Nov. 4
TEXAS:
North Texas man found guilty in shooting deaths of 3 people
A North Texas jury has convicted a 26-year-old man of capital murder in the
shooting deaths of his estranged girlfriend, her mother and young brother.
The punishment phase of the trial for Amos Joseph Wells III is scheduled to
begin Friday, a day after he was found guilty of the July 2013 slayings.
Tarrant County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
The shooting at a Fort Worth home was preceded by an argument between Wells and
22-year-old Chanice Reed, who was pregnant at the time. Authorities say Wells
retrieved a handgun and killed the three.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports (http://bit.ly/2fjyJIE ) the evidence
included shells found at the home that matched ammunition kept by Wells.
Wells later surrendered to police by asking to be shot and killed.
(source: Associated Press)
ALABAMA:
Death Row Inmate Narrowly Escapes Execution for the 7th Time
Thomas Arthur has escaped death for the 7th time.
US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay from the Court late
Thursday evening delaying Arthur's scheduled Nov. 3 execution. The Court's stay
marks the seventh time 74-year-old death row inmate Arthur has avoided an
impending execution date.
Attorneys for Arthur filed briefs before the Court Thursday.
One of the petitions asked the Court to review Arthur's request for an
alternative form of execution beside lethal injection, because Arthur believes
Alabama's 3-drug lethal injection regimen would be cruel and unusual.
The 2nd asked the Court to review Alabama's death penalty sentencing laws,
which Arthur argues are unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's January
decision in Hurst v. Florida, which overturned the Sunshine State's sentencing
laws.
The US Supreme Court ruled Florida's former sentencing laws, which allowed
trial court judges to overrule the decision of a jury in a death penalty case,
were unconstitutional.
Alabama is now the last state with judicial override for the death penalty. And
since 1976, more than 92 % of 107 overrides have resulted in a judge imposing
the death penalty when a trial jury voted against recommending the death
penalty, according to Montgomery's Equal Justice Initiative.
Arthur's case would not usually warrant a stay, Chief Justice Roberts said in
the order, but he agreed to vote for the stay because he wanted the other
justices of the court to have time to review the case.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito voted against granting the stay, along with
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas - who granted a temporary stay earlier in the
evening before Arthur's 6 p.m. scheduled execution.
Arthur's stay will terminate when the court decides on the 2 petitions for
writs of certiorari, which ask the Court to review the constitutionality of
Arthur's case. If the Court denies the petitions for writs of certiorari,
deciding not to take up Arthur's case, the stay on his execution would
terminate.
If the Court decides to review the case, which Roberts in his order hinted was
unlikely, the stay would be extended until the Court hands down a final ruling
on his appeals.
If the stay is terminated by the Court's refusal to take up his case or the
Court affirms the previous decisions of lower courts, which have all gone
against Arthur, Arthur's execution will be rescheduled by the Alabama Supreme
Court.
The Alabama Supreme Court has set seven different execution dates since Arthur
was first convicted of the 1982 murder-for-hire of Muscle Shoals businessman
Troy Wicker, and he outlived them all.
Roberts said he believed the case does not warrant the US Supreme Court's
review, writing: "The claims set out in the application are purely
fact-specific, dependent on contested interpretations of state law, insulated
from our review by alternative holdings below, or some combination of the 3."
The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision on whether to review Arthur's
challenge, which originates from an appeal in a US District Court in Alabama
that was denied and later appealed to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his appeal in the US District Court based on a 2014 US Supreme Court
Decision in Glossip v. Gross, Arthur suggested a firing squad or another lethal
execution drug, Pentobarbital, as alternatives to the state's controversial
3-drug regimen.
Arthur's attorneys argued that Midazolam, the 1st of 3 drugs in Alabama's
cocktail, would fail to do its job of sedating the inmate to prevent pain
during the induction of the 2 other live-taking drugs, violating the Eight
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In Glossip v. Gross, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the use of Midazolam
as a sedative was not unconstitutional, allowing its use to continue, but
Arthur argues that his preexisting heart condition would render Midazolam
ineffective.
The federal judge hearing Arthur's case in US District Court rejected Arthur's
argument because he said Arthur had not identified an alternative drug regimen
and a firing squad isn't a prescribed form of execution under current Alabama
law.
