July 7
TEXAS----2 new execution dates
Judge sets execution date for Fort Worth killer of 3
A Tarrant County judge on Monday set an October execution date for a Fort Worth
man who killed 3 men in 2 days in 2005.
State District Judge David C. Hagerman ruled that Christopher Wilkins, 46, of
Fort Worth will be put to death by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Oct. 28.
Wilkins took the witness stand in March 2008 and admitted to a string of crimes
that included the killings, then told the jury that he didn't care whether he
lived or died. But now, as he lives on death row, Wilkins may be having 2nd
thoughts, said his attorney, Hilary Sheard.
"It would not be the only case that I've come across where someone has changed
their mind," Sheard said outside the courtroom Monday.
Sheard argued that the court should not schedule Wilkins' execution so she
would have more time to file appeals, and she said his previous appeals
attorney had not adequately investigated his case.
Hagerman denied all of Wilkins' claims, saying the same arguments had been made
to appeals judges and had been rejected.
During his 2008 trial, a jury of 5 women and 7 men deliberated for about 90
minutes before deciding that Wilkins should die for his crimes. Several jurors
cried as state District Judge Everett Young announced their verdict.
The jury convicted Wilkins of capital murder for fatally shooting Willie
Freeman and Mike Silva on Oct. 27, 2005. A day earlier, according to
prosecutors and Wilkins, he killed Gilbert Vallejo outside a south Fort Worth
bar during a dispute about the pay phone.
In 2005, Wilkins said, he was released from a California federal prison to a
halfway house in Beaumont, where his family lived. His stepfather got him a job
making $23 an hour, and his grandmother gave him a Cadillac, he testified. But,
he said, when Hurricane Rita struck, he was transferred to a halfway house in
Houston, where his children and ex-girlfriend lived. He got a day pass and
called his ex-girlfriend, wanting to see his 3 children, he said.
That didn't work out and, instead of returning to the halfway house, he went to
a strip club. Later, Wilkins said, he stole a truck and drove to Fort Worth.
Wilkins then detailed for jurors how he killed Freeman out of revenge because
Freeman ripped him off in a dope deal and laughed at him, and how he killed
Silva, Freeman's friend, because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He killed Vallejo, he said, because Vallejo made him mad.
Wilkins acknowledged that he also nearly killed 2 more people about a week
later when he intentionally ran them down on a sidewalk in a stolen car because
he believed that one of them had stolen his sunglasses.
After he was captured and charged with capital murder, Wilkins testified, he
began plotting his escape from jail.
He said he also lied about committing other killings all over the country,
hoping that police would continue taking him out of the jail for interviews. He
planned to use a handcuff key that he bought from an inmate for $100 and
reproduced to free himself and make a run for it, he said.
His plans were foiled, however, when the handcuff key was discovered.
(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
*************
Gilmar Guevara has been given an execution date for October 11; it should be
considered serious.
**********************
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----9
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----527
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
10----------July 16------------------Clifton Williams-----528
11---------August 12----------------Daniel Lopez----------529
12---------August 26----------------Bernardo Tercero------530
13---------September 2--------------Joe Garza-------------531
14---------October 6----------------Juan Garcia-----------532
15--------October 11----------------Gilmar Guevara-------533
16---------October 14---------------Licho Escamilla-------534
17---------October 28---------------Christopher Wilkins---535
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Additional psychiatrist sought in death penalty trial of Ummad Rushdi
Death penalty counsel for accused baby killer Ummad Rushdi will be filing a
petition seeking an additional $10,000 to pay for a new psychiatrist.
Rushdi, 32, is accused of killing 7-month-old Hamza Ali in August 2013 at his
parent's home in the 6600 block of Chestnut Street, Upper Darby, then
transporting the body elsewhere and burying it at an unknown location.
He has been charged with 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-degree murder, kidnapping and abuse
of a corpse, for which he faces the death penalty. Deputy District Attorney
Stephanie Wills is prosecuting.
Judge James Nilon has so far authorized up to $30,000 to pay for the services
of a psychiatrist and death penalty mitigation specialist. He said he would
happily authorize additional funds for another psychiatrist, with the
understanding that payment would be rendered upon submission of an itemized
bill.
Death penalty counsel Scott Galloway said he expects the additional
psychiatrist to provide insight on issues of competency and legal insanity.
Psychiatrist Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai met with Rushdi for several hours following
a status hearing last month and mitigation specialist Delores Andrews submitted
a thorough and detailed initial report, said Galloway. Both are now awaiting
additional information from the second psychiatrist before continuing in their
evaluations.
Nilon also released a York County taxicab seized as part of the investigation
back to its owner, as the vehicle itself had no evidentiary value. Defense
attorney Mike Malloy said he had received copies of evidence collected from the
cab and did not object to its being returned.
The next status date has been set for Sept. 14. The judge said he hopes to set
a scheduling order at that time or shortly thereafter.
(source: delcotimes.com)
********************
DA: Throw out mass murderer Michael Ballard's stay of execution
With the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the death penalty, Northampton
County District Attorney John Morganelli has asked a judge to vacate a stay of
execution for convicted mass murderer Michael Eric Ballard..
