July 23
FLORIDA:
Police suspected family member in death of Davie woman before Dayonte Resiles
was charged
Dayonte Resiles, who spent 6 days on the run after bolting from a hearing at
the Broward County Courthouse, was not the 1st suspect in the murder of Jill
Halliburton Su.
In the hours after the body of Su was found in the master bathroom of her Davie
home, police first suspected a family member had a hand in her murder.
Police did not yet know that DNA left at the scene would come back to Resiles,
21, who was recaptured Wednesday night.
On Sept. 8, 2014, before Resiles was linked to the case, police were looking at
Su's son, Justin, who discovered his mother's body in a bathtub and called 911,
apparently believing she had committed suicide.
When police arrived, what they found did not look at all like a suicide, said
Davie Police Capt. Dale Engle.
Her hands and feet were bound, and she suffered multiple stab wounds. Justin
Su, 20 at the time, was covered in blood above the waist, but there was no
blood from the waist down - a sign he might have tried to change his clothes,
Engle said. A security camera that had been installed by Su's husband had been
disabled.
l Engle said it's not uncommon for murder investigations to look at family
members, and police looked at Justin Su with considerable suspicion.
"We thought he killed his mother," said Engle, adding that Su's husband,
renowned insect expert Nan-Yao Su, was also regarded with suspicion at the
onset of the investigation. During a lengthy interrogation, Justin Su wouldn't
crack, according to court records. He denied being involved with the murder and
asked police if they would apologize for accusing him when his name was
cleared.
By the time the interrogation was over, police were sure family members were
innocent.
Justin Su got his wish a few days later, said Engle. "We brought him in, and
his father, and we apologized," he said. The apology came with an explanation
about why police initially focused on Justin Su, who moved his mother's body
out of the bathtub after calling 911. He would not have seen beforehand that
her hands and feet were bound, Engle said.
The layout of the bathroom made it possible for the victim's son to get his
upper body wet while moving the victim, leaving his lower body dry, Engle said.
And the security camera showed it was not Justin Su or his father who shut it
off.
The DNA results placing Resiles at the crime scene were available nine days
after the murder. By then, Justin Su and his father were no longer suspects,
Engle said.
It's still not clear how the killer got to the victim's home. The gated
WestRidge development off Nob Hill Road a mile south of Interstate 595 is not
barricaded in a way that would keep pedestrians out, and the back of the Su
home faces a canal. A glass door in the back of the house was shattered.
No other homes reported robberies that day, Engle said.
Resiles had been arrested on burglary charges 9 times before the Su murder, and
it was not unusual for him to get a ride to and from the homes and businesses
he targeted, said Engle.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case. Resiles was scheduled
for a hearing on the death penalty when escaped from the courtroom and eluded
capture for nearly a week.
Defense lawyer H. Dohn Williams said he intends to challenge the accuracy of
the DNA results that made his client the main suspect.
Prosecutor Shari Tate declined a request for comment, saying it was improper
for her to discuss a pending case.
(source: Sun-Sentinel)
INDIANA:
The dilemma of the death penalty
19 years ago this month, on July 26, 1997, Joseph Corcoran woke up from a nap
and thought he heard people downstairs in his Bayer Avenue home talking about
him. He loaded his semi-automatic rifle and descended the stairs.
Within seconds, he had shot and killed his older brother, James; his sister's
fiance, Robert Scott Turner; and his brother's friend, Timothy G. Bricker; as
they sat on a couch in the living room. He chased Douglas A. Stillwell, another
of his brother's friends, into the kitchen and shot him to death.
Corcoran surrendered to police and admitted his guilt.
5 years before that quadruple murder, Corcoran was acquitted for lack of
evidence in the murders of his parents, who were found shotgunned to death in
their Bass Lake home. But in years since he is said to have bragged of those
murders to fellow prison inmates.
Sentenced to death in 1999, Corcoran, who has paranoid schizophrenia, has been
on Indiana???s death row in Michigan City while the appeals process wound its
way through the state and federal courts systems. Though the Supreme Court has
forbidden the execution of juveniles and those with mental retardation, it
still allows criminals with mental illnesses to be put to death.