In October, 4 medical ethicists from Harvard College provided testimony to the
US Court of Appeals in Arthur's defense, arguing that only a doctor could
prescribe an alternative but doctors are prohibited from taking part in
executions by the Hippocratic Oath.
The Court of Appeals denied Arthur's stay for execution and upheld the US
District Courts ruling against Arthur, which prompted Arthur to look to the US
Supreme Court for reprieve.
Now, Arthur will wait as the US Supreme Court looks over the submitted briefs
in his case and decides whether they will grant review, which the chief justice
has hinted would be unlikely.
(source: Alabama Political Reporter)
OHIO:
Ohio Law Shielding Names of Execution Drug Sources Doesn't Violate First
Amendment, Rules Court
An Ohio law shielding the names of companies that sell lethal injection drugs
to the state does not tread on free-speech rights, a divided Sixth Circuit
ruled.
In December 2014, Ohio passed HB 663, making the identity of individuals and
companies who participate in the lethal injection of death-row inmates
confidential.
The legislature passed the law after Ohio came under national scrutiny
following the botched execution of Dennis McGuire in January 2014.
The drug cocktail injected into McGuire's veins had never been used before.
Ohio ran out of pentobarbital - its preferred drug for executions - and instead
used a mixture of midazolam and hydromorphone that left him choking and gasping
for air for 25 minutes before he died.
Ohio has not carried out an execution since killing McGuire, in part because it
cannot obtain the drugs required to ensure a painless death. Anti-death-penalty
lobbying efforts have succeeded in persuading nearly all drug companies to stop
selling pentobarbital to the state.
In an effort to circumvent this political pressure, HB 663 provides that the
names of individuals involved in carrying out the death penalty - including the
drug manufacturers - can no longer be disclosed as a public record or during
judicial proceedings, unless a court specifically finds that the person's
involvement in the administration of a lethal injection was unlawful.
Ohio death-row inmates sued, claiming the law unconstitutionally burdens free
speech, but a federal judge dismissed their lawsuit because the inmates
presented only "conjectural or hypothetical injuries."
A divided Sixth Circuit affirmed Wednesday, leaning on the U.S. Supreme Court's
2014 decision in Ryan v. Wood, which rejected an Arizona death-row inmate's
claim that he is entitled to know the source of Arizona's lethal injection
drugs and the qualifications of the state's executioners.
"A unanimous Supreme Court saw fit to summarily vacate - without briefing or
argument - the Ninth Circuit's determination that a death-row inmate seeking
state-held information related to the method of his execution 'raised serious
questions' as to whether he would prevail on a First Amendment claim," Judge
Eugene Siler said, writing for the panel's 2-1 majority. "This ruling raises
grave doubts as to whether such a claim is legally cognizable in the first
place."
Siler said the Supreme Court has never recognized a public right of access to
government information as broad as that claimed by the inmates.
"While the public's right of access under the First Amendment covers certain
records filed in and transcripts of a qualifying government proceeding, it does
not follow that this right covers all information related to the proceeding,"
the 16-page opinion states.
The majority affirmed that the inmates have not shown they are likely to be
prosecuted under the law for revealing the identities of participants in Ohio's
death penalty procedures.
Judge Jane Stranch dissented, immediately citing the "horrifying tale" of
McGuire's execution gone wrong.
"The complaint properly alleges speech that speakers desire to utter and both
the plaintiffs and the public desire to hear," she said. "It alleges that HB
663 is a direct reaction to anti-death-penalty speech that historically has
been available to the public - speech that had proven successful in the court
of public opinion."
Stranch said the majority's decision upholding state secrecy with regard to
execution proceedings denied death-row inmates a fair opportunity to challenge
the constitutionality of their sentence.
(soruce: Associated Press)
NEBRASKA:
Catholic bishop says death penalty advocates took his words out of context
With just days to go before the election, Lincoln Bishop James D. Conley is
demanding a retraction from Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, saying the group
deliberately took his comments out of context to misrepresent his stance on the
death penalty.
Nebraskans will vote Tuesday on whether to retain the Legislature's elimination
of the death penalty or repeal the 2015 bill that abolished it.