Morganelli said the June 29 federal ruling "should put to rest forever
frivolous claims by death row inmates challenging execution methods."
Meanwhile, the district attorney said, Ballard has already waived his
post-conviction appeal rights and now the time has expired to pursue those
appeals.
Bryan Freeman, then 17, David Freeman, 16, and a cousin, Nelson Birdwell III,
18, were charged with bludgeoning and stabbing the Freemans' parents and
younger brother in February 1995. All three are serving life sentences in state
prison.
Just weeks after the Freeman murders, Jeffrey Howorth shot and killed his
parents, Susan and George Howorth, then fled the Lower Macungie Township home
to Missouri, where he was caught the next day.
"The Supreme Court specifically stated that while methods of execution have
changed over the years, the court has never invalidated a state's chosen
procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as violative of the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," Morganelli said in
a statement Monday.
David Rudovsky, a lawyer spearheading a separate Pennsylvania case challenging
the death penalty, could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon. Rudovsky
said last month he believes the case, which Ballard has joined, provides
grounds to delay Ballard's execution.
The Commonwealth Court case claims Pennsylvania's protocol for lethally
injecting prisoners violates state law by changing the cocktail of drugs that
are used. The protocol was rewritten in recent years due to the state's
difficulties in securing the drugs from manufacturers, who have faced public
pressure from death-penalty opponents.
Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano is scheduled to hold a hearing July 21
on vacating Ballard's stay of execution. Morganelli laid out his legal argument
in court documents filed Wednesday.
Ballard was sentenced to death in 2011 for savagely knifing to death his former
girlfriend, Denise Merhi, 39; her father, Dennis Marsh, 62; her grandfather,
Alvin Marsh Jr., 87; and Steven Zernhelt, 53, a neighbor in Northampton who
heard screams and tried to help.
At the time of the June 26, 2010, massacre, Ballard had recently been paroled
from prison, where he served 17 years for murdering an Allentown man nearly 2
decades earlier. The state Supreme Court upheld Ballard's death sentence in
2013, citing overwhelming evidence in support of it.
Just 3 men have been executed in Pennsylvania in the modern era of capital
punishment, and all were volunteers who, in effect, asked the state to carry
out their sentences. The last time an inmate was put to death against his will
was in 1962.
(source: Morning Call)
**************
Supreme Court decision paves way for Ballard execution, DA says----Michael
Ballard execution bid renewed in Northampton Counthy
Northampton County's district attorney cites a U.S. Supreme Court decision from
last week as proof that quadruple murderer Michael Ballard deserves to die.
District Attorney John Morganelli filed papers Monday urging Judge Emil
Giordano to vacate his stay of execution for Ballard. A hearing on the matter
is set for July 21.
Ballard, 42, had recently been released from state prison for an Allentown
murder when he killed his ex-girlfriend, her father, her grandfather and a
neighbor in Northampton in 2010. He was sentenced to death in 2011.
Ballard's execution is on hold due to a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's
execution procedures.
But as long as the death penalty remains the law of the land, there must be a
means of carrying it out, according to Morganelli.
In the June 29 decision of Glossip v. Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court determined
Oklahoma was justified in using the drug midazolam to sedate an inmate during
execution.
According to Morganelli, the state typically uses sodium thiopental to sedate
people being executed, a second drug to prevent muscles from moving, and
potassium chloride to induce a heart attack.
Oklahoma switched to midazolam when drug companies refused to provide sodium
thiopental, Morganelli said. The court found that the drug switch did not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Ballard's appeal rights expired on June 23, Morganelli wrote.
Ballard's stay of execution was ordered by Giordano on Nov. 18.
(source: lehigvalleylive.com)
GEORGIA:
Hood apologized to woman he carjacked
The Athens man accused of killing one police officer and wounding another
apologized to a woman he admits he carjacked that day.
Jamie Hood is accused of, and has admitted to, killing Athens Clarke County
police Officer Elmer "Buddy" Christian and wounding Officer Tony Howard in
March 2011. Minutes after the shooting, Hood carjacked Deborah Lumpkin a short
distance away and stole her Geo Prism in an attempt to escape.
Since Hood is acting as his own attorney in this death penalty case, he gets to
cross-examine witnesses including his alleged victims. Monday, he had a chance
to cross-examine Lumpkin about the incident, but first, he apologized to her.
"I apologize for any heartache or pain I caused you, ma'am," Hood said. "I just
wanted to let you know that before I proceed."
Lumpkin testified that Hood jumped into her car with a gun in his hand. She
said he he was running from police and needed her to drive away. Seconds later,
Hood changed his mind and ordered her out of the car.
Some of Hood's questioning was chilling as he talked about what could have
happened but didn't.
"When I got in that car, did I hit you," Hood asked. She answered no.
"Did I put my hands on you?" he continued. Lumpkin replied no. "Did I shoot you
with that gun?" Hood asked. She said no.
Hood's mother testified that she got a call from Hood while he was on the run
from police and said Hood wanted to surrender 4 days after the shooting because
he wanted to give Christian's family some closure.
