Oct. 11
OREGON:
Boy with mom on death row might get adopted
A 3rd-grade boy whose mother is on death row is on track to be adopted.
The boy has been a ward of the state since December 2009, when paramedics found
his half-sister, 15-year-old Jeanette Maples, starved and battered to death.
A jury convicted Angela McAnulty of aggravated murder and gave her the death
penalty. Richard McAnulty, the boy's father, pleaded guilty to murder by abuse
for failing to protect his stepdaughter. He is serving a sentence of 25 years
to life.
Both parents have relinquished their rights to their son. Attorneys for each
told Lane County Juvenile Court Judge Eveleen Henry on Tuesday that their
clients support adoption, The Register-Guard newspaper reported.
Caseworker Linda Cline told Henry the potential adoptive parents live in a
different part of Oregon.
Cline said she read home studies for 50 potential adoptive families all over
the country before recommending the couple. Cline said she chose Oregon
parents, in part, so the boy could stay in touch with another half-sister, now
15, who is in a permanent placement with different foster parents.
"It is really important for him to be seen by his peers as just a kid and to
not paint him with that (family) history," Cline told Henry.
The boy's attorney, David Phillips, said it will take time for his client to
make the transition to his new life, and urged the state to provide therapy to
help the child deal with past family dynamics.
Phillips described the boy as "bubbly, very smart and very perceptive," but
said any child "who endured what he endured and who has seen what he's seen"
will understandably have problems.
The child's current foster mother told the judge that the boy's potential
adoptive family includes "experienced parents" with older children who have
demonstrated their ability to provide structure and boundaries. She said the
family also is "faith-based," and that the boy has talked about wanting to go
to church.
(source: Statesman-Journal)
CALIFORNIA:
Death penalty decision looms
Proposition 34 would change criminal sentencing in 2 ways. First, it would
prevent anyone in California from being sentenced to death in the future.
Second, the 727 inmates who are currently on death row would be resentenced to
life without parole.
"I have a serious issue with turning over what has been done in the past," said
Tami McMillan, sister of the late East Palo Alto police Officer Richard May,
who was shot and killed by Alberto Alvarez in 2006.
A jury sentenced Alvarez to death in 2010. He is now on death row in San
Quentin State Prison. If Proposition 34 passes, his death sentence would be
changed to life without parole.
"If voters change that, they are changing the judicial system which already
said this person should get the highest penalty, which is death," said
McMillan.
She is concerned about the message this would send to the jury that sentenced
Alvarez to death.
They said this was the hardest thing they had done in their lives, to decide
the fate of a man's life, said McMillan, who still communicates with some of
the jury members.
Abolishing the death penalty in the future is one thing, she said, but
resentencing inmates who have already been tried contradicts the law.
If the highest sentence had been life without parole during the time of her
brother's trial, McMillan would have been OK with that, so long as the jury was
giving the highest possible sentence.
"One thing my brother always believed in was the justice system," she said.
A complex issue
McMillan avoided making any blanket statements about how the death penalty
cases should be tried, saying each case is different. But while there are
defendants who do require an extensive appellate process to answer lingering
questions of evidence and a fair trial, there are other cases, like her
brother's murder, that she believes should be carried out quicker.
If there is no question, like in the case of McMillan's brother in which
Alvarez admitted to killing my brother, these should be streamlined up the
appellate court, she said. Nothing in Proposition 34 addresses that, she said.
"It is just such a complex issue," she said. "I don't think one measure on the
ballot can change what needs to be changed."
Trials of the death penalty
As an Alameda County prosecutor, Darryl Stallworth tried more than 20 murder
cases. But when he got a promoted to try 21-year-old Demarcus Ralls in a death
penalty case, he found the trial demanded much more of him than any other case
had before. He came away from his most high-profile work feeling that the death
penalty does not do any good, even in the most heinous of cases.
"What was going to happen to this young man was [dependent] on how I prepared
my case and how the jury decides," said Stallworth. "I had to spend a lot of
time thinking about that."
Stallworth had to argue that Ralls deserved the death penalty for committing
four murders and 18 robberies. He was the youngest person in a gang crime spree
that occurred in 2002 and 2003. Ralls, who had been abused as a child, had the
most murder charges of the gang, said Stallworth.
