he said, “Mostly myself.”
(source: New York Times)
************************
Gov. John Kitzhaber stops executions in Oregon, calls system 'compromised and
inequitable'
Gov. John Kitzhaber announced today he will not allow the execution of Gary
Haugen -- or any death row inmate -- to take place while he is in office.
The death penalty is morally wrong and unjustly administered, Kitzhaber said.
"In my mind it is a perversion of justice," he said at an emotional news
conference in Salem.
The governor cited his constitutional authority to grant a temporary reprieve
for Haugen, in effect canceling the planned Dec. 6 lethal injection of the
twice-convicted murderer. Haugen waived his legal appeals and has been
preparing for the execution, which would have been Oregon's first in 14 years.
The change of heart comes as a surprise for a governor who twice before -- in
his 1st term as governor -- allowed executions to go forward. Despite his
personal opposition to the death penalty, Kitzhaber said he was upholding the
will of the people in allowing the 1996 execution of Douglas Franklin Wright
and the 1997 execution of Harry Charles Moore.
"I have regretted those choices ever since," he said in a prepared statement.
"Both because of my own deep personal convictions about capital punishment and
also because in practice, Oregon has an expensive and unworkable system that
fails to meet basic standards of justice."
The announcement is a win for death penalty activists who had asked Kitzhaber
to declare a moratorium on executions until the state conducts a thorough
review of its death penalty system.
Kitzhaber said his decision is not out of compassion for Haugen or other
inmates. But the death penalty is not handed down fairly -- some inmates on
death row have committed similar crimes as those who are serving life
sentences, he said. It is a criticism Haugen himself has often made and cites
as a reason that he has volunteered to die, protesting the unfairness of the
death penalty.
In addition, Oregon only executes those who volunteer, Kitzhaber said.
While Oregon has ignored the problems in its death penalty system, Kitzhaber
noted that other states have abolished executions. Illinois, New Jersey and New
Mexico all have joined the ranks of states that no longer include capital
punishment as a sentencing option, recognizing the serious flaws and high costs
of maintaining the death penalty, he said.
Haugen's case is forcing the state to confront problems with the death penalty,
Kitzhaber said. The state needs to engage in a debate about less-costly, more
equitable alternatives, he said.
Haugen has been on death row since 2007 for the fatal stabbing of inmate David
Polin. Before then, he had been serving a life sentence with the possibility of
parole for the 1981 beating death of his ex-girlfriend's mother, Mary Archer.
Kitzhaber said he met with family members of Haugen's victims. "My heart goes
out to them," the governor said, his voice quavering. "Unquestionably this
decision will delay the closure that they deserve."
Ard Pratt, the ex-husband of Mary Archer, said Kitzhaber's decision was "just
wrong."
"We are again just plain devastated," Pratt said. "This is such a miscarriage
of justice."
Steven Gorham, Haugen's attorney, said he had not yet talked to the inmate, but
predicted Haugen would be very disappointed. Haugen's commitment to going
through with the execution has not wavered, Gorham said.
Neither he nor Haugen had expected Kitzhaber to intervene, Gorham said. He
doesn't know what will happen next.
Kitzhaber said he supports adopting a sentence of life in prison without the
possibility of parole instead of capital punishment and will ask the state
Legislature to come up with possible reforms for the 2013 session.
**
Gov. John Kitzhaber stops executions in Oregon
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber cited his constitutional authority to grant a
temporary reprieve for Haugen, in effect canceling the planned Dec. 6 lethal
injection of the twice-convicted murderer.
The move comes a day after the Oregon Supreme Court cleared the way for
Haugen's execution. Kitzhaber declined to commute Haugen's sentence, saying he
believes the state must decide for itself on the need for a statewide debate
over capital punishment.
"I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports
the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values," he wrote.
"I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer;
and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor."
While Kitzhaber's move is still rare, it is part of a national slowdown in the
use of the death penalty, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death
Penalty Information Center.
Last year, 112 people were handed death sentences in the United States, he
said, a 60 percent drop from the 1990s, when about 300 people were sentenced to
die each year. The number of executions has dropped 50 percent from 98 in 1999
to 46 last year, according to the center's research.