(source: WSB TV news)
*******************
Death penalty case: Brandon Conner arraigned on charges stemming from double
homicide
7 times Monday morning Muscogee County Superior Court Judge William Rumer asked
Brandon David Conner how he pleaded to charges ranging from murder to arson in
connection to the 2014 deaths of Rosella "Mandy" Mitchell and 6-month-old son
Dylan Conner.
7 times, Conner, seated at the defense table and facing the possibility of the
death penalty, answered in a clear, strong voice, "Not guilty."
Conner was arraigned on 2 counts of malice murder, 2 counts of felony murder,
and 1 count each of aggravated battery, 1st-degree arson and using a knife to
commit a felony.
Conner's accused of stabbing his 32-year-old girlfriend to death and killing
the baby before setting the house afire. The charred bodies were found Aug. 21
in their burned 1324 Winifred Lane home.
Conner, now 36, was indicted by the Grand Jury on April 14; and the Muscogee
County District Attorney's Office announced its intention to seek the death
penalty a week later. Conner is the only Musocgee County defendant facing a
death penalty trial at this time.
Conner's indictment alleges he stabbed Mitchell in the throat and torso with a
knife that had a blade longer than 3 inches. His malice murder charges allege
he deliberately killed his girlfriend and child, and his felony murder counts
accuse him of killing the mother and child while committing the felony offense
of aggravated assault. The indictment does not specify how the child was
killed.
In addition to the not guilty pleas, Rumer went through a litany of items
required in death penalty cases. The most important was establishing Columbus
attorneys Mark Shelnutt and William Kendrick as qualified to represent Conner.
Shelnutt, the lead counsel, has been co-counsel on 5 death penalty cases. All
of Shelnutt's death penalty experience came as a prosecutor when he was an
assistant district attorney. Shelnutt and Kendrick are both taking required
death penalty courses and should complete that requirement in the next 3
months.
Multiple times during the hearing, Rumer asked Conner if he was satisfied with
his legal representation. Each time, Conner answered in the affirmative. Conner
has elected to hire Shelnutt and Kendrick rather than use a public defender.
The state turned over to the defense evidence it has gathered in the case. That
includes witness statements, crime scene and autopsy photos, the police
incident report, supplemental police reports, scientific reports, the
Recorder's Court transcript, arrest warrants, and the Columbus Fire and
Emergency Medical Services report.
"This is a very long process with a whole list of procedural safe guards
propounded by the Georgia Supreme Court to make the death penalty
constitutional," Kelly said.
After both sides get to review discovery, Rumer said he will schedule motion
hearings, possibly later in the year. The judge discussed the possibility of
taking the case to trial sometime next year.
"Everything for us depends on having the chance to really look at discovery,"
Shelnutt said.
Rumer scheduled a status conference for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m.
(source: Ledger-Enquirer)
LOUISIANA:
Will an accused cop killer really get the death penalty?
The man accused of shooting and killing a New Orleans police officer while he
was being taken to jail has pleaded not guilty. The New Orleans District
Attorney is seeking the death penalty for 33 year old Travis Boys.
Police say Boys managed to get his cuffed hands from his back to the front of
his body and then shoot Officer Daryle Holloway from the back of the vehicle
using a .40-caliber handgun on June 20. Although this may be the right case for
capital punishment, legal analyst Tim Meche says its rare.
''It is rare, particularly in Orleans Parish to actually get a death penalty,''
Meche said.
Orleans Parish juries tend to lean for life in prison instead but even if
everything worked, Meche says there are many barriers.
''There are a number of issues that can be raised and it takes forever to
achieve so we have a long way to go in this case,'' Meche added.
The U.S. Supreme Court could also be close to banning capital punishment in
this country, although Meche says that could be years away.
(source: WWL news)
ILLINOIS:
Why I want to restore the death penalty in Illinois
2 United States Supreme Court justices recently issued an opinion that
challenges the constitutionality of the death penalty and asserts their opinion
that it should be abolished. One has been quoted as saying, "At the very least,
the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question" of the death
penalty.
I am not writing to contest a U.S. Supreme Court Justice's opinion, but rather
explain why I have filed legislation to reinstate the death penalty here in
Illinois.
We need a mechanism in place to effectively deal with criminals who decide to
commit heinous acts that result in violent deaths. That may sound like a
familiar argument, but it is applied completely different within the language
of the bill I filed. My legislation (HB 4059) eliminates the abolition of the
death penalty passed in 2011, and instead creates the Capital Crimes Litigation
Act of 2015.
The death penalty provision in my legislation is targeted at the worst of the
worst. I am speaking of ironclad cases that are free of the flaws that have, in
some past cases, led to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment. Under
my legislation, the death penalty would be a sentencing option for criminals
convicted of 1st degree murder of a child younger than age 12, the murder of
multiple victims, murder on school grounds, murder as a result of terrorism or
the murder of a first responder.
Restoring the death penalty as a sentencing option for the most heinous murder
convictions is not only about consequences for the murderer, it's also about
justice and closure for victims' loved ones. Families affected by these
exceptionally brutal crimes deserve to work with prosecutors to seek the death
penalty for their peace of mind and for the future safety of their community.