"In the DA's office, this is hall-of-fame stuff," he said of the capital case.
"[But] I started to find all of these questions with the victims' families."
Stallworth sat down with each of the victims' families and heard their stories.
He talked with the father whose 19-year-old-son was shot and killed by Ralls'
gang. The father couldn't begin to tell Stallworth how much pain he was in.
Stallworth tried to console the father with talk of the case against Ralls.
"I said you will get some type of closure with this," he said. "But to me, it
seemed so shallow."
Withstanding an 8-month trial followed by years of waiting for the murderer's
execution were not points of genuine comfort in Stallworth's mind.
Another victim in the case was a child who was visiting his family at Christmas
time.
"He was shot 2 days after Christmas, right by the Christmas tree," said
Stallworth, who tried to comfort the family by talking about the trial.
"Here I am again telling them this is what will happen," he said, adding that
the harsh experience of trial could not bring closure. "It doesn't make a lot
of sense."
The judge asked Stallworth to withhold some of the victim's reactions to the
murders from the trial, claiming they were too emotional for the jury.
"The irony of this is you are still asking them to kill somebody," he said.
The jury sentenced Ralls to life without parole.
The Daily Journal asked Stallworth whether repealing the death penalty
sentences for those who are already on death row would send the wrong message
to the citizens who served on the juries.
"I would say they wouldn't have a problem with it," he said. "They would say
they had no idea what they were doing."
Less special
When asked whether life without parole would suffice for the worst criminals,
Stallworth said yes.
"They get to actually be less special," he said. "They will not have the
Supreme Court as an audience."
Because of the severity of the sentence, in capital cases, the defendant is
granted state-sponsored legal counsel and appellate rights all the way up to
the California Supreme Court.
On the other hand, someone who is sentenced to life without parole is granted
an attorney for 1 appeal.
"If the appeal is denied, that's it, your deal is done," said Stallworth.
County cases
Since 1978, 15 people who committed 1st-degree murders in San Mateo County have
been sentenced to death, according to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, who is
speaking out against Proposition 34.
He believes the death penalty is necessary for reprimanding the most egregious
criminals.
"There are certain crimes that are so evil that they call out for the maximum
punishment society can give," he said.
Contrary to Stallworth's experience, Wagstaffe finds that victims' families do
want the death penalty.
"The vast majority do feel the death penalty is appropriate," he said.
Wagstaffe admits the current judicial system for the death penalty is lengthy
and costly.
"The system that exists now is horrible," he said. "What is causing the delays
is not law enforcement or citizens, it's a system that allows a case to go on
forever."
Despite the judicial backlog, Wagstaffe feels the system is reformable.
"I think it can be fixed," he said. "It will take leadership in the state to
bring about the will of the people."
Box info
What's in Proposition 34
-- Repeals the death penalty, making the maximum sentence life without parole;
-- Resentences death row inmates to life without parole;
-- Requires that all inmates convicted of murder work in prison, with wages
deducted for any required restitution to victims' families; and
-- Earmarks $100 million over the course of 4 years for local investigations
into unsolved rapes and murders.
For more information on the 'Yes on Prop. 34' campaign visit
safecalifornia.org.
For the 'No on Prop. 34' campaign visit waitingforjustice.net.
(source: San Mateo Daily Journal)
*****************
Death Row Inmates Opposed to Proposition 34
Their names are indelible - Scott Peterson, Richard Ramirez, Richard Allen
Davis and Wesley Shermantine.
Their crimes are unerasable, but, as written Proposition 34 would erase their
death sentence.
There are 3 sides to this argument -yes, no and those convicts.
For the Yes on Prop 34 campaign, the logic comes down to cold, hard cash.
"The reality is, is that it costs us an enormous amount of money to bring
people to that moment of execution. we don't have to spend that money," says
Ned Dolesji of the California Catholic Conference.
The taxpayer cost per death row inmate per year? $134,000, forty grand more
than a regular inmate. Oddly enough, the argument against Prop 34 is also a
money issue. "The - costs of the death penalty in California swamp any
immediate 1 year turnaround on cost savings. it's that simple," says McGregor
Scott of Californians for Justice and Public Safety. That's 725 inmates
incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
Now, it's time for the proposition plot twist that could only happen in the
state that Hollywood calls home.
The death row inmates want to keep the death penalty.