As The Journal Gazette's Rebecca Green recently reported, Corcoran's attorneys
seem to have run out of appeals. Though his execution has not yet been
scheduled, it may go onto the calendar soon, especially if a lawsuit seeking to
block Indiana???s use of a 3-drug execution method is resolved.
The perpetrator of such horrendous crimes should never be set free to kill
again.
But even those who still defend the concept of state-sanctioned execution have
difficulty defending its use on seriously mentally ill prisoners such as
Corcoran.
(source: Editorial, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette)
ARKANSAS:
Arkansas Supreme Court Grants Stay, Keeping Executions On Hold----A decision by
Arkansas' chief justice almost certainly means there will be no executions in
the state through the rest of 2016.
Arkansas Chief Justice Howard Brill on Thursday provided the 4th vote needed to
grant inmates' request to keep executions on hold while they ask the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear their appeal.
Brill's procedural ruling was also favored by the 3 justices who have disagreed
with the court's rejection of death-row inmates' challenge to Arkansas' death
penalty secrecy law.
In June, the state Supreme Court rejected 9 inmates' challenges to the secrecy
law in a 4-3 vote. On Thursday, the same 4 justices - Brill included - rejected
the inmates' request for the court to reconsider their decision.
However, Brill joined justices Paul Danielson, Josephine Hart, and Robin Wynne
in granting the inmates' request to grant them a stay pending the outcome of
their petition for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear their appeal
in the case.
Justices Karen Baker, Courtney Hudson Goodson, and Rhonda Wood - all of whom
had, like Brill, voted against the inmates' challenge and the rehearing request
- would have denied the stay request.
The inmates now have 90 days to file their certiorari petition at the U.S.
Supreme Court. A response from the state could be filed by the state or
requested by the court after that - a process that takes additional time before
the justices would consider the petition.
Given that timeline, it is unlikely the justices would consider the request
before December - meaning executions are almost certainly on hold in Arkansas
through the rest of 2016 due to the fact that, even if the U.S. Supreme Court
denies cert, advance notice then needs to be given for any execution dates set
at that point.
While the state has not held an execution in more than a decade, Gov. Asa
Hutchinson attempted to restart them in 2015, but has so far been stymied in
carrying any out.
(source: buzzfeed.com)
MISSOURI:
Why are public defenders in Missouri asking to delay justice?
On Thursday, public defenders assigned to Craig Wood asked the judge to delay
the jury trial by 10 months.
Wood is charged with the kidnapping and murder of 10 year-old Hailey Owens.
Her family is waiting for justice, and the trial is set to begin in September.
In a court document filed by the public defenders, Thomas Jacquinot writes,
"there is no reasonable likelihood that Mr. Wood will receive competent and
effective representation... if this case's trial begins in September 2016."
The prosecutor has called it a delay tactic.
The judge is considering postponing the trial until next May.
But the public defender's office says they can't do their job correctly because
they are understaffed and facing an excessive case load.
It's a problem Jacquinot, the district defender, says goes back to 2003, when
the division that handles death penalty cases was shrunk.
Then in 2012, Jacquinot says the office of 8 people had their case load
doubled, with no staff increase.
"To keep up the caseload we have now I would, as a rough estimate, think we'd
need to go from our current 8 to at least 12," Jacquinot said in a telephone
interview with KY3.
Michael Barrett, director of the Missouri State Public Defender system, says
across the state, they need at least 30 attorneys.
"Well we are 2nd to last in the United States in the funding we get for public
defender funding," Barrett told KY3.
Barrett says the lack of sufficient funding for public defenders hurts people
who can't afford to hire a lawyer.
"As a result, the clients tend to have their cases take longer and they sit in
local jail longer and unnecessarily," Barrett says.
People waiting for trial are contributing to overcrowding problems in county
jails around the state. Barrett says it is more expensive for local and state
government to have people charged with crimes sitting in jail rather than tried
and either moved into prison or set free, depending on verdict and punishment.
Barrett says the cost of defending cases is growing faster than the rate of
inflation and gradual budget increases.
Adding to the problem, Governor Nixon recently cut the public defender budget
for fiscal year 2016-2017 by withholding $3.5 million.
A spokesperson for the governor says the legislature had budgeted a $4.5
million increase for the Public Defender program, meaning a $1 million increase
was left in the budget. The governor's office says he elected to make the cut
in order to balance the budget.