"Times have changed," stated 1 of the 2 Supreme Court justices in opposition to
the death penalty. Unfortunately, he is correct. Heinous murders have become an
everyday way of life; and in the worst cases, the death penalty is an
appropriate way to deal with those who purposely, violently take innocent life.
Having recently been filed, my legislation is still in the early stages of the
legislative process. The bill has both Republican and Democratic sponsors. It's
currently sitting in the House Rules Committee, and I know that's where it may
remain. Still, I believe this is an issue that deserves to be discussed, and I
will continue to work with legislators on both sides of the aisle to move the
discussion forward.
John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, is a state representative.
(source: Rockford Register Star)
NEBRASKA:
Nebraskans Continue Petitions for Death Penalty Ballot Issue
"Nebraskans for the Death Penalty" continue to collect signatures to put the
issue to the vote of the people. Elkhorn State Senator Beau McCoy is a co-chair
of the group and says the public has responded well.
He says if you have not yet been approached by a petitioner, you likely will
soon as they get ready to hit the county fairs and other summer events
throughout the state.
McCoy says he encourages those for and against the issue to sign the petition.
The group has until August 27th to turn in 57,000 valid signatures in order to
get the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.
(source: WNAX news)
CALIFORNIA:
OC judge probes DA's use of jailhouse informants
Nearly 4 months after a judge removed the Orange County District Attorney's
Office from prosecuting the worst mass killer in county history over alleged
misuse of jailhouse informants, the county's top prosecutor Monday announced
the creation of an independent committee to evaluate the use of such
informants.
Members of the Informant Policies and Practices Evaluation Committee are
retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Smith, retired Los Angeles
County Assistant District Attorney Patrick Dixon, former Orange County Bar
Association President Robert Gerard and Blithe Leece, who was described by
District Attorney Tony Rackauckas as a specialist in ethics law and
professional responsibility.
Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson will serve as an adviser for the
committee.
According to Rackauckas, his office has conducted a "thorough in-house
investigation" into legal questions and concerns raised about the use of
jailhouse informants since convicted mass killer Scott Evans Dekraai sought to
have the D.A.'s office removed as prosecutor in his death penalty trial.
Attorneys for Dekraai, who pleaded guilty in May of last year, also filed a
lengthy motion early last year requesting that the death penalty be taken off
the table.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethal removed Rackauckas' office
from prosecuting the 45-year-old Dekraai in the penalty phase of his trial. But
Goethal did not remove the death penalty as a sentencing option.
In Dekraai's case, defense attorneys accused investigators of lying about how
government informant Fernando Perez was placed in a cell next to Dekraai, where
Perez got friendly with him and heard him "brag" about the Oct. 12, 2011,
massacre of Dekraai's ex-wife and 7 others in and around Salon Meritage in Seal
Beach.
The dispute over informants led prosecutors to cut deals with other defendants,
including 1 who walked free, because of allegations that prosecutors withheld
evidence from defense attorneys.
Leonel Vega, 35, pleaded guilty in February to voluntary manslaughter for the
2004 killing of rival gang member Giovani Onofre and was sentenced to 15 years
in prison. Vega, who was featured prominently in the Dekraai motion, was
originally convicted in December 2010 and was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole. He could be freed from prison in 4 years
given the time he has spent in custody already.
Isaac John Palacios, whose case was also cited in the Dekraai motion, pleaded
guilty to 2nd-degree murder and was released from custody after receiving
credit for time served in jail. He had originally been facing life in prison
without the possibility of parole.
Attempted murder and solicitation of murder charges were dropped against Joseph
Martin Govey, another defendant featured frequently in the Dekraai motion, in
September of last year because of similar issues raised about informants in his
case.
The use of informants has also spilled over into the prosecution of accused
double-killer Daniel Patrick Wozniak, who is also facing the death penalty and
is represented by Dekraai's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders.
Prosecutors hotly deny anything was done unethically or illegally in the
Wozniak case, since Perez was not yet a government informant when he befriended
Wozniak and solicited incriminating statements.
It is not illegal for prosecutors or investigators to use jailhouse informants
unless the target is already represented by an attorney.
Sanders told City News Service he is skeptical the committee will lead to
improvements in the system.
"I have enormous respect for those who would give their time to try to improve
the situation moving forward," Sanders said. "But, of course, there remains the
enormous problem of addressing decades of potential informant- related
misconduct and evidence concealment, which is beyond the scope of this
committee's review.
"The other issue is that the law regarding informants and evidence disclosure
has been well settled and understood for decades," he said. "Those laws have
been ignored because of a culture that overvalues winning, and changes in
procedures - although welcomed - will not remedy this fundamental problem.
Unfortunately, what I continue to experience on the ground is the OCDA
continuing to minimize what has been learned, while portraying prosecutors and
members of law enforcement as the victims."
Attorney Kate Corrigan, a founder and past president of the Orange County
Criminal Defense Bar Association, was more optimistic.
"This is the 1st significant and meaningful action that the OCDA's office has
taken to address the jailhouse informant problem," Corrigan said. "The
committee is comprised of talented and respected members of the legal
community.
