Feb. 6
TEXAS:
Court of Criminal Appeals Candidates Emphasize Experience
Although the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest criminal court in the
state - and it deals with hot-button issues including the death penalty - its 9
judges don't attract much attention. That can make campaigning for a seat on
the court difficult. Several candidates running for the court's open seats said
they doubt most Texans know the court even exists.
But the 3 Court of Criminal Appeals races on the March 1 Republican primary
ballot - for places 2, 5 and 6 - are worth paying attention to (the Democrats
running don't have primary opponents). In 1 race, 3 Republicans are locked in a
heated battle to take back the seat from an incumbent who defected to the
Democratic party. In another, one candidate is calling for a complete overhaul
of the court system. Across all 3 races, there are accusations of insufficient
commitment to conservative values.
Voters across the state are eligible to vote in the Court of Criminal Appeals
elections. Here's the breakdown:
Place 2
The current Place 2 judge, Democrat Larry Meyers, is the longest-serving member
of the court; he's held the seat since 1992 and he's looking to stick around.
But his isn't a typical incumbent story - he's switched parties since the last
election, making him the only Democrat in statewide office in Texas, and he
knows his chances of getting re-elected are slim.
This fall, Meyers will face the winner of 3 Republicans seeking to claim his
seat - Judge Mary Lou Keel of Harris County, and Judges Chris Oldner and Ray
Wheless, both from Collin County. Keel and Oldner are seeking to define the
race by their criminal law qualifications, and both said they'd much prefer the
other to Wheless.
Keel, a former trial and appellate prosecutor, has presided over 5 death
penalty cases as a felony trial judge. Given the role of the Court of Criminal
Appeals as the top appellate court for Texas death penalty cases, Keel said she
is ready for the job.
"I've got more experience than both of my opponents put together," Keel said.
Oldner, a district court judge in Collin County, says his own experiences with
the death penalty - when he was a felony prosecutor - has given him a unique
perspective.
: "I think it's important that the court has people who have been in the
courtroom, looked people in the eye and asked for the death penalty," Oldner
said. "I've asked for convictions in the toughest cases."
Wheless, also a district court judge in Collin County, has emphasized his
commitment to conservative values in his campaign materials and focused on the
credentials that set him apart, including his double certification in civil
trial law and personal injury law. Wheless has also highlighted his history
with narcotics cases - he helped establish Collin County's 1st felony drug
court program.
There is 1 point on which Keel and Oldner agree: Wheless should not be on the
state's highest criminal court. Both say Wheless doesn't have sufficient
experience in criminal appeals, pointing out that he is the only candidate who
has not been board certified in criminal law. "There are 2 people in this race
who are highly qualified and who would do a great job on the bench," Oldner
said. "There is a 3rd person who has excelled at politics, and that's it."
"I don't understand why Judge Wheless wants to be on a court he's so
unqualified for," Keel said.
Wheless worked in private practice and served as Plano's municipal prosecutor
before being appointed to the Collin County district court. He says he's
perfectly qualified and that ultimately the voters will decide, but he declined
to comment on the specific nature of his opponents' complaints.
"I like criminal law, I like hearing criminal cases," Wheless said. "Criminal
law is interesting to me."
Wheless, who's garnered endorsements from a number of prominent Tea Party
organizations - including Texas Right to Life, Texas Home School Coalition and
the Texas Eagle Forum - says his opponents' criticism does not bother him.
"They are entitled to run their campaigns the way they want, and I am running
mine," Wheless said.
Place 5
Brent Webster, Sid Harle and Steve Smith
Brent Webster, Sid Harle, and Steve Smith are 3 of the 4 candidates running in
the Republican primary for Court of Criminal Appeals Place 5.
The 4 Republicans vying for the Place 5 seat on the court also vary
significantly in background and motivation. One says he is running to take back
the court for conservatives, and another hopes to use the position to advocate
for a total overhaul of the state's court system; another does not have a
campaign website.
Sid Harle has the most judicial experience - he's served as a state district
judge for 27 years and presided over several death penalty cases, and he served
for 2 years on the Court of Criminal Appeals' rules committee. He also
recommended the state convene the court of inquiry that led to Michael Morton's
high-profile exoneration. Morton was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his
wife and served almost 25 years in prison before DNA evidence connected another
man to the crime.
Harle said his background in forensics, including 2 years of service on the
National Forensic Science Commission, make him especially qualified for the
court.
"Arson, ballistics, DNA evidence - we're going to be seeing a lot of those
cases," Harle said. "The Morton case dealt with one of those worst examples of
bad science and bad gatekeeping by a judge - as a judge, a big part of the
workload is looking at the underlying forensic science."
