Sept. 24
IDAHO:
The death penalty remains an option for triple murder suspect John Lee
It's still an option for the triple murder suspect John Lee.
The Latah County prosecutor wants more time to decide if he'll seek the harsh
sentence. On Friday, a county judge granted the extension.
Thompson's original deadline for a decision was October, but now it's December
1.
On August 4, Lee pleaded not guilty to 3 counts of 1st degree murder charges
and 1 count of aggravated battery.
Moscow police say on January 10, Lee shot and killed his adoptive mother,
landlord and an Arby's manager, and wounded a Seattle man.
If convicted, he faces life in prison or possibly the death penalty. His trial
is set for May 2.
(source: KLEW TV news)
ARIZONA----foreign national faces death penalty
Prosecutors to seek death penalty against Mesa QuickTrip murder suspect
Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty against the undocumented immigrant
charged with the murder of a Mesa gas station clerk.
Video evidence from the January incident shows Apolinar Altamirano, 30, shoot
Grant Ronnebeck in the head inside the Quik Trip near Stapley Drive and
Broadway Road, according to court documents.
One reason Altamirano shot Ronnebeck, 21, was to make a financial gain, in this
case 2 boxes of cigarettes, according to documents filed by the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office.
Altamirano pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
He was awaiting deportation proceedings when he allegedly shot Ronnebeck,
according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A representative of the Mexican government has appeared at several of
Altamirano's hearings, records show.
Aggravating factors that allow the prosecution to seek the death penalty
include the "especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner" of the crime and
that Altamirano gained financially from the crime (by taking the cigarettes),
according to the prosecution's filing.
Altamirano is at least the 2nd undocumented immigrant arrested in Maricopa
County this year who could face the death penalty if convicted of 1st-degree
murder.
(source: East Valley Tribune)
CALIFORNIA:
Retrial sought for Kevin Cooper, convicted in 1983 massacre----Attorneys plan
to present governor with report that says Kevin Cooper's rights were violated.
Attorneys for death row inmate Kevin Cooper announced plans to ask Gov. Jerry
Brown to grant their client a retrial Wednesday, Sept. 23, after an
international human rights advocacy group found "multiple violations of
Cooper's human rights during his prosecution, conviction and sentencing."
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a branch of the Organization of
American States, concluded in a 32-page report that if California executes
Cooper, the state would be committing "a serious and irreparable violation of
the basic right to life."
Cooper's attorneys from the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm plan to
present the report to Brown in hopes that he will grant their client a new
trial that will include forensic testing.
"Before an innocent man is executed, we urge Governor Brown to take the steps
that the (report) recommends: to review Mr. Cooper's trial and sentence,"
Norman Hile, 1 of Cooper's attorneys, said in a news release. "Mr. Cooper
deserves the chance to prove that he is innocent."
By Wednesday afternoon, Brown's office had not received the attorneys'
petition, spokeswoman Deborah Hoffman said via email.
Cooper was convicted of killing 2 adults, their daughter and a neighbor boy
during a knife-and-hatchet attack in Chino Hills in 1983. Throughout the trial
and appeal process, Cooper has maintained that evidence was planted or
contaminated, that he was framed, and that the real killer or killers have
escaped justice.
State officials say Cooper has exhausted all his appeals. He could be among the
first inmates put to death when California ends a years-long hiatus on
executions.
In 2004, Cooper won a last-minute stay on his execution from the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals. However, additional hearings and forensic tests did
not prove Cooper's claim of innocence, a judge ruled.
In 2009, the 9th Circuit denied him a rehearing, but multiple judges strongly
dissented that ruling, including 1 who wrote, "the state of California may be
about to execute an innocent man."
For the 10th time, he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take his appeal, but
justices declined to review the case.
In 2011, Cooper's attorneys petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights to review the case. The organization issued its report in July.
The commission found 8 instances of "the denial of Cooper's right to due
process" during the trial and appeals processes, his attorneys said. Those
instances include evidence mishandling, evidence destruction and evidence
tampering by law enforcement and the prosecution, according to the news
release.
The report also found "ineffective assistance by Cooper's trial counsel," as
well as instances of racism during evidence gathering, Cooper's prosecution and
in the imposition of the death penalty, his attorneys said.
The report recommends that Cooper be granted "effective relief, including a
review of his trial and sentence in accordance with the guarantees of due
process and a fair trial," his attorneys said.
************
Death penalty case gets new judge
The judge presiding over a death penalty trial "reluctantly" agreed to step
down from the case after a conflict was brought up several weeks into
proceedings.
2 men are on trial for a 2011 Moreno Valley homicide. With a new judge in
charge, proceedings will pick back up where they left off for one defendant,
but a mistrial was granted for the defendant who had the conflict with the
judge. He will start over with a new trial at a later date.
After consulting with legal counsel, Riverside County Superior Court Judge
Bernard Schwartz on Wednesday, Sept. 23, told attorneys and defendants in the
case that he would recuse himself. He lamented the waste of almost 7 weeks of
court time on the trial and the calling of almost 800 potential jurors,
including the 12 selected to serve as jurors and 6 alternate jurors.
Schwartz referred the case back to Judge Becky Dugan, who is in charge of
assigning cases to judges in the Riverside courthouse. She reassigned it to
Judge David Gunn, who will meet with the various parties on Monday to go over
the plans.
Deontray Robinson, 25, of Palm Desert, and Romaine Ulyses Martin, 40, of Moreno
Valley are accused in the May 27, 2011 robbery and shooting death of Jerry
Mitchell Jr.