The public defender system is suing to get that money back.
"There's a Department of Justice civil rights division finding that we
systematically deprive people of their right to counsel in this state because
of a lack of public defenders," Barrett says.
(source: ky3.com)
WYOMING:
Judge rules Wyoming may continue to seek Eaton death penalty
The state of Wyoming may continue to seek the death penalty against a man
convicted of the 1988 murder of a Montana woman.
U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson of Cheyenne has ruled that Wyoming's failure
to appoint lawyers for Dale Wayne Eaton last year as Johnson had ordered
doesn't preclude the state from seeking to execute him.
Johnson in 2014 overturned Eaton's original death penalty in the murder of Lisa
Kimmell of Billings, Montana. Eaton's lawyers don't dispute that he killed her,
but Johnson ruled Eaton didn't receive a fair trial because the jury didn't
hear adequate information about his background.
A federal appeals court this week ordered proceedings to continue in Eaton's
appeal of Johnson's order allowing the state to seek the death penalty against
him a s2nd time.
(source: Associated Press)
UTAH:
Suspect in killings of Utah siblings may face death penalty
Charging documents show a man accused of killing a teenage brother and sister
in Utah shot them multiple times during a group fight and warned others as he
drove away that "they would be next" if they said anything.
Prosecutors have charged the 28-year-old Mario Cervantez-Angel with 2 counts of
aggravated murder, which carries the possibility of the death penalty.
Witnesses says a fight broke out on July 6 in a Salt Lake City suburban
apartment complex when Cervantez-Angel and three others showed up to confront
Jose Izazaga and Abril Izazaga. Authorities said previously the fight started
over a T-shirt.
They were shot when Jose Izazaga pulled out a knife to defend his sister after
authorities say Cervantez-Angel slammed her against a brick wall.
Cervantez-Angel is being held in jail on $2 million bail. He doesn't have an
attorney yet.
(source: Associated Press)
CALIFORNIA:
Paper wrong recommendations on death penalty
This may serve as a response to the East Bay Times (July 18) editorial asking
voter approval of Proposition 62, abolishment of California's Death Penalty,
and to vote no on Proposition 66, a measure designed to eliminate delay and
modernize appeal procedures that would hasten execution of vicious murderers.
The paper suggests, "Speed [in executions] is the hallmark of places like China
...."
Recall the 2008 rape-murder conviction of Daryl Kemp, the Contra Costa jury
recommending the death penalty. Kemp's victim was a 42-year-old Lafayette woman
savagely killed in 1979.
? These crimes had been committed four months following Kemp's release from San
Quentin where he had been serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of
another woman.
The original sentence, imposed in 1959, was death. However, in 1972 the Supreme
Court found the death penalty unconstitutional, resulting in hundreds of
murderers having their sentences reprieved.
While legislation successfully reinstituted the death penalty, Kemp was paroled
in 1978 when a prison psychiatrist determined he no longer constituted a danger
to anyone. When DNA evidence linked Kemp to the Lafayette murder, he was in a
Texas prison, convicted of raping three other women.
The paper argues that Prop. 62 would impose life without possibility of parole
(LWOP). We all should recognize that little is certain, and in California's
criminal justice system, nothing is forever.
Note realignment that has provided early release for thousands of felons who
today are among us, as well as California electorate approving the proposition
that reclassified many felonies as misdemeanors.
I hasten to add that death penalty opponent, Gov. Jerry Brown (who appointed
California Chief Justice Rose Bird, later recalled by the voters) now wants
voters to approve Proposition 57, which would allow criminals convicted of
"non-violent" felonies to be considered for early parole.
We are not informed that violent priors don't count for otherwise "non-violent"
convicts.
It's only a matter of time when those who advocate leniency under the guise of
saving money and humanitarism will legislate and litigate that life without
parole is "cruel and unusual punishment."
There are consequences of LWOP. As a prisoner with that sentence has only the
possibility of escape to look forward to. That convict takes a hostage, perhaps
custodial personnel or another prisoner and threatens death unless freedom is
granted.
If the hostage is killed what penalty could be imposed? Remember, in this
scenario there is no longer a death penalty only LWOP. Taking hostages is not
limited to convicts.