Harle's most vocal opponent is Steve Smith, a former Texas Supreme Court
justice. Smith advocates merging the state's 2 highest courts, the Court of
Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court, and has focused on his opposition to
what he calls "judicial lawmaking." Smith said he entered the race largely
because he thinks Harle is too moderate.
"I got in at the last minute, right before the filing deadline, when it was
clear Harle would not have competition," Smith said. "The balance between
moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans has shifted, and it's
important that a proven conservative take this spot."
Smith cites Texas v. Villlarreal, a case in which the Court of Criminal Appeals
ruled 5-4 that blood drawn from drivers without their consent and without a
warrant is not admissible evidence in a DWI case, as an example of a case that
he says could've easily been decided the other way with a 5th conservative
voice.
"Those important cases are being decided 5-4, and I think it's important to
educate the voters that, contrary to public perception, the CCA is not
far-right at the moment," Smith said. "That's cause for concern."
Harle has said it is not appropriate for judges to address how they would rule
in specific cases in advance of hearing them in court.
"You can talk about your judicial philosophy, but you can't really broadcast
what you're going to do to that degree, or you'd be subject to recusal," Harle
said.
A 3rd Republican, Brent Webster, a Williamson County assistant defense
attorney, has never served in public office. His campaign materials focus on
major conservative themes - his commitment to defending 2nd-amendment rights,
his anti-abortion rights stance, and a belief in fiscal responsibility.
"As a Judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, not only will Brent bring
these values to the bench, he will be guided by them," his website says.
Webster could not be reached for comment.
The 4th Republican candidate, Scott Walker, a criminal defense attorney from
Fort Worth, does not have a campaign website and did not return multiple
requests for comment.
The winner of the Republican primary will face Democrat Betsy Johnson, a
criminal defense attorney from San Antonio, in the fall.
Place 6
Richard Davis is challenging incumbent Michael E. Keasler in the Republican
primary for Court of Criminal Appeals Place 6.
Compared to the other Court of Criminal Appeals races, the Place 6 race has
been quiet.
Judge Michael Keasler, a Republican who has served on the court for 17 years,
is running to keep his seat. Keasler, 73, would hit the CCA's mandatory
retirement age of 75 in 2 years, triggering a law that caps the normally 6-year
term at 4 years. Keasler does not have a campaign website and did not respond
to requests for comment.
Richard Davis, an attorney from Marble Falls, is Keasler's only Republican
opponent - and Davis said he hopes voters keep Keasler's inability to serve a
full term in mind when they head to the polls.
Davis added that although he's never served as a judge, his work as a
prosecutor in Sherman and Ector counties qualify him for the role.
"My extensive trial experience gives me a more balanced view than my opponent,
whose legal career prior to holding office was to prosecute in 1 county of this
state," he said.
This fall, the winner will face Democrat Robert Burns, a district judge from
Dallas County.
(source: Texas Tribune)
****************
Don't mess with Texas, where law is hard, mistakes common
Among the 3,000 counties that make up the United States, there is 1 in Texas
where it's best not to mess with the law, because justice is hard and mistakes
are common.
Harris County has executed a record 125 people since the US Supreme Court
overturned the death penalty in 1976.
"The best answer I know is that it's a huge county -- 4 million people --
that's very conservative, in an active death penalty state, and for a long time
had a notoriously blood thirsty DA," Samuel Gross of the University of Michigan
law school told AFP.
Home to the sprawling city of Houston, Harris County accounts for 9 % of all
modern US executions.
It has executed more people than that any of the 31 states which administer the
death penalty, except for the state of Texas as a whole.
"There are 4 major reasons why Harris County has put so many people on death
row: overzealous prosecutors, poor legal representation, racial bias, and the
absence of a life without parole sentencing option until 2005," said Robert
Dunham, director of the Death Penalty information Center.
Studies have shown that Harris County prosecutors were three times more likely
to seek the death penalty against African Americans than against white
defendants between 1992 and 1999. Juries there were more than twice as likely
to impose death sentences on African Americans during the same period.
Lawyers for Duane Buck, sentenced to die in Harris County in 1997, filed an
appeal with the Supreme Court Thursday because an expert witness told jurors he
posed a higher risk of recidivism because he was black.
- Pleading guilty, even if innocent -
Harris County also accounted for 1/3 of the nation's exoneration cases in 2015,
according to a study Gross published Wednesday.
Many of those who spent years behind bars until they could prove their
innocence are African Americans like Alfred Brown, who was arrested in 2003 at
the age of 21 for a double homicide and sentenced to death in 2005.