Conley's dispute with the group that petitioned the issue onto the ballot stems
from a news release and a post on its Facebook page that reads: "Nebraskans of
faith CAN and DO support the death penalty."
Below the post is a photo of Conley and an audio link to the final 2 minutes of
the bishop's 12-minute interview with KLIN radio's "Drive Time with Coby Mach"
during which Conley said people who favor the death penalty "can still be a
Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this issue."
All 3 Nebraska Catholic bishops oppose reinstating the death penalty.
JD Flynn, spokesman for the Diocese of Lincoln said Nebraskans for the Death
Penalty, said Mach "unfairly cherry-picked portions of Bishop Conley's
comments, from one radio interview, to misrepresent the central message of our
bishops."
In the interview that aired Oct. 26, Conley said the Catholic church allows for
the death penalty in principle "to protect the common good and lives of the
community," but that under the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II, Pope
Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, "the circumstances where that would be an option
are practically nonexistent."
"Through the penal system we can protect the common good without resorting to
the death penalty," Conley said in the interview. He said the church allows
capital punishment only when it is absolutely necessary for public safety.
"Violence to deal with violence is not the answer," he said.
Unlike issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide, which Conley said are
"moral evils and never accepted under any circumstances," the church is
advising people to follow their consciences on the death penalty.
Revisit Lincoln in the the 1940s, '50s and '60s in our new book, "Lincoln
Memories." Filled with hundreds of photos from the archives, this book is
perfect for any Lincoln native or history buff.
"... if somebody thinks it through and in good conscience cannot bring
themselves to retain the law -- if they have thought it through and prayed
about it -- they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with
the bishops on this issue," he said in the final moments of the interview.
To further clarify his statements, Conley has written a letter to be read
during all worship services this weekend.
"I encourage you to continue to study, pray and discern how your vote can best
serve our Lord, our nation, our families, and our parishes," the letter says,
in part.
"We should be sure to support candidates who will protect the rights and
dignity of the human person, and who will help to build a culture of life. We
should be thoughtful about protecting religious liberty, about the needs of the
poor and about the stability and security of our nation. Although Catholics
disagree about some candidates and some issues, we should remember that the
right to life is fundamental, and that no Catholic can promote, defend or
enable legal protection for the grave evil of abortion, which is the direct
killing of unborn children.
"... The Church teaches that we should work to protect public safety without
resorting to execution. I do not believe the death penalty is needed in
Nebraska, and I believe that abolishing the death penalty speaks to our
commitment to the dignity of every human life. I encourage Catholics to study,
think and pray carefully about this issue."
(source: Lincoln Journal Star)
CALIFORNIA:
51 % Of California Voters Want To Abolish The Death Penalty
California and Nebraska will decide next week whether they will keep the death
penalty and both measures would have national implications on the debate over
capital punishment. Polls show voters are conflicted.
Ballot measures addressing the death penalty in California and Nebraska could
lead to a dramatic change in the national debate over capital punishment. But
polls show voters in both states are split on whether to keep the death
penalty.
51% of voters in California are in favor of abolishing the state's death
penalty and replace it with life without parole, a move that would clear out
the largest death row in the United States, according to a new poll released on
Thursday.
Abolishing the death penalty in California would have the overnight effect of
removing more than a quarter of inmates from death row in the United States.
45 % of the respondents to said they would vote to keep the death penalty, and
the remainder said they were undecided. The survey was conducted by Field Poll
(a nonpartisan pollster) and UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies.
Another poll released this week, this one done by the Los Angeles Times, had
only 44 % of respondents say they would vote to repeal the death penalty,
compared to 45 % who said they would keep it. Another 10 % said they were still
undecided.
California houses more than 700 inmates on its death row, more than any other
state. Nonetheless, the state carries out few executions - the state has not
executed anyone in a decade, and has only executed 13 people since the death
penalty was brought back in the 70s.
But voters in California aren't only being asked whether to remove their
state's death penalty, they are also being asked if they should speed it up.
A competing proposition would make a few changes in an effort to speed up the
state's execution process - it would limit the number of appeals death row
inmates are allowed, and allow for less oversight over how execution methods
are decided.