More states are abolishing the death penalty too, Dieter said. Since 2007, 3
states -- New Jersey, New Mexico and Illinois -- have done away with capital
punishment. Before 2007, Dieter said, no state had done that since the '60s.
Gov. John Kitzhaber announces a moratorium on executions and grants a reprieve
to death row inmate Gary Haugen on Tuesday in Salem.
The Death Penalty in Oregon
1864: Legislature enacts death penalty by statute.
1904: Executions made exclusive to the Oregon State Penitentiary after being
done at police headquarters across the state.
1912: Gov. Oswald West allows four men to be executed at once, hoping the
gruesome spectacle will hasten abolition of the death penalty.
1914: Voters repeal the death penalty.
1920: Voters restore the death penalty.
1948: J. Willos is the last man hanged in Oregon before the state switches to
lethal gas.
1961: Jeannace Freeman becomes the first woman sentenced to die. Her sentence
is ultimately commuted in 1964 by Gov. Mark Hatfield.
1962: Leeroy McGahuey is the last man gassed to death.
1964: Voters repeal the death penalty.
1978: Voters re-enact the death penalty.
1981: Oregon Supreme Court deems the death penalty unconstitutional.
1984: Voters reinstate the death penalty.
1996: Douglas Franklin Wright becomes the first man executed by lethal
injection.
1997: Harry Charles Moore is the last man to be executed.
Number of people on death row today: 37
(source: The Oegonian)
*********************
Governor Kitzhaber Proclamation ---- Press Release: November 22, 2011
Governor Kitzhaber issues reprieve - calls for action on capital punishment
(Salem, OR) –Governor Kitzhaber released the following statement today:
“Under Article V, section 14, of the Oregon Constitution, I am exercising my
authority as Governor to issue a temporary reprieve in the case of Gary Haugen
for the duration of my term in office. I want to share with Oregonians how and
why I came to that decision.
Oregon has a long and turbulent history with capital punishment. Our state
constitution originally had no provision for the death penalty. Enacted by
statute in 1864, the death penalty was repealed by voters in 1914, restored in
1920, outlawed again by voters in 1964, re-enacted in 1978, deemed
unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1981 and again reinstated in
1984.
It has been carried out just twice in last 49 years in Oregon. Both were during
my first administration as Governor, one in 1996 and the other in 1997. I
allowed those sentences to be carried out despite my personal opposition to the
death penalty. I was torn between my personal convictions about the morality of
capital punishment and my oath to uphold the Oregon constitution.
They were the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as Governor
and I have revisited and questioned them over and over again during the past 14
years. I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they
did not make us nobler as a society. And I simply cannot participate once again
in something I believe to be morally wrong.
Let me be clear, I had no sympathy or compassion for the criminals or for
anyone who commits the most heinous of acts – taking the life of another
person. The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will
be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in
such a cruel fashion.
But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of
whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to
life in prison. What distinguished those two death row inmates during my first
term was that they volunteered to die.
Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and
certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor
just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all. It is a
perversion of justice that the single best indicator of who will and will not
be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings
of a jury. The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death
in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that
in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been
carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal.
In the years since those executions, many judges, district attorneys,
legislators, death penalty proponents and opponents, and victims and their
families have agreed that Oregon’s system is broken.
But we have done nothing. We have avoided the question.
And during that time, a growing number of states have reconsidered their
approach to capital punishment given public concern, evidence of wrongful
convictions, the unequal application of the law, the expense of the process and
other issues.
Illinois banned it earlier this year, ending a legacy of faulty convictions,
forced confessions, unreliable witnesses and incompetent legal representation.
New Jersey abolished capital punishment after determining it had spent a
quarter of a billion dollars on a system that executed no one. New Mexico
recognized that the death penalty is neither an effective deterrent nor fair to
victims’ families burdened with lengthy trials and appeals and replaced it with
a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Today, in Oregon, we can no longer avoid the question. Last Friday, a death
warrant was signed for another death row inmate, Gary Haugen. And again he has
volunteered to die.
He is just one of 37 inmates on death row today. Some have been there for over
20 years. They all have many years and appeals left before there is even a
remote possibility of carrying out their death sentence. Two others have died
of natural causes after more than a decade on death row. The reality is that
Oregon’s death row is an extremely expensive life prison term, likely several
times more expensive that the life terms of others who happen to have been
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole -- rather than
the death penalty.