Prosecutors suppressed phone records showing Brown was at his girlfriend's home
at the time of the crime and jailed his girlfriend on perjury charges until she
agreed to testify against him, according to a series of columns which netted
Houston Chronicle reporter Lisa Falkenberg a Pulitzer Prize.
Brown was released in June after 12 years behind bars.
The vast majority of exonerations are in drug cases where people caught up in
the system are pressured to plead guilty because they have little hope of
clearing their names.
"It's shocking but it is very common," said Jim Cohen, a professor at Fordham
Law School.
"They are pushed by the prosecutor and they are pushed by the defense attorney
because the defense attorney is saying, 'if you don't plead guilty and you are
convicted after trial, you're going to get a much bigger sentence'."
But the evidence which pushed them to confess was often flawed or even
inadmissible.
The field tests used by police in Harris County and elsewhere in the nation are
"notoriously unreliable," and "routinely misidentify everything from Jolly
Ranchers (candies) to chalk to motor oil as illegal drugs," the University of
Michigan report said.
"They are inadmissible as evidence in court but sufficient to justify an arrest
and they may convince an innocent defendant that she is bound to be convicted
at trial."
Some of those who plead guilty might have thought the pills or powders they
were carrying contained illegal drugs when they did not, the study concluded.
Others, especially those with previous convictions who could not afford to post
bail, agreed to "attractive plea bargains" rather than risking years in prison.
(source: Yahoo News)
PENNSYLVANIA:
A sad case of unequal justice from the 1930s
At 7:03 a.m. on June 8, 1931, Alexander McClay Williams was put to death in the
electric chair at Rockview Prison in Centre County.
He was 16 years old.
Williams had been convicted in the stabbing murder of a matron at the Glen
Mills Schools, where he had been a resident since the age of 12, when he was
charged with setting a barn on fire.
More than 8 decades later, questions remain about the case and whether Williams
was wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit.
The case has haunted local educator and author Sam Lemon, who has spent years
examining the case and raised serious questions about Williams' guilt and a
system of law that could so easily dispatch a young African-American youth to
death.
Lemon believes strongly that the Williams case was a miscarriage of justice. In
the process, his work offers a chilling look at how race received distinctly
different forms of justice in 1931. Some would argue, given the events across
the nation the past couple of years, that things have not changed all that much
in 8 decades of the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment under the
law.
Lemon's makes a strong case that the execution of Williams, believed to be the
youngest person executed by the state of Pennsylvania, was anything but just.
Williams was convicted by an all-white jury of the murder of Glen Mills matron
Vida Robare. She had been brutally stabbed 47 times with an ice pick.
Lemon has spent 30 years researching the case. He first heard of it from his
grandmother, whose father, Lemon's great-grandfather, had the task of
representing Williams in court.
William H. Ridley was the 1st African-American admitted to the Delaware County
Bar Association. In October 1930, he was the only African-American attorney in
Delaware County, and found himself by the court to represent the young
Williams.
He would soon encounter several problems.
Lemon believes 3 of the youth's constitutional rights were violated: his Fifth
Amendment right not to incriminate himself; his Sixth Amendment right to
confront any witnesses; and his 14th Amendment right to due process and equal
justice under the law.
Lemon, who points out there was no physical evidence linking Williams to the
murder, as well as no fingerprints or witnesses, believes the teen???s
confession was coerced.
He's not the only one. Robert Keller, a former Delaware County prosecutor who
is now a criminal defense attorney, reviewed Lemon's findings.
Keller agrees that Williams was questioned continually without counsel.
"It is clearly an important case for all to hear about," Keller said. "The
justice system of the '30s clearly failed this young African-American."
Keller is working with Lemon to push for a pardon for Williams.
Back in 2005, the United State Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for
anyone under the age of 18. That came about 3/4 of a century too late for
Williams. And it might not have kept him from a date with death anyhow. Adding
insult to injury, Williams' death certificate appears to have been altered. It
correctly notes his date of birth as July 23, 1914, but his age was clearly
altered by someone who converted the 6 into an 8, making it appear as if
Williams was 18.
Williams' case was certainly not the first time in American history where race
cast a shadow over the justice system.
8 decades after he was walked to the death chamber, Lemon points to the Trayvon
Martin case, unrest in several U.S. cities, including Ferguson, Mo., after the
shooting of black youths by police, as evidence that while we've made great
strides, the pursuit of justice for all Americans continues.
February is Black History Month. Every year we take time to note the
accomplishments of African-Americans, and the continuing pursuit of the Rev.
Martin Luther King's elusive "dream."