Yep, you read that right. The Scott Peterson's of the world say under current
California law, they still have a chance to prove their innocence. If Prop 34
passes, the appeals stop.
(source: CBS News)
US MILITARY:
Fort Hood suspect's beard case at appeals court
An Army appeals court will hear arguments Thursday about an issue that has
indefinitely postponed the murder trial for the suspect in the worst mass
shooting on a U.S. military installation: his beard.
Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged in the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas,
has appealed the trial judge's order that he will be forcibly shaved before his
court-martial unless he shaves himself. The Army psychiatrist argues that the
order violates his religious rights.
The American-born Muslim has said he grew a beard because his faith requires
it, and that he believes dying without a beard is a sin.
Hasan, 42, faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if
convicted in the Nov. 5, 2009, attack that killed 13 people and wounded more
than 2 dozen others at the sprawling Army post, which is about 130 miles
southwest of Dallas. His court-martial was set for August, but all court
proceedings in the case have been put on hold as the beard issue goes through
the appeals process.
The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals at Fort Belvoir in Virginia will hear
oral arguments. The court also will hear from government attorneys who have
said forcibly shaving Hasan would not violate his religious rights, and that
the judge has the authority to enforce the Army rule prohibiting beards.
Hasan will not be at the hearing, Fort Hood officials said. It's unclear when
the court will make a decision, which could be appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces.
The Army has specific guidelines on forced shaving. A team of 5 military police
officers restrains the inmate "with the reasonable force necessary," and a
medical professional is on hand in case of injuries. The shaving must be done
with electric clippers and must be videotaped, according to Army rules.
Hasan would not be the first military defendant forcibly shaved. The Army has
done it to 5 inmates since 2005, including 1 person who was forcibly shaved
twice, according to the Army's Office of the Chief of Staff.
The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals said it also will consider whether the
trial judge should be removed from Hasan's case. Defense attorneys claim that
the judge, Col. Gregory Gross, exceeded his authority by issuing the shaving
order. His attorneys also want the court to overturn the 6 contempt of court
rulings issued against Hasan for having a beard at pretrial hearings this
summer, when he first showed up in court with facial hair.
Gross has said Hasan's beard is a disruption and that defense attorneys have
not proven that he is growing it for sincere religious reasons. Army
prosecutors claim that Hasan grew the beard just before the trial was to start,
so that witnesses would not be able to identify him in court.
(source: Associated Press)
OKLAHOMA----2 new execution dates set
Appeals court sets dates for 2 Oklahoma executions
2 death row inmates' execution dates were scheduled by the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals on Thursday, with 1 man set to be executed on Election Day.
Garry Thomas Allen, 56, is scheduled to be put to death on Nov. 6 - the date of
the general election. Allen was convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to
death for the 1986 shooting death of his fiancee, Lawanna Gail Titsworth,
outside a children's day care in Oklahoma City.
Titsworth, 24, had moved out of the home she shared with Allen and their 2 sons
4 days before her death. A police officer responding to a 911 call tussled with
Allen before shooting him in the face, documents indicate. Allen was
hospitalized for about 2 months for treatment of injuries to his face, left eye
and brain.
Last month, a federal judge rejected Allen's request for a hearing on his claim
that he is mentally incompetent and ineligible for the death penalty. Allen has
appealed that order to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The state appeals court also set a Dec. 4 execution date for 38-year-old George
Ochoa.
Ochoa was convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to die for the July 1993
killings of Francisco Morales, 38, and his wife, Maria Yanez, 35, inside the
couple's Oklahoma County home. Investigators say Morales suffered 12 gunshot
wounds and Yanez suffered 11 wounds.
Both executions will be by lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary
in McAlester.
(source: Associated Press)
***********************************
Oklahoma senator pledges to abolish state's death penalty; In observance of a
worldwide movement Wednesday to end executions, the Oklahoma Conference of
Churches and Sen. Constance Johnson pledged to end the death penalty.
Sen. Constance Johnson's told a gathering of religious leaders at the state
Capitol that she had a decision to make when her brother was slain in 1981 on
the Langston University campus.
Although the man accused of her brother's murder was only in jail until the
trial, Johnson said she didn't believe in the death penalty 31 years ago and
she still doesn't.