They will be eligible for the death penalty if convicted of
special-circumstances allegations of murder committed during a robbery, murder
to benefit a criminal street gang, murder during a burglary and murder to
prevent the testimony of a victim or witness.
The jury started hearing evidence Aug. 31. A question about Schwartz's
impartiality came up this month because one of Martin's defense attorneys,
Darryl Exum, learned recently that in 1996, when Schwartz was a criminal
defense attorney, he represented Martin in a robbery case.
The judge told attorneys last week he did not remember the case.
With the jury not in the courtroom, Exum and other attorneys told Schwartz
there was a chance that the prior case details might be brought up, including
Schwartz's role.
Exum sought a mistrial for Martin, which Dugan granted. Outside court, Exum
said he wanted to start over, with his client's case considered separate from
co-defendant Robinson.
Because court reporters prepare daily verbatim transcripts, the attorneys
suggested in court Wednesday to Dugan that the new judge could review the
proceedings to date and continue with Robinson's trial.
According to testimony so far, several people went to Mitchell's apartment
intending to rob him of money, and the victim hid in a bathroom while the
suspects ransacked and took property. The prosecution contends Robinson and
Martin each had a handgun.
After the defendants left, witnesses testified, Robinson returned and shot
Mitchell.
Martin denied any involvement when questioned by police, according to court
records.
(source for both: The Press-Enterprise)
OREGON:
Oregon's death penalty pause follows history of shifting views ---- A brief
history of Oregon's death penaltyState politics reporter Denis C. Theriault
gives a brief history of Oregon's back and forth on executions, along with some
national context for the state's current posture.
Gov. Kate Brown extended Gov. John Kitzhaber's controversial death penalty
moratorium when she took office in February - promising a deep review of
Oregon's system in time for next year's elections.
Brown promised the study 8 days after taking office. But work is just getting
under way, and any recommendations may not emerge until next fall, Brown's
office acknowledged in a story published Saturday by The Oregonian/OregonLive.
What comes next? That's unclear.
The review isn't intended to decide whether the death penalty should be
repealed, Brown's office said. It's just going to look at "practical" issues -
such as the cost and availability of lethal injection drugs and issues around
appeals, which can take years and cost millions of dollars.
A ballot measure pushing for repeal could be on the table during the 2017
legislative agenda. That comes even though polling from three years ago shows
Oregonians still showing strong support for public executions.
But another change would be in keeping with the state's history. Oregonians
voted to abolish the death penalty once before, in 1914. They also revived it
in 1964 and then twice more voted to keep it around, most recently in the
1980s.
State politics reporter Denis C. Theriault gives a brief history of Oregon's
back and forth on executions, along with some national context for the state's
current posture, in an accompanying video.
One thing seems certain: Whatever might emerge from next year's review,
Oregonians won't be done wrestling with the implications of capital punishment
any time soon.
(source: The Oregonian)
USA:
Justice Scalia Says He "Wouldn't Be Surprised" If Supreme Court Ended Death
Penalty----In a speech Tuesday at Rhodes College, the conservative Supreme
Court justice said that 4 of his colleagues think that the penalty is
unconstitutional, The Commercial Appeal reported.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told attendees of a speech given Tuesday
that four of his colleagues believe the death penalty is unconstitutional and
that "he wouldn't be surprised" if the court ends the penalty, according to
reports from the event.
Speaking at Rhodes College, the conservative justice bristled at the concept,
believing the penalty to be constitutional and telling attendees that death
penalty opponents should go to the states if they want to end it, Jennifer
Pignolet of The Commercial Appeal tweeted.
According to Pignolet's report, Scalia said that "he 'wouldn't be surprised' if
his court ruled it unconstitutional, despite his belief that the Constitution
allows for it with the establishment of protections like a fair trial."
Specifically, Scalia said that "he now has 4 colleagues who believe it's
unconstitutional," Pignolet tweeted.
The statements provide new insight into the court's internal discussions - or
at least Scalia's take on his colleagues - as his comments go further than
Scalia's colleagues have gone themselves.
In dissenting from the court's June decision upholding Oklahoma's use of the
drug midazolam in its lethal injection protocol, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined
by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote, "I believe it highly likely that the
death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. At the very least, the Court
should call for full briefing on the basic question."
While close to declaring a view that the penalty is unconstitutional, the
opinion reached no definitive conclusion - and neither justice has voiced
opposition to decisions refusing stays of execution in multiple cases brought
to the court since then.
Although Scalia did not, from available reporting on the speech, name the
justices of whom he was speaking, the other 2 justices who dissented from the
Glossip v. Gross decision - Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - did not
even go as far as Breyer did in his dissent. Sotomayor, in her dissenting
opinion, focused primarily on the midazolam issue directly before the court and
the question of whether those challenging a method of execution must propose an
alternative method. Kagan joined that dissenting opinion.
And, while Justice Anthony Kennedy has written about "enforc[ing] the
Constitution's protection of human dignity" in the course of addressing limits
to the death penalty, the justice has not publicly stated any unambiguous
opposition to the penalty itself.
A spokesperson for Rhodes College told BuzzFeed News that the Supreme Court's
public information office informed the school that no recordings of the speech
would be allowed. An official with the court's public information office told
BuzzFeed News that there would not be a text of Scalia's speech made available.
(source: buzzfeed.com)
_______________________________________________
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