Alexander McClay Williams did not have much in the way of dreams. In his scant
16 years, he had a troubled life - and an even more troubling death.
We congratulate Lemon and others for their work in uncovering and seeking to
redress the wrongs inflicted on Williams.
Maybe part of the dream is realizing the nightmare too many suffered along the
way. And working to ensure they never occur again.
(source: Editorial, The Mercury)
******************
Murder suspect calls his lawyers 'bums' and 'corrupt'
Calling his public defenders "bums" and "corrupt," a Riegelsville man facing
the death penalty in a Easton homicide case on Friday sought to fire his
lawyers, saying they were pressing him to plead guilty to murder.
A shackled and handcuffed Jeffrey S. Knoble Jr., who was placed in a wheelchair
to restrain him, railed against the three attorneys standing feet from him in
the Northampton County courtroom, and asserted his innocence in the slaying
last year.
"They don't fit my needs," Knoble said of Chief Public Defender Robert Eyer and
the two experienced public defenders, Matthew Goodrich and Matthew Potts, who
are assisting him. "They're bums. They're corrupt." Knoble, 26, could face the
state's ultimate punishment if convicted of 1st-degree murder in the early
March 11 killing at the former Quality Inn on South Third Street. He is charged
with shooting 32-year-old Andrew "Beep" White, who authorities have called a
"good Samaritan" who had rented a room for Knoble that night because he had no
place to stay.
Knoble appeared before Judge Emil Giordano after he wrote letters to the judge
and the case's prosecutor, saying he wanted to fire his lawyers because "they
sold me out" and were pressing him to accept a plea bargain under which he
would receive life in prison without parole.
"It's my life," Knoble said in court to Giordano.
Giordano said he would issue a ruling on the request next week, but the judge
told Knoble that if he cannot afford an attorney, he does not get to choose the
lawyers he is appointed.
Knoble's defense team said little in court, even as their client lashed out
against them in a room packed with deputy sheriffs.
"My appearance remains entered," Eyer said. "Mr. Goodrich's appearance remains
entered. Mr. Potts' appearance remains entered, and we're ready to proceed."
Knoble was arrested the day of the shooting after his mother called police
after her son showed her a cellphone video of a man's corpse, according to
testimony. Knoble's lawyers have said they are preparing a mental-health
defense, including the possibility that their client was insane or operating
under diminished capacity.
Jury selection in the case's trial is slated to begin May 31.
Friday was only the latest time that Knoble has had outbursts in court. When he
was formally notified in June that he would face the death penalty, Knoble
thundered against the justice system and the media, saying there was no way he
would receive a fair trial.
"I know how you guys work. You're all corrupt," Knoble told Giordano at the
time.
But in his letters to Giordano and First Deputy District Attorney Terence
Houck, it was Knoble's lawyers who faced that accusation, with the defendant
complaining "they are not doing anything for me." In the letters dated Monday,
Knoble threatened to go to the press, saying they "would love it."
"I'm not stupid," Knoble wrote Houck.
In court, Houck tweaked Knoble over that letter, noting the defendant
misspelled his 1st name as "Terance."
"If he's going to send anything else to me, I'd like him to spell my name
right," Houck said.
Giordano several times pressed Knoble to offer specific complaints about his
lawyers' performance, even as Knoble insisted that the judge had no choice but
to give him new counsel.
"Right here's a paper trail," Knoble said. "So if you keep them on my case, I'm
automatically coming back to you [on appeal.]"
Giordano said he appreciated the legal advice.
(source: Morning Call)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Suspects in 2 slayings could face death penalty
Suspects in the slayings of 2 women more than a year ago were told they could
face the death penalty as they appeared before a judge for the first time
Thursday.
Justin Gray Reynolds, 28, who has had addresses on Bitmore Road, Brunswick and
most recently on Lee Ward Road, Nakina; and Megan Alicia Haynes, 27, of Howard
Cox Road, Tabor City; were each charged late Wednesday with 2 counts of murder
in the October 2014 killings of Jeanette Nancy Thut, 74, and Donna Lee Gore,
55, at their home on Blacksmith Road near Bolton.
Reynolds was Gore's son, a news release from the Columbus County Sheriff's
Office said.
Family members who had last seen Thut on Oct. 24, 2014, reported her missing 11
days later, on Nov 4. A deputy who went to Thut's home, while looking around
the grounds, noticed a "foul odor" coming from a storage building, Columbus
County District Attorney Jon David said during a first appearance hearing for
Reynolds.
Detectives would find the bodies of both women inside that building, David
said, Thut wrapped in a piece of carpet or blanket with 15 to 17 stab wounds.