Polls show voters are confused by the initiative that would speed up the
process. This week's Los Angeles Times poll found about 20 % of respondents
still didn't know how to vote on the issue.
Both of this week's Field and the Los Angeles Times polls show less than a
majority are in favor of changing the appeals process, although they both found
very different margins: 48 % in the former and 35 % in the latter.
If both propositions somehow pass, whichever one receives the most vote governs
the state's death penalty.
Meanwhile, polling in Nebraska is much more limited.
Last year, Nebraska's unicameral legislature overrode their governor's veto and
abolished the death penalty. But, with significant fundraising provided by Gov.
Pete Ricketts, supporters of the death penalty gathered enough signatures to
give the voters the ultimate say on whether to keep the death penalty.
Nebraska houses just 10 death row inmates, and the state has only executed 3
men in the modern era. In an attempt to show how the state could carry out the
death penalty, Gov. Ricketts' department of corrections spent $26,000 on
illegal execution drugs from a supplier in India. The drugs were not allowed
into the United States, and despite their requests, Nebraska has been unable to
get a refund.
So practically speaking, the impact of Nebraska's death penalty is much less
than California's. But Nebraska matters as a symbol.
When Nebraska's nonpartisan legislature abolished the death penalty, the
anti-death penalty movement held it up as an example that, even in
conservatives states, the death penalty is unpopular. If voters decide to bring
the death penalty back, it hurts that narrative.
The death penalty is generally supported in Nebraska, although the polling on
this specific initiative has been thin.
Back in August, the group aiming to bring back the death penalty sponsored a
survey that found 58 % of those who responded said they would vote to bring
back the death penalty. 30 % said they would vote to leave the death penalty
abolished, and 11 % said they were undecided.
The poll has important caveats though - it was conducted in early August,
before ads on the issue had begun to pick up (and the anti-death penalty side
has greatly outspent the pro side), and the survey did not use the official
ballot language that includes the fact that the death penalty would be replaced
by life without parole.
Finally, another conservative state - Oklahoma - also is asking its voters
about the death penalty. But there, the practical impact appears to be minimal.
It's more about sending a message.
Over the past several years, Oklahoma has garnered national attention for its
repeated botched execution attempts, which eventually earned a grand jury
investigation led by the state's own attorney general. That investigation found
the state was "careless, cavalier, and in some circumstances dismissive of
established" execution procedures.
After their numerous mistakes, Oklahoma won't be permitted to carry out
executions any time soon. But, with Oklahoma's petition, supporters of the
death penalty can show that they believe the death penalty is still
constitutional.
Under the referendum, the legislature would be able to designate any method of
execution not specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, and it would
declare that the death penalty "shall not be deemed to be or constitute the
infliction of cruel or unusual punishment under Oklahoma's Constitution,"
although Oklahoma's courts given no indication that they actually desire to do
so.
(source: BuzzFeedNews)
****************
We need to abolish the death penalty
Re "Awful as it is, death penalty serves a purpose in California" (Insight,
Nov. 2): As a 30-year police veteran, I had always been a supporter of the
death penalty. In the 1980s I was appointed as 1 of the 13 official state
execution witnesses. After many delays, Robert Alton Harris was executed for
his horrific crimes on April 22, 1992, at San Quentin.
I hated Harris for his cold-blooded murder of the son of a San Diego police
detective. I wanted him executed. The execution was botched by a last-second
call from U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Harris was unstrapped and removed
from the gas chamber. Several hours later he was returned, re-strapped in, and
poison gas killed him. As much as I hated him, I didn't feel any better
afterward. In fact, I began to feel like we were sinking to his level.
After much soul-searching and talks with my priest, I turned against the death
penalty. Harris wasn't worthy of my hate. He was a pitiful figure who should
have spent the rest of his life shuffling around the general population of
prison. I did my duty and witnessed the last gas chamber execution a year later
and then removed myself from the list.
Columnist Marcos Breton says it is easy for millionaires who have never been
touched by the horror of homicide to be against the death penalty. I'm just an
old cop on a pension, and I have been touched by the horror and am steadfastly
against the death penalty. It is time for the people of California to get out
of the killing business.