It is my hope that the committee will be given unlimited and full access to
files, records and information," she said. "More importantly, it is going to be
critical that the committee be given unrestricted access to (Orange County
Sheriff's Department) and OCDA personnel who were involved in the illegal use
of jailhouse informants, and that those individuals provide candid, complete
and truthful information to the committee. If the foregoing occurs, then we
should finally learn the truth about who knew what and who did what to violate
the constitutional rights of many incarcerated citizens."
Tom Dominguez, president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs,
said his union supports improved training and education.
"Dealing with jailhouse informants is a very complex and involved process,"
Dominguez said in a statement released to CNS. "Deputies involved in the recent
motion were not investigators, but rank-and-file deputies who were taking
direction from the U.S. Attorney's Office as well as the District Attorney. The
deputies are very hard-working and did their best to comply with the direction
they were given.
"We believe that a thorough review will confirm improved education is
necessary, and that there was no deliberate effort to avoid discovery
compliance," Dominguez said. "As the motion testimony revealed, Operation Black
Flag was being run by the United States Attorney's Office, and all discovery
materials were presented to that office for review prior to release for
discovery."
(source: Orange County Register)
*********************
Unabomber defense attorney receives appeals court award
Judy Clarke, the acclaimed attorney who fights the death penalty 1 case at a
time, has been chosen as the recipient of a prestigious award from the 9th U.
S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Clarke, who has represented defendants in 2 capital cases in Sacramento federal
court - including Theodore Kaczynski, the notorious Unabomber - is the 2015
winner of the John Frank Award, which recognizes an outstanding lawyer
practicing in the federal courts of the western United States. The award will
be presented Monday at the opening session of the circuit's annual judicial
conference in San Diego.
The 9th Circuit is composed of nine western states and 2 Pacific island
jurisdictions.
The late John Frank was a renowned Phoenix attorney who, over the course of a
62-year career, argued more than 500 appeals before Arizona and federal courts.
In addition to teaming with former Sacramento Federal Defender Quin Denvir on
behalf of serial bomber Kaczynski, Clarke has represented Olympic park bomber
Eric Rudolph, child-murderer Susan Smith and Tucson mass shooter Jared Lee
Loughner, all of whom escaped the death penalty. Her only failure to beat back
the death penalty in a high profile case came recently when she represented
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was found guilty and sentenced to death for his part in
the Boston Marathon bombing.
In Sacramento, she also represented Tanh Huu Lam, who was charged with
instigating a 1997 firebombing of a Carmichael home in which a 9-year-old girl
burned to death. Negotiated deals called for Lam and Kaczynski to plead guilty
and accept life in prison without parole after prosecutors took the death
penalty off the table.
Clarke, 62, has been admired for many years within the nation's legal community
but, in comparatively recent times, she has been discovered by the national
press, despite her aversion to reporters.
In a 2011 New York Times story, Denvir was quoted as saying, "She has a great
sense of how to put a case together to go for life instead of death."
A March Vanity Fair profile said, "She is at war with the state - in
particular, with the state's power to impose death. She calls the death penalty
'legalized homicide.''
May's Esquire piece explained Clarke this way: "By saving the worst among us,
Clarke believes she's saving all of us. Whether we like it or not."
Clarke is based in San Diego, where she shares a practice with her husband,
Thomas "Speedy" Rice.
(source: Sacramento Bee)
*****************
Jurors in trial for suspect in officer???s slaying will return to deliberate
Tuesday after 1 day hiatus
The jury trial for a Fairfield man accused of the 2011 gunshot slaying of a
Vallejo cop suffered another delay Monday when a juror in the case was
unavailable after the long Independence Day weekend.
Jurors in the trial for murder defendant Henry Albert Smith Jr., returned to
Solano County Superior Court Monday morning to begin their first full day of
deliberations in the case. Smith is charged with murder and robbery in
connection with the Nov. 17, 2011, gunshot slaying of veteran Vallejo police
Officer Jim Capoot and an earlier bank robbery.
However, all but 1 juror reported for service Monday, having informed Judge
Peter B. Foor over the weekend that car trouble had stranded her out of state
after helping a family member move.
For various reasons, 3 jurors have left the jury panel in the last month,
leaving only 2 alternates. On Monday, Foor decided to wait for the missing
juror to return, anticipating she would be available today.
Solano County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Smith in
connection with Capoot's slaying.
Trial testimony indicated Capoot engaged in the high-speed pursuit of an
alleged bank robber that afternoon. According to law enforcement testimony,
Smith was seen driving the SUV Capoot chased that day, and after a PIT maneuver
on Janice Street, Capoot was seen chasing Smith on foot before going out of
view.
Moments later, Capoot was shot 3 times in the backyard of a home on Janice
Street. 1 bullet struck him fatally from behind, according to testimony.
Smith was apprehended minutes later a few houses away. When police apprehended
him, a loaded .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol was found in his pocket, police
testified.
Forensic testing linked the firearm to the shell casings found in the backyard
where Capoot was slain, according to prosecution witnesses.
Additionally, suspected evidence of the earlier bank robbery was located in the
SUV allegedly driven by Smith.
If Smith is convicted of 1st-degree murder with special circumstances, the
trial would move into a penalty phase in which jurors will be tasked with
deciding whether he should receive the death penalty or life in prison without
parole.