Gore was found on the concrete floor. She had been strangled to death, the
prosecutor said.
Sheriff's detectives working on the case developed new leads and evidence just
this week, David said.
"The wheels of justice turn slow," David said earlier Thursday, "but justice
never sleeps."
Determining motive isn't necessary in a criminal case, David said during a news
conference held just before the court hearings.
"You can chase motive all over the courtroom and never catch it," David said.
David would not discuss motive, or details of the killings during the news
conference.
"We do our talking in the courtroom," he said.
David alluded to theft, and the possibility of getting caught, as a motive
during the hearing.
Reynolds and Haynes were living in a mobile home on the Thut property at the
time of the killings, David said. Thut had discovered that the young couple had
stolen some of her property, and "was in the process of notifying the Columbus
County Sheriff's Office when she was killed."
Both Reynolds and Haynes took property from the Thut home and sold it at pawn
shops in the days following her death, David said. Haynes is also facing credit
card fraud charges in Bladen County, accused of using Thut's credit card in
Elizabethtown after her death, the prosecutor said.
Death penalty
A "death penalty panel" made of up senior prosecutors will meet in the coming
weeks to determine whether the state will seek the death penalty against either
Reynolds, Haynes or both, David said.
That decision could come in about a month, and will be announced, he said.
Though both Reynolds and Haynes were calm before the judge, Haynes appeared
confused and sad, and Reynolds could be heard cursing after he was escorted by
deputies out of the courtroom.
District Court Judge Pauline Hankins heard Reynolds' charges first, and
appointed Harold G. "Butch" Pope to represent him.
Retired Superior Court Judge William C. "Bill" Gore was appointed to represent
Haynes, after declining to represent Reynolds. Gore explained that he'd already
represented Haynes in another case.
Pope asked Hankins for a "reasonable bond" for Reynolds, noting that no
decision has been made on seeking the death penalty.
Hankins denied Pope's request, ordering that Reynolds remain in custody without
bond.
Gore, after hearing David outline specifics of the case during Reynolds'
hearing, said he would "stipulate" to no bond for his client, eliminating the
need for the prosecutor to explain why bail should be denied.
David agreed, but quickly added that Haynes had tried to escape through a rear
window of her home when deputies came to arrest her, eliciting an excited
"objection" from Gore that abruptly halted the prosecutor's explanation.
Probable cause hearings for both Reynolds and Haynes were scheduled for Feb.
25.
(source: Fayetteville Observer)
FLORIDA:
Death Row Sentences Still Uncertain for Most Inmates
In June 2002, The US Supreme Court issued its "Ring Decision" finding only a
jury could determine if death was appropriate. Florida Justices immediately
downplayed its significance..and judges were reminded of that decision this
week by the Attorney General's office because they want to narrow the changes
to existing death sentences. Justice Fred Lewis wrote the original opinion.
"We can be wrong. I have to be big enough to admit."
In January the nation's highest court did indeed say Ring applied to Florida.
Just Barbara Pariente read it outlaid more than once.
"As we hold the sentencing scheme unconstitutional."
Death row attorneys are asking the court to re-sentence all 389 death row
inmates to life in prison. The state wants the court to keep death sentences
for everyone already there. Justice Lewis doesn't think that's fair.
"And that 1 person is executed today, but the 1 that comes up tomorrow is not,
and there's really no difference between their cases" said Lewis from the
bench.
Right now, there are 43 active death appeals here at Florida's Supreme Court.
And because those appeals aren't final, all 43 will likely be be automatically
re-sentenced to life in prison.
But what about the other 346? Since Ring, 40 inmates went to their death in
Florida.
Rex Dimmig is the 10th Circuit Public Defender. "So they followed their normal
procedural sorts of rules. Unfortunately it does result in people having been
executed that we now know were unconstitutionally executed" says Dimmig.
Now the court must decide if it wants to chance getting it wrong again by
keeping most death sentences. Or avoid that mistake by sentencing every
prisoner facing death to life without parole.
State lawmakers are looking at new sentencing schemes for Florida. This week a
House committee adopted a 9-3 jury recommendation. The Senate is considering
requiring a unanimous verdict. Neither house is considering what to do about
those already on death row.
(source: flanews.com)
********************
Study shows racial bias in death penalties in Florida
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Florida's death penalty statute because
judges rather than jurors were making the ultimate decision about who should be
sentenced to die.
This narrow ruling highlights a serious problem with Florida's capital
punishment scheme, but new research suggests that this is just one of many
flaws in how the state determines who should be executed.
I recently conducted a study that looked at the race of victims in all
homicides in Florida since 1976, including those that resulted in execution.