A 3-time-loser, cornered and taken a hostage, has little to lose if he kills or
harms that person or a police officer.
The death penalty serving as a deterrent to homicide has been debated for
years. To believe that innocent lives have not been spared because of the death
penalty is nonsense.
An outstanding example already referred to is the Supreme Court's 1972 decision
abolishing the penalty of death; prisoners were released only to murder again.
A deliberate vicious killing, subject to a death penalty verdict can be a
thoughtful process. Not all, but surely some would weigh the ultimate penalty
and spare the victim.
A long-ago example but one that makes the point happened April 21, 1959 at San
Quentin. Two convicts had just escaped. They were pursued to the end of a
fishing pier in San Francisco Bay, where the prisoners took an elderly couple
hostage, holding knives against their throats and threatening their lives.
After several hours of negotiations the convicts surrendered; the couple was
unharmed. During their debriefing, the pair related that the escaped prisoners
discussed their dilemma: harming their hostages or surrendering. The prospect
of the death penalty was part of the discussion but giving up became their
choice.
The couple believed the specter of the death penalty may have saved their
lives.
(source: Commentary; Peter A. Meredith is a retired police lieutenant with the
Berkeley Police Department. He has been a resident of Contra Costa County since
1957----East Bay Times)
USA:
Donald Fell hearings close
After 2 weeks of hearings on the constitutionality of the death penalty, all
eyes are on District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford who will issue a decision
that could have far-reaching implications.
In his opening remarks, Crawford said the hearings in the Donald Fell case
presented an opportunity to "create a rich factual record for higher courts
with broader authority to rule on the big questions."
For the U.S. Supreme Court there are few bigger questions than the
constitutionality of the death penalty. According to Robert Dunham, Executive
Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, the Supreme Court has had the
opportunity to review decisions that uphold the constitutionality of the death
penalty, but has elected not to do so.
However, he said, the Supreme Court has never been presented with a lower court
ruling declaring the death penalty unconstitutional.
"It is the kind of decision you typically would expect the Supreme Court to
review because if they didn't the status of death penalty cases across the
federal system would be in doubt," he said.
Former director of the center, Richard Dieter, testified in the Fell hearings
but Dunham said that the organization does not take a position on the death
penalty, nor does it take a side in this lawsuit.
Even if Crawford rules the federal death penalty unconstitutional, the case
would almost certainly be appealed and there's no certainty that it would reach
the nation's highest court.
Over the past 2 weeks, the defense called 11 witnesses to testify on everything
from the growing number of exonerations in death row cases to the uneven
application of capital punishment and the role that race, gender, and geography
can play in sentencing.
The government wrapped up its testimony one day early after deciding to cancel
its last 2 witnesses, Matthew Harding, an associate professor of economics at
the University of California Irvine, and Hashem Dezhbakhsh, a professor of
economics at Emory University. Government witnesses testified on the deterrence
effect of the death penalty, public perceptions of capital punishment, and
housing conditions on death row. A witness for the defense, Lauren Bell, who
was unable to attend the hearings, will testify during a separate motion in
August.
The hearings stem from the murder of North Clarendon resident Terry King in
November 2000. Fell and Robert Lee, who later committed suicide in prison, were
accused of kidnapping King in the parking lot of a Rutland Price Chopper and
driving her to New York before killing her.
Fell was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to death the following year but the
verdict was overturned due to juror misconduct. His retrial is scheduled to
begin early next year.
It is not the 1st time a federal judge has held hearings on the
constitutionality of the death penalty. In July 2002, Jed Rakoff, a district
court Judge in Manhattan, declared the death penalty unconstitutional based on
the growing number of exonerations of death row inmates due to DNA evidence and
other factors. Since 1973, according to Dunham, 156 death row inmates have been
exonerated.
2 months later federal Judge William Sessions of Burlington also ruled the
death penalty unconstitutional in a pre-trial hearing on the Fell case on the
grounds that it denies due process protections and fair trial guarantees.
"We now know, in a way almost unthinkable even a decade ago," Rakoff wrote in
his decision, "that our system of criminal justice, for all its protections, is
sufficiently fallible."
Both rulings were overturned by appellate courts.