Wednesday was a worldwide day of opposition to capital punishment, and an
Oklahoma association of religious leaders presented a theological statement
opposing the death penalty.
The Rev. William Tabbernee, executive director of the Oklahoma Conference of
Churches, said he was shocked when he came to Oklahoma that capital punishment
was still condoned.
He said 87 countries and 17 U.S. states have abolished the death penalty.
"Isn't it time Oklahoma abolish the death penalty?" he asked.
Tabbernee and other religious leaders say the Bible supports opposition to
retribution and the death penalty.
To date 183 individuals have been executed in Oklahoma, most recently Michael
E. Hooper was killed using lethal injection in August. Hooper, 39, was
convicted of shooting his girlfriend and her 2 children to death in 1993.
There were no executions in Oklahoma between 1966 and 1990. The current death
penalty law was enacted in 1977 by lawmakers.
New proposal planned
Johnson said she will be proposing legislation to abolish the death penalty in
Oklahoma next session. This is not the 1st time she has authored an abolition
bill, but she said her proposed legislation has never even been heard on the
floor or even granted a hearing in committee.
Advocates of abolishing the death penalty Wednesday also discussed starting a
petition drive to get a sense of where Oklahomans stand on the issue and to
work toward getting a question on the ballot.
(source: The Oklahoman)
USA:
Supreme Court asks how long death penalty can be delayed
U.S. Supreme Court justices quizzed both sides in an Arizona case Tuesday over
how long a death penalty appeal can reasonably be delayed if a defendant is not
mentally competent to assist in his defense.
The questions came in the case of Ernest Valencia Gonzales, an Arizona
death-row inmate whose appeal was put on hold in 2010 by a federal court that
said he was not competent.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne argued to the high court that the ruling
would open the door to an indefinite delay in the imposition of the death
sentence in capital cases.
Horne said the Supreme Court should create a standard that would let lower
courts issue stays in such cases of "6 to 9 months" - but no more than a year.
He said that number came from the American Psychiatric Association, which filed
a brief with the court.
That appeared to carry little weight with the justices.
"They're not lawyers, right? They're psychiatrists," said Justice Antonin
Scalia.
Gonzales' attorney, Arizona Assistant Federal Public Defender Leticia Marquez,
argued that federal courts should be allowed discretion to grant stays for as
long as necessary in capital cases.
Marquez said Gonzales' mental condition has deteriorated since his 1991 trial
to the point where does not speak to her. But she needs to speak with Gonzales
about his alleged antagonistic relationship with his trial judge, a situation
she said she needs to understand in order to argue his appeal.
Horne disagreed, saying the appeal can continue without Gonzales' input because
of the large amount of evidence already in the record.
"It appears to us highly unlikely that he has information he didn???t disclose
earlier" when he was deemed competent, Horne said.
The justices pressed Horne???s point with Marquez, noting that what she needed
could probably be proven through court transcripts.
But Marquez said she has not had access to Gonzales and does not have a current
release to review his medical records.
Gonzales was convicted in 1991 of 1st-degree murder in the 1990 stabbing death
of Darrel Wagner.
Wagner, his wife, Deborah and their son, then 7, came home one evening to find
lights in their townhouse and Gonzales inside, with the family's VCR under 1
arm.
Gonzales stabbed Darrel Wagner repeatedly. Deborah Wagner, who sent their son
to get help, jumped on Gonzales' back and was stabbed twice.
Darrel Wagner died later that night, and Deborah Wagner was in intensive care
for 5 days.
Gonzales was sentenced to death for that murder and given 3 consecutive life
sentences for other counts. His sentence was upheld by the Arizona Supreme
Court in 1995, and Gonzales began his federal appeals.
In 2008, a federal district judge rejected Gonzales' request for a stay based
on a defense claim he was incompetent. But the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals
intervened in October 2010 and granted the stay, leading to Tuesday's appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Outside the courtroom, Marquez said she does not think time limits are
practical, and she hopes the Supreme Court will "reiterate a district's court
discretion to issue stays in these types of cases."
She said the fear that this would open the floodgates to indefinite stalling by
death-row inmates is unlikely. Very few cases have been granted such stays in
federal courts, she said.
But Horne said outside the court that it takes about 18 years from verdict to
execution in the 9th Circuit and that's too long.