I found that executions are very rare: just 0.3 % of homicides lead to an
execution. Most murders involve people of the same race.
But there are tremendous disparities depending on the characteristics of the
victim:
-- In fact, 72 % of all executions carried out in Florida between 1976 and
2014 were for crimes involving white victims despite the fact that 56 % of all
homicide victims are white.
-- And 71 % of the executions carried out against black inmates were for
homicides involving white victims.
-- No white person has been executed in Florida for a murder involving a black
victim to date.
With 40 years of experience with the modern death penalty and more than 30,000
murders in Florida, the fact that no white person has ever been executed for
killing a black person needs to be recognized for what it is: evidence of a
severely broken system based on race.
We can quibble about racial disparities that are measured by a few percentage
points. But these are stark results with effects measured by orders of
magnitude.
They clearly show that Florida's death penalty system is plagued by vast racial
and gender disparities and that black lives are not valued the same as white
lives.
Bias enters the process at many different points, from the prosecutor's initial
decision about whether to charge the crime as 1st- or 2nd-degree murder, to the
decision to seek either life in prison or the death penalty.
This is exacerbated by the fact that Florida's death penalty statute is so
broad that the vast majority of homicides could be charged as 1st-degree
murders eligible for the death penalty and that decision is completely up to
the discretion of the local prosecutor. Also Florida is the only state that
doesn't require any unanimity in a capital jury verdict.
The homicide rate in counties that have produced no executions is significantly
lower than the homicide rate in counties with executions. It's difficult to
argue that executions are deterring future murderers with numbers like these.
Florida had almost 30,000 homicides from 1984 through 2012 and 89 executions
through 2014: Just 0.3 % of homicides result in an execution.
Given the flaws and inequities my study revealed, maybe it's just not worth it.
(source: Column; Frank R. Baumgartner is a professor of Political Science at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is the author of "The
Impact of Race, Gender, and Geography on Florida Executions."----Florida
Times-Union)
*************
Why Florida Loves the Death Penalty
In Florida, there's no shortage of things that can kill you. It's the
lightning-strike and shark-bite capital, as the Orlando Sentinel helpfully
dubbed it. Also, alligators. But leaving natural phenomena aside, Florida is
also one of the most execution-friendly destinations in America.
The Sunshine State has 389 death row inmates - more than any other besides
California, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Alarmingly,
Florida also leads the nation with 26 death row exonerations. "If you add it
all together, Florida's the worst of the worst," when it comes to capital
punishment, says Mark Elliott, director of Floridians for Alternatives to the
Death Penalty.
Meanwhile, American support for the death penalty is near a 40-year low,
according to a Pew Research poll conducted last spring. The fact that DNA
evidence can exonerate people who were long ago falsely convicted has inspired
many to doubt the efficacy of the criminal justice system, and laws around the
country are changing to mirror that shift in public opinion. In January, the
Supreme Court - which still leans in favor of the death penalty in the abstract
- deemed Florida's execution sentencing protocol unconstitutional.
But rather than take the death penalty off the books, politicians in Florida
are currently arguing over new justifications they might use for killing
convicts. Which begs the question of why, in a swing state that's often
considered a barometer for the the rest of the country, officials are so
dead-set on preserving capital punishment.
Bob Dekle, a law professor at the University of Florida, says the death penalty
has been a part of the state's culture as long as he can remember. First it was
hangings, and then, in 1923, it was the electric chair. Dekle's granddaddy was
a sheriff in Union County in northern Florida back around the time of World War
I, when the state's executions were still carried out at the local level. The
old man threw the switch on an inmate himself once, a duty Dekle says grandpa
didn't particularly enjoy. But that was local custom - at least until 1941,
when local sheriffs were replaced by black-hooded executioners.
Things carried on that way until 1972, when Supreme Court justices, in a 5 - 4
decision, said that the death penalty was cruel and unusual - and often had a
racial bias. Florida was the first state to pass a new law in hopes of resuming
executions later that year, but a national moratorium remained in place until
the Supreme Court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision. State officials were
anxious to resume capital punishment, reflecting a sense of vigilante justice
that permeates the Deep South, as well as some uniquely Floridian
sensibilities.
"There's always been a sense in Florida that if you feel you have been
victimized, you have an obligation to protect your honor by avenging what has
taken place," Robert Snyder, a professor of American Studies at the University
of South Florida, once told the Tampa Bay Times. "A sort of bestial spirit
resides deep within the heart of people in Florida."