In that event, attorneys and jurors would be given a 2 or 3 day break before
the 2nd phase begins.
Attorneys would again present testimony during the penalty phase, a process
that could take another 3 to 4 weeks.
Smith is charged with murder of a peace officer with an enhancement for the use
of a gun, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors
have alleged special circumstances to include: murder during the commission of
a robbery; murder to avoid lawful arrest; and murder perpetrated against a
peace officer lawfully performing their duty.
He has pleaded not guilty and remains in Solano County Jail custody.
(source: Vallejo Times-Herald)
USA:
All life is worth saving
Just as in Clarence Darrow's day, the death penalty continues to be practiced
in many American states. Yet around the world, the majority of nations no
longer executes their prisoners, showing increasing support for the abolition
of capital punishment. Recently, in December 2014, when the United Nations
General Assembly introduced a resolution calling for an international
moratorium on the use of the death penalty, a record 117 countries voted in
favor of abolition, while only 38 nations, including the United States, voted
against it. Indeed, falling just behind China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia,
the United States is recorded to have the 5th highest rate of execution
worldwide.
Since Jamestown settlers first executed Captain George Kendall in 1607,
jurisdictions across the United States have approved the execution of
approximately 16,000 people by various methods, including hanging, firing
squads, gas chambers, electric chairs, and lethal injection. As these
executions continued throughout American history, many prominent abolitionists
have raised their voices against capital punishment, both in the past and the
present. Dr. Benjamin Rush, an eminent physician, author, and civic leader who
signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, was an early advocate for
abolishing the death penalty, while many of the country's founding fathers,
including Thomas Jefferson, favored limitations on the practice. Most recently,
during the 20th century, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall, and author Sister Helen Prejean all emerged as outspoken
opponents of capital punishment.
Over the course of 400 years, the popularity of the death penalty has
fluctuated, with some states abandoning their use of capital punishment earlier
than others. In the mid-1800s, death penalty abolitionists achieved some
success, thanks largely to societal changes that included prison reform
movements, religious revivals, an influx of new immigrants, and the rise of the
anti-slavery movement. People interested in these issues, however disparate,
found in each other a common purpose, arguing that the use of capital
punishment reflected how those in power treated the poor and powerless.
Falling just behind China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, the United States is
recorded to have the 5th highest rate of execution worldwide.
In 1847, Michigan became the 1st state to abolish capital punishment in the
United States. Like some other states, Michigan had gradually been limiting its
use of the death penalty in the preceding decades, and by the 1840s, its
legislature featured many reform-minded lawmakers. Rhode Island subsequently
abolished the death penalty in 1852 and Wisconsin followed suit in 1853,
prohibiting capital punishment for all crimes.
Throughout different abolition periods, such as the early 1900s and the
mid-twentieth century, opponents of capital punishment have raised a variety of
arguments against the practice. Many question whether the death penalty serves
any valid purpose, suggesting it does no more to deter crime than the threat of
imprisonment. Others reason that the death penalty is inhumane and therefore
inconsistent with religious principles. Most importantly, many abolitionists
have highlighted the obvious fallibility of a system based on human juries and
judges. Indeed, this argument has gained clout in modern times, as scientific
breakthroughs in DNA testing and investigative techniques have led to the
discovery of innocent people on death row. The question of race - whether the
death penalty can be applied fairly and without racial bias - has also emerged
alongside concerns that capital punishment targets society's most
disadvantaged.
An important turning point arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Supreme
Court of the United States began to address the practice as a constitutional
issue. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Supreme Court Justices found that existing
procedures for the death penalty violated the United States Constitution
because of the broad discretion afforded to jurors, who were capable of
arbitrary and racially discriminatory decisions.
Given the worldwide trend of countries prohibiting capital punishment, many
observers predicted the case would end the death penalty in the United States.
However, as part of a backlash against the Supreme Court, several state
legislatures renewed their death penalty laws; and in 1976, the Supreme Court
upheld some of these new procedures, reintroducing capital punishment as common
practice and starting a new era for the practice.
Over the following decade, the Supreme Court evaluated another broad attack on
capital punishment in McCleskey v. Kemp, in which Warren McCleskey's attorneys
presented statistical evidence illustrating the racial bias of the justice
system. The Supreme Court, rejecting this claim, thereby affirmed that any
changes to death penalty laws would have to established through political
processes.
Ever since the United States resumed executions after 1976, nationwide
jurisdictions have sent approximately 1,400 people to their deaths. In the
modern era, 1999 was notable for the highest number of executions, with 98
death row inmates executed that year. While this number dropped to 39 in 2013,
more than 3,000 people remain on death row across the country.
Recently, however, activists have found some success in illuminating the
drawbacks of the death penalty through educational efforts. During the past
decade, 7 states have repealed the practice of sentencing prisoners to death,
including Illinois, the same state in which Clarence Darrow infamously defended
murderers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb.