Since Rakoff and Sessions issued their rulings, 7 states have banned capital
punishment; a total of 19 states now outlaw the practice. (Vermont banned the
death penalty in 1965.) The Supreme Court has also ruled that the death penalty
cannot be applied in cases involving minors, the mentally disabled, and those
convicted of a crime other than murder. During that same time, the number of
death sentences and executions has also declined.
"At this point, it's becoming more and more unusual for a country like ours to
sanction state murder, which is what it is," said Allen Gilbert, Executive
Director of the Vermont Chapter of the ACLU. "I think it's inevitable that at
some point the U.S. will abolish the death penalty."
Many observers point to a 2015 dissent from Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in a
case challenging lethal injection in Oklahoma, Glossip v. Gross, as opening the
door for a review of the death penalty's constitutionality. Citing the growing
number of exonerations since the introduction of DNA evidence in the early
1990s and growing evidence that the death penalty is unevenly applied, Breyer
wrote, "the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally
prohibited 'cruel and unusual punishment.'"
The hearings before Judge Crawford are the first to take place since Justice
Breyer's dissent, which Dunham characterized as a "call to defense lawyers to
raise the issue so that the court may have the opportunity to review it."
The particulars of the Fell case rarely came into play during the 2 weeks of
hearings in Rutland District Court. The Fell case was however used to
illustrate the arbitrariness of death sentencing. Fell's is 1 of only 2 cases
in modern history in which local prosecutors had reached a plea deal in
exchange for a life sentence that was then overturned by the attorney general.
The defense argued that this is one of the features of the federal death
penalty that has contributed to its overall administration in an arbitrary and
capricious manner.
The Fell case is also an example of how long death penalty cases can drag on in
the courts. The crime Fell is charged with committing took place nearly 16
years ago.
(source: vtdigger.com)
****************************
VP Pick Sen. Tim Kaine Seeks to Balance Catholic Faith with Democratic Politics
With news Friday that Hillary Clinton picked Tim Kaine as her Democratic
running mate, the U.S. Senator from Virginia finds him, and his faith, back in
the national spotlight. Like many other Democratic politicians who are
Catholic, Kaine struggles with the challenge of living out his personal faith
in a party that doesn't always share his church's views on complicated issues.
As a young attorney in Virginia, Tim Kaine offered his legal services free of
charge to death-row inmates seeking exoneration. He has said for decades that
he is against the death penalty and that he is uncomfortable with the idea of
abortion. Both positions are informed by his lifelong Catholic faith, but he
nonetheless eschews the label of "pro-life," a view he made clear as recently
as last week.
When Kaine ran for governor of Virginia in 2005, anti-death penalty advocates
were hopeful that should he win, he might follow the lead of other Catholic
governors and halt executions. The commonwealth had killed more criminals than
any other state, save Texas, according to a 2012 profile of Kaine in The
Washington Post.
But political realities set in. An anti-death penalty crusader would have a
hard time winning statewide office in Virginia.
. So Kaine promised that, even though he was personally opposed to the death
penalty, as governor, he would enforce the laws. He kept his word and 11
people, 6 of them black, were put to death during his tenure.
Kaine's position, of being personally opposed to a practice but not willing to
prohibit it by law, is a standard refrain among some Catholics active in
Democratic politics, though more commonly it is applied to abortion rather than
the death penalty.
It was in part this view that prompted some liberal activists to complain in
the days leading up to his selection by Clinton that Kaine is not one of them,
that he is too boring and perhaps too moderate for Democrats in 2016. (He
admitted as much to the first charge on Meet the Press, stating quite
succinctly, "I am boring.")
But if he lacks a certain pizazz, what Kaine does bring to the ticket is a
worldview shaped by the Catholic faith.
Born in Minnesota and raised outside Kansas City, Kaine said his church was an
important part of his upbringing. He told C-SPAN earlier this year that if his
family "got back from a vacation on a Sunday night at 7:30 p.m., they would
know the one church in Kansas City that had an 8 p.m. Mass that we can make."
He went on to attend the Jesuit Rockhurst High School, which is where, he said,
he first started "talking about faith and spirituality."
"That high school experience with the Jesuits was a key part of my transition
into an adult life where instead of just accepting the answers of my parents or
others, I've been a person who wants to go out and find the answers on my own,
and the Jesuits get credit for that," he said.