That bestial spirit produced a penal code that has been notoriously lax when it
comes to executions. In most states, juries have to unanimously agree on
aggravating factors to recommend a defendant be put to death. Florida is one of
just 2 states where a simple majority is sufficient, and it's one of just 3
where judges can go rogue and take the execution route even if a jury doesn't
call for it.
Suffice it to say Florida's death row tends to be pretty packed.
On May 25, 1979, a 30-year-old named John Spenkelink was the 1st person sent to
Old Sparky once it got fired up again. According to the Tampa Bay Times,
Spenkelink, who was convicted for murdering his roommate, was given 2 shots of
whiskey before taking his seat in the chair. Dozens of men - and 2 women - were
sent to die there in the coming decades. In fact, the frequency with which
people were executed became a point of civic pride; in 1986, Tampa Mayor Bob
Martinez ran for governor with the campaign promise that Florida's electric
bill would go up if he were elected.
By the late 1990s, however, a number of malfunctions raised questions about
whether or not the electric chair constituted cruel and unusual punishment. In
March 1997, the state tried to electrocute Pedro Medina, but his head basically
caught on fire as witnesses gasped for air. An official turned off the chair
while Medina, who was mentally ill and possibly innocent, was still breathing.
Still, politicians grasped at straws, trying to justify the death penalty.
State Senator Ginny Brown-Waite, who witnessed a particularly gruesome
electrocution in 1999, said that the prisoner's nosebleed formed the sign of a
cross on his shirt, which she suggested might be a sign from God that the
execution was divinely mandated.
In 2000, Florida at least began granting prisoners the choice between Old
Sparky and lethal injection; only 1 man has requested the chair since.
On January 7, Florida carried out the first execution in America this year. But
on Tuesday, the State Supreme Court postponed the next one as lawmakers try to
appease justices in Washington. The conversation will likely not address the
racial issues brought up in the 1970s Supreme Court cases, although the degree
to which the death penalty is imposed along those lines remains startling. (A
January report authored by a professor at University of North Carolina found
that no white person has ever been sentenced to death for killing a black
person in Florida.)
For his part, Dekle - who has personally witnessed 3 executions in Florida -
says other states passed stricter death penalty laws when capital punishment
was reinstated decades ago specifically to discourage the Supreme Court from
striking them down again. 43 Florida death row inmates have filed direct
appeals and might see their sentences reduced to life in prison as a result of
the January ruling.
"It's a mess that could have been avoided if the Supreme Court had 40 years ago
said, 'Wait a minute, this ain't right," Dekle says of the troubled Florida
law. "Eventually, they're gonna hammer out a new mechanism for imposing the
death penalty, and quite likely people on death row are gonna get new
sentencing hearings. And maybe 40 years from now, the Supreme Court will decide
that's unconstitutional too."
(source: vice.com)
***************
Segura trial will go forward with death penalty in limbo
The death penalty - for now - does not apply in the brutal 2010 murder of
Brandi Peters and her 3 children, a judge ruled Friday.
Leon Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, however could not rule whether to allow the
testimony of a witness Henry Segura???s attorneys say points to 2 other
suspects.
Segura, 37, is charged in connection with the murders of Peters, 27, her twin
daughters, Tamiyah and Taniyah Peters, 6, and their son, JaVante Segura, 3, who
were found dead Nov. 20, 2010, at their Saddle Creek Run home.
The trial, set to begin Feb. 22 will go continue as scheduled, Lewis said.
Prosecutors had requested a continuance to allow them to investigate the
defense's new claims.
Lewis said he will not exclude the death penalty entirely, but the decision to
allow it relies on how and when the Florida Legislature reworks guidelines for
capital cases. Florida's sentencing scheme in death penalty cases was ruled
unconstitutional last month by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"At this point I don't have any authority to impose the death penalty," Lewis
said during a hearing Friday. "There are a lot of uncertainties."
Segura's defense attorney Nathan Prince said going ahead with trial with
uncertain sentencing guidelines was troubling.
"I don't think there is any lawful manner with which we could move forward," he
said in court.
Last week, Prince and co-counsel Chuck Hobbs filed motions suggesting Peters
actually was killed because she was working as a drug courier, had been
skimming drugs and refused to pay back upwards of $90,000 to a Mexican drug
cartel.
The filings include testimony from James Carlos Santos, a former member of the
Vice Lords gang in Chicago who's serving time in Tomoka Correctional Institute
on charges including armed robbery.
His written affidavits casts doubt whether Segura is responsible for the
murders and implies others may have committed them, Prince said.
But Assistant State Attorney Jack Campbell said the allegations don't prove
other suspects have a clear link to the crimes. He is distressed by the attempt
to interject new evidence just before the trail. Past judges have ruled Santos'
testimony could not be used at trial.