Presently, the federal government, along with 31 states, has upheld the use of
capital punishment, whereas only 19 states (and the District of Columbia) have
prohibited it. A Gallup poll in winter 2013 showed that the death penalty
continues to be popular among American citizens - at least in theory - with up
to 60 percent indicating their support for capital punishment in the case of
convicted murderers. For some, the death penalty continues to serve as a
fitting punishment and just retribution for society; for others, it continues
to be justified by religion. Other advocates even assert that the death penalty
may deter crime. Still, when asked to make a choice between capital punishment
and life imprisonment without parole, support for capital punishment is shown
to drop, as citizens are split equally between the two options.
In the past year alone, the debate surrounding the death penalty has been
inflamed by botched executions, notably in the Arizona execution of Joseph
Wood, who took 2 hours to die from lethal injection. There are also increasing
concerns about the expense of the modern death penalty for taxpayers. In Texas,
for example, the cost of a death penalty case today is thought to be nearly 3
times more expensive than imprisoning someone in maximum security for 40 years.
Charged and complex, the public debate surrounding the death penalty has once
again been brought to the fore, even spilling over into international territory
as European manufacturers dicontinue their supply of lethal drugs to the United
States. Because the death penalty in America is largely a state issue, the
success of abolition efforts will most likely be gradual. However, the recent
global trend against capital punishment has been encouraging to those who, like
Clarence Darrow, believe that both logic and humanity demand an end to the
practice of killing prisoners.
(source: Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier is a professor of law at City University of New
York School of Law and the author of Imprisoned by the Past: Warrant McCleskey
and the American Death Penalty----Oxford University Press blog)
*****************
Is the Death Penalty Unconstitutional?
On the heels of major decisions about same-sex marriage and health care, the
Supreme Court closed the term that ended last week with one more extremely
contentious case, Glossip v. Gross, which was about the death penalty. The
narrow issue in the case was the legality of Oklahoma's most recent method of
lethal injection, using a drug called midazolam. The court upheld that
execution method in a 5-to-4 ruling, concluding that the challengers had not
done enough to show that it was riskier than the alternatives. But the
extensive opinions in the case confronted fundamental questions about the place
of the death penalty in our constitutional system.
Marking the contentiousness of the issue, 4 justices announced their competing
opinions aloud in the courtroom. It is uncommon for more than 1 justice to
speak in a particular case. 4 is almost unheard-of.
The separate opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer, in
particular, are worthy of note, as they express starkly opposing views of the
death penalty's place under our Constitution. Justice Breyer basically called
for the abolition of the death penalty, while Justice Scalia argued that the
Constitution itself protected the death penalty from judicial invalidation. But
both views are misguided; the best position lies in between them.
Let's start with Justice Scalia, who argues that the Constitution explicitly
blesses the death penalty. The Fifth Amendment says that one cannot be
"deprived of life ... without due process of law," and that "capital, or
otherwise infamous crime" must proceed by grand jury. Justice Scalia contends
that these provisions insulate the death penalty from categorical challenge
because it is "obvious" that it "is impossible to hold unconstitutional that
which the Constitution explicitly contemplates."
But this argument ignores the lesson of another constitutional amendment, the
Ninth, which is designed to stop precisely the sort of inference that Justice
Scalia is making here. The framers worried that codifying individual rights
could be dangerous, because identifying specific limits on government power may
imply that those are the only limits, with the government otherwise having a
free hand. When Congress decided to propose a Bill of Rights nonetheless, James
Madison included language to answer this objection - which ultimately became
our Ninth Amendment - that warns that no specific right should be taken to
preclude other possibly relevant rights.
Unfortunately, that is what Justice Scalia is doing. He considers the specific
right to due process before execution and infers from it that the death penalty
can never be a "cruel and unusual punishment," which the Eighth Amendment
prohibits. To be clear, Justice Scalia is surely correct that the framers
assumed that the death penalty could be imposed without being cruel and
unusual, and their assumption may well turn out to be right. But that is an
assumption that has to be tested by interpreting the Eighth Amendment by its
own lights.
Next let's turn to Justice Breyer, who argues that it is "highly likely" that
the death penalty as a whole violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is
unreliable, arbitrary, slow and rare. This argument went well beyond the
specific challenge to the use of the midazolam that was the focus of the case.
Rather, Justice Breyer explained that he would stop trying "to patch up the
death penalty's legal wounds one at a time" and likely bury the whole thing.
Justice Breyer (whose opinion was joined here by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
is the 1st member of the current court to call for such a radical step.
We should not be too quick to embrace Justice Breyer's thinking. If his
conclusion is something other than a personal moral intuition, it rests on
deeply contested claims about the accuracy, goals and costs of the death
penalty. And while Justice Breyer's dissent advanced extensive evidence for his
claims, they are nonetheless claims that are hard for a judge, even a Supreme
Court justice, to resolve dispassionately. Moreover, even if those claims are
proved true, the more appropriate judicial course would be to invalidate the
problematic parts of the system, not the system as a whole.
If we reject the broad legal claims of both Justices Scalia and Breyer, what is
left? The court's job is to continue resolving the fact-specific claims that a
given punishment is cruel and unusual, even if that means that the court must
only "patch up the death penalty's legal wounds." And the bigger question that
Justice Breyer would have us confront - whether our death penalty system is
necessary or oppressive - is best left to the states and the people.