After being admitted to Harvard Law School, Kaine took a year off to volunteer
at a Jesuit vocational school in Honduras, teaching welding and carpentry,
skills he learned from his father. It was in El Progreso where he became fluent
in Spanish, a skill expected to help Clinton shore up the Hispanic vote.
He told Virginia's The Daily Press last year that his experience in Honduras
still informed his politics. "My experience working at Loyola taught me the
importance of access to skills-based training - both in Honduras and the U.S. -
and inspired me to pursue the issue of expanding career and technical education
in the U.S. Senate," he said.
When he and his wife settled down in Richmond about 3 decades later, they chose
to attend a predominantly African-American Catholic parish. There, Kaine helped
start a men's group and joined a gospel choir. (He had to quit the choir once
he entered politics, rehearsals becoming difficult to attend.)
He went on to become a city councilor and then mayor of the mostly
African-American city in 1998. He was sworn in as lieutenant governor in 2002
andbecame governor in 2006. Barack Obama considered Kaine as his running mate
in 2008 before choosing Joe Biden. He ran the national Democratic Party from
2009 to 2011, and he won a race for the U.S. Senate the following year.
Like his views on the death penalty, which U.S. bishops have long opposed,
Kaine's stance on immigration are also in line with the Catholic hierarchy.
In 2013, Kaine became the 1st lawmaker in history to deliver a speech from the
Senate floor entirely in Spanish. "It is time that we pass comprehensive
immigration reform," he said in Spanish.
But Kaine???s'public policy positions on abortion and marriage put him at odds
with Catholic teaching.
With speculation mounting that Kaine would be Clinton's choice, Kaine recently
revisited his stance on abortion, recognizing that his own pro-life views were
at odds with many Democratic activists. The party, after all, recently adopted
in its draft platform for the 1st time a measure to repeal the Hyde Amendment,
a compromise Kaine supports that for decades has restricted federal money from
paying for abortions.
Speaking to CNN earlier this month, Kaine was asked if he is "pro-life," to
which he said, "I've never embraced labels."
"I have a traditional Catholic personal position, but I am very strongly
supportive that women should make these decisions and government shouldn't
intrude," he continued. "I'm a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being
able to make these decisions. In government, we have enough things to worry
about. We don't need to make people's reproductive decisions for them."
That position has worked with voters in the past, most of whom fall somewhere
in between the 2 parties' platforms on the abortion question. But it might not
go over so well with some members of his church.
When John Kerry was nominated by the Democrats in 2004, the last Catholic to be
given the nod from either party, some bishops warned that Kerry's views on
abortion meant he could not receive Communion, including Archbishop Charles
Chaput, who was then the archbishop of Denver. Other bishops have said the same
about Vice President Joe Biden, also a Catholic.
This year, there has been relatively little mention from the U.S. hierarchy
about abortion politics, perhaps because both candidates are widely viewed to
favor abortion rights. (Trump has said in recent months he is against abortion,
a position that puts him at odds with his own previous statements. He did not
mention the issue during his nomination acceptance speech Thursday.)
On L.G.B.T. issues, Kaine changed his stance on marriage and gay adoption in
recent years, like many other Democratic leaders. In 2005, he said he was
against adoption by gay parents because he believed only married couples should
be allowed to adopt, and gay marriage was still illegal in Virginia.
By 2013, Kaine had changed his mind publicly on marriage, saying, "I believe
all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full
rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the
Constitution." He said he hoped the Supreme Court would legalize same-sex
marriage, which it did in 2015.
He explained his thinking with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, saying he had
personally changed his mind on the issue as far back as 2006. "My thinking has
evolved on it because of people I know, so many gay and lesbian folks, some in
long term relationships who are great parents," he said.
When pressed by the Post in 2012 on how he makes peace with his personal
beliefs and public stances, Kaine said, "I have really struggled with that as
governor." He continued, "I hope I can give a good accounting of myself on
Judgment Day."
Yet Kaine told C-SPAN he is constantly considering the bigger picture when he
is voting or pushing an issue, something he traces back to his time with the
Jesuits.
"Everybody has motivations in life," he said. "I do what I do for spiritual
reasons."
(source: America Magazine)
_______________________________________________
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