"It doesn't do any good to pass laws if you can't enforce them," Horne said.
He said he was optimistic after Tuesday's arguments that "the court seems to be
going in our direction."
(source: The Tucson Sentinel)
**************************
Death penalty takes a toll on the living
Religious faith often grows stronger in people faced with death, including many
death row inmates. Religion offers a promise that atonement can be meaningful,
that redemption is possible, and that death is not the final answer. I recall a
Christian chaplain trying to comfort me at the start of my brother's death
penalty trial by pointing out that many people throughout history have been
"saved" on their way to the gallows. Knowing my brother's views on religion,
however, I was not comforted - but perhaps that had more to do with my own lack
of faith than with my brother's.
In 1999, Pope John Paul II, during his visit to the diocese of St. Louis, Mo.,
appealed to the people of the United States (Catholics in particular) to seek
an end to the death penalty. After citing many familiar arguments against the
death penalty, including references to the system's flaws and underlying
cruelty, the pontiff stressed an issue that advocates, both pro and con, seldom
talk about. He argued that we should not oppose the death penalty primarily
because of what it does to those who've been condemned, but rather because of
what it does to us.
Read more of David Kaczynski's blog at http://blog.timesunion.com/kaczynski/
(source: Albany Times Union)
KENTUCKY:
Janitor Accused Of Murder Maintains Innocence
The janitor accused of murdering a woman in their Florence workplace was in
court Wednesday.
David Dooley, 38, of Burlington, is charged with Murder, Kidnapping, and
Tampering with Physical Evidence concerning the slaying of Michelle Mockbee.
Mockbee, 43, was found dead at Thermo Fisher Scientific on Empire Drive last
May. She worked there in human resources department.
In court, the Boone Circuit Court judge set Dooley's pretrial date for November
14. Kentucky law allows murder convictions to become death penalty eligible if
it is ties to a conviction on kidnapping. Prosecutors said they have not
decided whether to seek the death penalty for Dooley.
Dooley's defense attorney said his client maintains his innocence. They also
requested Dooley's bond be reduced from $500,000.
Investigators have yet to say anything about a possible motive for Mockbee's
murder.
Relatives for both the victim and the accused spoke to reporters after the
court hearing. They each said that Mockbee and Dooley's wife, who also worked
as a janitor at Thermo Fisher Scientific, were friends.
(source: Eagle Country News)
NEVADA:
Court orders hearing for Las Vegas killer
A Las Vegas teenager sentenced to death for the killing of a mother and her son
is getting a new hearing on whether his reduced sentence of life in prison
without parole is justified.
Michael Domingues maintains his lawyer did not properly represent him at the
penalty hearing by failing to call expert witnesses to testify about his
character and that he is not a danger to society.
The Nevada Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected claims that he is innocent of
the strangulation of Arjin Pechpo and the stabbing death of her 4-year-old son
in 1993 during a robbery. Domingues was 16 years old at the time.
But the court directed District Judge Michelle Leavitt to conduct a hearing on
the claim of Domingues that he was not adequately represented at the penalty
hearing.
He was initially sentenced to death in 1994, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in 2003 that persons less than 18 years old at the time of the crime could not
be sentenced to death. The Nevada Legislature in 2005 amended the state law to
conform to the court decision.
Domingues was then sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 25 years on
his robbery convictions.
In another ruling, the court upheld the first-degree murder conviction of David
Pellegrini, who was initially sentenced to death for the killing of 7-Eleven
clerk Barry Hancock in October 1986 during a robbery.
Pellegrini spent more than 20 years on death row before the Nevada Supreme
Court held that one of the aggravating circumstances used to justify the death
penalty was faulty.
In 2010 after a penalty hearing, Pellegrini was sentenced to life in prison
without parole.
Pellegrini argued the prosecutor committed misconduct by telling the jurors
that the killer should not be allowed to apply for parole. He maintained the
prosecutor inflamed the passions of the jurors by referring to the suffering of
the family of the victim and that Pellegrini had not been rehabilitated in
prison.
In upholding the decision of District Judge Joseph Bonaventure, the court said,
"We conclude that Pellegrini has not demonstrated that the prosecutor erred by
arguing that the crime and its impact warranted a sentence of life without the
possibility of parole."
(source: Las Vegas Sun)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