William Baude, a contributing opinion writer, is an assistant professor of law
at the University of Chicago.
(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)
***************
Great Controversy Is Usually the Exception for the Supreme Court
"The old chorus rises, as it is rising now," The New York Times editorialized
almost 100 years ago, during yet another time of controversy over the Supreme
Court. "It will die into silence, as it has died before ... Congresses have
their little hour of strut and rave. The court stays."
The court is secure, in part, because it has learned to stay out of trouble.
Over the short haul, the left wins some cases, the right others.
Controversy over the Supreme Court is as inevitable as death and taxes. Still,
asking whether we would be better off without the court is like asking whether
we would be better off without gravity or rain. It is part of the basic
ecosystem of American governance.
The court is secure, in part, because it has learned to stay out of trouble.
Over the short haul, the ideological left wins some cases, the right others.
And so the court is left alone. It???s been a long time since there was any
serious attack on the justices or their way of doing business.
Most cases get decided with little fanfare. They deal with mundane issues that,
whatever their legal interest, hardly gain a toehold in the public's short
attention span.
Don't deceive yourself that the justices stand up for individual rights when
the chips are down. Their record in that regard is abysmal.
In a very, very few of the court's cases, people get riled up. Social movements
mobilize against the decision. Gay rights. The death penalty. Race
discrimination. Abortion. Really mobilize, because Congress can't just overrule
the court: Either we amend the Constitution, or the justices reverse
themselves.
And over the long haul, that mobilization causes the American people to come to
some general conclusion of its own on the question. When the people do, the
court usually follows. As with gay marriage, where the polls were squarely on
the court's side. As with the death penalty, where the court took a stab at
abolition and quickly retreated - in the 1970s - in the face of clear
opposition. With abortion, where the court took a bold step in Roe v. Wade of
protecting the right to choose abortion, then retreated in the face of
opposition, leaving states freer to regulate - the effect of which is seen in
many new state abortion laws. With child labor: In the early 20th century the
court repeatedly struck down efforts to abolish it, until the justices
recanted.
While we wait for the court to come into line, a lot of people can be unhappy,
or even harmed, possibly a majority of the country. But like it or not, it's
our way of doing business.
Barry Friedman the Jacob D. Fuchsberg professor of law New York University
School of Law, is the author of "The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has
Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution."
(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)
********************
The Supreme Court Is Most Powerful When It Follows Public Opinion
The Supreme Court reflects shifting social mores at least as much as it
influences them. Rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell
were inconceivable until enormous changes in the surrounding social and
political context had first occurred. Before Brown, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt appointed the 1st black general in American history, President Harry
S Truman issued executive orders desegregating the federal military and the
civil service, and Jackie Robinson desegregated major league baseball. Even in
the South, black voter registration increased from 3 % in 1940 to 20 % in 1950,
and blacks began serving on juries and in local political offices for the 1st
time since Reconstruction. Justice Sherman Minton noted "a different world
today" with regard to race, during the Brown deliberations, and Felix
Frankfurter remarked upon "the great changes in the relations between white and
[black] people."
Justices often delay or minimize interventions to avoid causing powerful
political backlashes when they are out of step with social attitudes.
Obergefell was rendered possible only by enormous shifts in attitudes and
practices. The number of states forbidding discrimination based on sexual
orientation increased from zero in 1980 to over 20 by 2015. In 1992, not a
single Fortune 500 corporation extended benefits to the partners of gay
employees, but in 2015 the vast majority of them do so. In 1990, fewer than 1
American in 4 supported gay marriage; in 2015, 60 % of them do so. At the oral
argument in the Defense of Marriage Act case in 2013, Justice Antonin Scalia
noted a "sea change" in attitudes regarding gay marriage.
Judicial interventions can cause powerful political backlashes that retard the
progress of social reform movements. The court's provisional ruling against the
death penalty in 1972 generated tremendous support for capital punishment, as
35 states quickly enacted new death penalty statutes. Similarly, Roe's
aggressive defense of abortion rights fostered a right-to-life movement that
fundamentally reshaped American politics and arguably made abortion reform more
contentious and resistant to compromise.
Sensitive to the possibility of backlashes, justices often delay or minimize
their interventions. In Brown, the justices hedged their remedial order -
school desegregation was to take place "with all deliberate speed" - because
they feared that ordering immediate desegregation would produce school closures
and violence.
Even though state supreme courts began wrestling with gay marriage in the early
1990s, the Supreme Court did not grant review in such a case until 2012 - then
ducked the issue the following year. By the time of Obergefell, 11 states had
enacted gay marriage by legislation or referendum.
By waiting until 2015 to issue a broad ruling in favor of marriage equality,
the Obergefell majority probably will have managed to forestall significant
backlash. Moreover, while Brown's opponents thought that sending their children
to integrated schools would be cataclysmic and Roe's opponents regard abortion
as murder, a marriage equality ruling will have little direct impact on
opponents' lives.
Some state and local politicians - especially in the Deep South - may express
outrage at the court's decision, but one cannot imagine a governor mimicking
George Wallace and "standing in the courthouse door" in opposition to marriage
equality.
Michael Klarman is a professor at Harvard Law School
(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