James Cost, Folsom, chief of police (retired)
(source: Letter to the Editor)
USA:
Killing Dylann Roof Wouldn't Help Racial Injustice
The impact of race on criminal justice is one of the hottest topics of our
time. Today's police-shooting videos have not revealed something new, they have
revealed, in a new way, a legacy of racial hatred and violence that is embedded
in our nation's DNA, and more and more Americans are waking up to that fact.
So, if we are ready to address the impact of racism in the criminal justice
system, what do the remedies look like?
Let me tell you one thing that will not work - sentencing Dylann Roof to death.
Jury selection for his federal death penalty case in the Charleston shooting
last summer starts on Nov. 7.
When I heard about his slaughter of 9 black worshipers in Charleston's Mother
Emanuel AME Church, I wanted vengeance. I wanted his blood. I grew up as a
black child in the South in the 60s and spent the past 34 years as a criminal
defense lawyer. I'd seen too many black lives sacrificed to racism, snuffed out
by violence or wasted by our criminal justice system. Snapshots of Dylann Roof
began to emerge - here wearing a jacket emblazoned with the flags of Rhodesia
and Apartheid-era South Africa, there in sunglasses holding a confederate flag
and a gun. My rage grew, and I was sure that he deserved to die. I had long
been opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances, yet I wished the death
penalty on Dylann Roof.
The more I thought about it, though, the more I understood that, one: his death
would not get me what I wanted, and 2: his execution wouldn't help solve the
problem of racism in the criminal justice system. It would only serve to
reinforce the legacy of racial injustice in our use of the death penalty.
After 34 years of practicing in the criminal justice system and studying its
history, here is what I know to be true: the racism that has marred our
country's development since its beginnings is inextricable from the death
penalty. Every credible study evaluating race and capital punishment in America
has shown the same thing: The death penalty is not reserved for the worst of
the worst, but mostly for black and brown people convicted of killing white
people. None of this is surprising given our history of segregation and
lynching.
What I also know to be true is that prosecutors sometimes exclude black jurors
from death-penalty and non-death penalty trials for no reason but their race;
and only in the most extreme and rare instances are they held accountable.
Don't think this just happens in the South. I saw the exact same practices we
associate with Dixie in courtrooms in the Pacific Northwest. This, like every
other aspect of race in our country, is a national problem that stretches from
sea to shining sea.
Abhorrent racial considerations, instead of the mere facts, seep into jury's
deliberations. In Texas, a black defendant was predicted to be violent based on
race and was therefore sentenced to death. And for those who say the Supreme
Court will likely reverse the conviction, remember, the case only got to the
highest court because numerous other judges heard this evidence and saw no
problem. And, when innocent people are sentenced to death, we find that 93 of
156 innocent people released from death rows across this country are black and
brown.
Our problems with race and the criminal justice system run deep and will take
years of work to resolve. Some might think that sentencing Roof to death would
demonstrate that black lives actually matter and somehow erase the legacy of
racism and the death penalty. If we kill him, won't that show that we are not
racists?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Killing Roof would not put us on the path to redemption. His execution would
not dispel the racism that rules who we execute in America. Seeking his death
would not somehow "even the score." And remember, the human brain is not fully
developed until about 25 years of age. Are we actually going to try to cleanse
the racism from the death penalty by executing a person who was 21 years old at
the time of his offense?
History would not judge us kindly for such a killing.
Roof has offered to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence with no
parole. This would save us from re-hashing the most difficult parts of his case
and open the door to talk fully and in loving memory of his victims, including
the Reverend Clementa Pinckney who, if alive, would be leading the discussions
we desperately need to reform our criminal justice system.
The ugly truth about my initial desire for Roof's execution is that it might
somehow validate the very part of our criminal justice system most infected by
racism. People could offer up Roof's execution as an example of how the death
penalty is meted out fairly in America, and thereby increase the legitimacy of
a system that unfairly and disproportionately continues to kill black and brown
people. Because if Roof is sentenced to death and forgotten in the minds of
many Americans, we would go back to executing black and brown people like we
always have, and valuing white lives over the lives of people of color.
What I want is an America that does not nurture the hate in Roof's heart. And
killing him won't get me that either.
(source: TIME)
_______________________________________________
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