And while it may be convenient to blame lengthy and expensive death penalty
trials and appeals on inmates “working the system,” the truth is courts (and
society) continue to reinterpret when, how and under what circumstances it is
acceptable for the state to kill someone. Over time, those options are
narrowing. Courts are applying stricter standards and continually raising the
bar for prosecuting death penalty cases. Consider that it was only 6 years ago
that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and held that it is
unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on those under the age of 18. For
a state intent on maintaining a death penalty, the inevitable result will be
bigger questions, fewer options and higher costs.
It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach. I refuse to be a part
of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow
further executions while I am Governor.
I do not make this decision lightly.
It was the will of the voters in 1984 to reinstate the death penalty in Oregon.
I respect that and, in fact, have carried out that will on two occasions. I
have regretted those choices ever since – both because of my own deep personal
convictions about capital punishment and also because in practice Oregon has an
expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice.
Twenty-seven years after voters reinstated the death penalty it is clear the
system is broken.
To those who will inevitably say that my decision today compromises the will of
the voters; let me point out that, in practice, it is the current system itself
which compromises the will of the voters. I do not believe for a moment that
the voters intended to create a system in which those condemned to death could
determine whether that sentence would be carried out.
I could have commuted Mr. Haugen’s sentence – and indeed the sentences of all
those on death row – to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I did
not do so because the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine
alone to decide. It is a matter for all Oregonians to decide. And it is my hope
– indeed my intention – that my action today will bring about a long overdue
reevaluation of our current policy and our system of capital punishment.
Personally, I favor replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the
possibility of parole and will argue for that policy in any future debate over
capital punishment in Oregon. Others will point to opportunities to speed
appeals or change the criteria for death penalty cases. In any event we can no
longer ignore the contradictions and inequities of our current system.
I am calling on the legislature to bring potential reforms before the 2013
legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue
debate that this important issue deserves. I am convinced we can find a better
solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their
families and reflects Oregon values.
Fourteen years ago, I struggled with the decision to allow an execution to
proceed. Over the years I have thought if faced with the same set of
circumstances I would make a different decision. That time has come.”
(source:
(http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/media_room/press_releases/p2011/press_112211.shtml)-----Office
of the Governor)
UTAH:
Utah high court rejects death row inmate's appeal
Utah's Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a death row inmate's request for a new
trial of his 1988 murder case on the grounds that he was poorly represented by
his previous attorneys.
Michael Anthony Archuleta's appeal of his 1989 capital murder conviction was
his fifth to be denied by the court.
In its opinion, the court said it found no merit to claims by a defense
attorney that Archuleta deserved either a new trial, or at least, a new penalty
phase in the original case. The opinion consolidated arguments from Archuleta's
fourth and fifth appeals.
"We find none of Archuleta's numerous claims in either of these appeals
availing, and we accordingly reaffirm his conviction for first-degree murder
and sentence of death," the opinion says.
It was unclear Tuesday whether Archuleta, 49, now has any further avenues of
appeal in Utah's state court system or if the appeal will now move to the
federal courts. A message left for Archuleta's attorney, James Slavens, was not
immediately returned.
Archuleta and co-defendant Lance Wood were convicted in separate trials in 1989
of the murder of Southern Utah University student Gordon Church. The 3 men met
in a Cedar City convenience store on Nov. 22, 1988, and then went to a nearby
canyon where Church was raped and beaten. Archuleta and Wood then drove Church,
28, to a remote location about 80 miles north of Cedar City, where Church was
tortured and beaten to death and his body abandoned.
Archuleta was sentenced to die for the crime and Wood was sentenced to life in
prison.
During oral arguments in May, Slavens had argued that Archuleta deserved a new
trial in part because Wood had taken primary responsibility for the crime in a
2009 court affidavit. The confession could have swayed a jury to impose a life
sentence in Archuleta's case, rather than the death penalty, Slavens said.
Securing the confession from Wood was something Archuleta's previous attorneys
had failed to pursue, Slavens said.
Slavens contends Archuleta was present but did not participate in the brutal
beating that left Church dead.
State prosecutors contend that Wood's 2009 statement was part of a changing
explanation, not a confession.
(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