Prosecutors are also trying to exclude DNA evidence found at the scene of the
murders. It was revealed in June that the DNA was a partial match to Colombian
national Angel Avila-Quionens who had a connection to the same cartel Peters
was reportedly skimming drugs from and was known by Santos.
Lewis did not rule whether it could be presented in trial.
"You don't let trash science come into the court room and don???t let trash
testimony come in," Campbell said in court. "He's just going to be throwing
rank hearsay around."
(source: Tallahassee Democrat)
**********************
Court, lawmakers must overhaul death penalty
The court found Florida's death penalty sentencing process was unconstitutional
because it vests final authority in a judge rather than a jury. Under state
law, judges give "great weight" to a jury's recommendation in a death penalty
case. But the trial judge ultimately decides. In its 8-1 opinion, the court
cited a 2002 case, Ring vs. Arizona, which established that juries and not
judges shall decide the fate of defendants in capital cases. In response, the
Florida Supreme Court issued an indefinite stay of the execution of Michael Ray
Lambrix, which had been scheduled for Thursday, and is exploring whether the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling should apply retroactively to other cases.
Simultaneously, legislators are proposing to rewrite the sentencing laws.
A House bill would require the 12 jurors to be unanimous in finding at least 1
aggravating factor in a capital case in order to recommend death. That change
addresses the high court's Jan. 12 ruling in Hurst vs. Florida, which faulted
the state for allowing judges - not juries - to determine the facts necessary
to impose a death sentence. The bill also would require the vote of at least
nine jurors to recommend a sentence of death. Until the high court threw out
the law, Florida was the only state that allowed juries to recommend death by a
simple 7-5 majority.
Though the Supreme Court did not address unanimity, that standard as a basis
for justifying a death sentence is in keeping with the court majority's
decision by putting more authority into the hands of jurors. Along that line,
the Legislature should require jury recommendations for death to also be
unanimous. The 9-3 requirement being proposed is a nod to prosecutors.
The Florida Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the issue last week,
should agree that applying Hurst retroactively makes both legal and common
sense in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. That decision did not
create a clear path for state Supreme Court justices because it did not
directly address whether it should be applied retroactivity. But the state's
argument - that Hurst is procedural in nature and that applying it
retroactively, which could affect hundreds of cases, is too burdensome for the
courts and victims' families - is pinched legal logic and shows contempt for
fairness under the law. Attorney General Pam Bondi is once again on the wrong
side of justice. This is not downplaying the horrific nature of these murders
or ignoring the pain and suffering of the victims' families. It is about
ensuring equal treatment, a cornerstone of our legal system.
Florida does not find itself in this mess because of the defense bar or
activist judges. The U.S. Supreme Court set a precedent for this case in 2002,
in Ring vs. Arizona, prompting the Florida Supreme Court more than a decade ago
to urge the Legislature to reform death sentencing laws. That never happened.
As the Tampa Bay Times' Anna M. Phillips reported, Florida has more than 170
people on death row today who might not have been condemned to die in any other
state. Of the 389 people on Florida's death row, 4 out of 5 were sent there by
a split jury.
The system for rendering an imperfect punishment is terribly flawed. The
Legislature and the courts should not compound the damage by buying the state's
flawed argument that certainty in sentencing can trump fairness guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution.
(source: Editorial, Tampa Bay Times)
KENTUCKY:
From death row to parole? Killer could apply
2 men convicted of notorious murders in Kentucky as teenagers, including Kevin
Stanford of Louisville, could become eligible for release because of a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling.
The court ruled Jan. 25 that its 2012 decision banning mandatory
life-without-parole sentences for virtually all juvenile killers must be
applied retroactively. That means hundreds of inmates serving sentences for
murders they committed as youths could become eligible for parole hearings or
new sentencing hearings.
They include 2 in Kentucky, Stanford and Sophal "Saggy" Phon of Bowling Green,
whose lawyer this week asked the Kentucky Court of Appeals to apply the ruling
to his case.
Stanford was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Baerbel Poore, when he
was 17. With an accomplice, he repeatedly raped and sodomized her during a
robbery of the gas station where the 20-year-old single mother worked as an
attendant.
Citing his age at the time of the crime, Gov. Paul Patton in 2003 commuted his
sentence to life without parole.
Stanford's lawyer, Tim Arnold, an assistant public advocate, declined to say
whether his client, who is now 52 and housed at the Kentucky State
Penitentiary, would seek a parole hearing or a new sentence.
(source: Courier-Journal)
_______________________________________________
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
