Nov. 15
OKLAHOMA:
ACLU says Oklahoma's Gov. Fallin is not complying with Open Records Act
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma asked a judge Monday to order
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin to comply with public record requests that have been
pending for more than 2 years.
Brady Henderson, the group's legal director, filed a motion for summary
judgment in his lawsuit demanding records for 2 organizations, 1 investigating
death penalty cases and the other examining the nursing home industry.
His filing seeks a decision without the need for trial. Such judgments are
typically granted when the facts of a case are not in dispute and the legal
merits of a case are clear.
Henderson said his case achieves this threshold because there is no conflict on
details of what was requested and when, and Oklahoma's Open Records Act clearly
states the public is entitled to prompt, reasonable access to public records.
Stay Informed: Read all the coverage from the Oklahoma state capitol
One of the plaintiffs has waited 848 days for records and the other has waited
915 days. There is no way the state has been prompt and reasonable in these
instances, Henderson said.
"This is probably one of the most serious lacks of transparency and
accountability we have ever seen in Oklahoma government," Henderson said.
"A lot can happen in 900 days and that's the problem. The Open Records Act here
in Oklahoma isn't just about giving us records. It's not just about seeing what
government is doing on our dime. What it's also about is being able to react to
that. And that means at the ballot box.
"What the governor's office has done is taken so long in attempting to respond
to the Open Records Act requests that an entire electoral cycle fits in the
interim."
Michael McNutt, a spokesman for Fallin, said the governor's office does not
comment on pending litigation.
The ACLU is representing the Oklahoma Observer, a newspaper that is seeking
public records associated with the denial of clemency to 2 offenders who were
executed. In the other case, the ACLU is representing A Perfect Cause, a
nonprofit organization seeking records as part of its mission to protect
nursing home residents.
(source: The Oklahoman)
NEBRASKA:
Death penalty hearing starts after IQ questioned
After a long motion hearing convicted spree killer Nikko Jenkins' death penalty
hearing started in Douglas County District Court on Monday afternoon.
Jenkins is convicted of killing Jorge Ruiz, Juan Pena, Curtis Bradford, and
Andrea Kruger in a 10-day span after being released from prison in the summer
of 2013.
The 3-judge panel is made up of Judge Peter Bataillon, Judge Terri Harder of
the 10th Judicial District, and Judge Mark Johnson of the 7th Judicial
District.
Monday morning, attorneys argued if Jenkins' IQ was high enough for him to even
have a death penalty hearing. A test when he was first incarcerated in 2003
suggested his IQ was 69. Nebraska law says if a person's IQ is under 70 they
cannot be executed.
Jenkins himself objected to his own attorney's questioning, and wanted to get
right to the 3-judge panel.
"I want to expose this tampering with physical evidence, this perjury that
these officers committed before I was ever charged," Jenkins described.
Judge Bataillon denied the defense???s motion and found Jenkins competent to
proceed with the death penalty hearing.
Jenkins insists on testifying in his own defense and Douglas County Public
Defender Tom Riley told the judge he may withdraw as Jenkins' counsel.
"I'm not going to sit here and watch him put a noose around his neck because he
doesn't know what he's doing," Riley explained.
Prosecutors say they have the evidence to show Jenkins committed the 4 murders,
and that there are up to 9 aggravators to make him eligible for the death
penalty.
They called 1 witness on Monday before recessing for the evening. The captain
from the Nebraska Corrections Dept. in Tecumseh testified about how he was
assaulted by Jenkins in 2009 when he escorted him to a family funeral. Jenkins
was convicted in that assault.
Judge Bataillon told Jenkins he may give him time to make a statement on
Tuesday when court resumes
(source: KMTV news)
CALIFORNIA----new death sentence
Hercules: Jury says death for convicted killer
A Southern California man was sentenced to death Monday for the brutal murder
of a popular retired kindergarten teacher following his escape from jail and
resulting crime spree up the state.
Darnell Washington, 27, the 1st person in 4 years to receive the death penalty
in Contra Costa County, did not react to the jury's reading. He was convicted
in September of murdering Susie Ko, 55, a Hercules resident who was finishing a
gardening project in October 2012 when Washington broke into her home, stabbed
her to death and made off with her car.
Washington had escaped from a San Bernardino County jail weeks earlier as he
was awaiting robbery charges. Prosecutors say he killed Ko to steal her car and
other belongings and that he stabbed her repeatedly with a knife and with the
barrel of a shotgun.
"This was obviously the verdict we wanted. ... We are very excited, very
relieved to move forward now that justice as finally been served," Simon Ko,
Susie Ko's son, said after the trial.
Susie Ko spent her last day on Earth working on a front yard gardening project.
She was planning to pick up her husband from the airport - and to leave on
vacation the following day - when Washington and his wife, Tania Washington,
showed up at her house.
After escaping from jail, Washington had gotten into a shootout with a deputy,
committed a string of vehicle thefts and ultimately fled to the Bay Area. Hours
before killing Ko, he and his wife had gotten into a physical altercation with
loss-prevention staff at a nearby store. Prosecutors say they were desperate
for a new car and that Ko was a randomly selected target.
"(Death) is the punishment that justice requires," prosecutor Molly Manoukian
said in a written statement after trial. She added that she was grateful to
jurors for delivering "justice to Mrs. Susie Ko and her loved ones."
Washington's attorney, Tim Ahearn, patted his client on the back and then asked
that the jury be polled. Each was asked if they were sure that Washington
should be put to death, and each answered yes.
"Hearing them all say it individually was probably the most peace I've had
during trial," Simon Ko said. "I don't know if I'll ever see the jury again,
but I want to thank them all personally."
The trial started in late July, and Susie Ko's family and friends have attended
every hearing. Simon Ko said he still hears from people whose lives were
touched by his mother. He began sending a daily newsletter - along with his own
drawings of the trial - for those who couldn't make it.
"It's a unique experience, and we're trying to use it to reinforce the positive
messages that my mom was trying to spread, to express the love we have for
those who are close to us, and to appreciate each moment," Simon Ko said.
The verdict came down nearly four years to the day after the county's last
death penalty verdict. The defendant in that case, Nathan Burris, bragged in
open court of killing his ex-girlfriend and her friend at the Richmond-San
Rafael Bridge toll plaza and said he would do it again.
Washington will become California's 750th death row inmate currently awaiting
execution. California voters last week rejected a proposition that would have
ended the death penalty, while approving another that effectively speeds up the
court process leading up to executions.
(source: eastbaytimes.com)
USA:
Dylann Roof has undergone a competency evaluation
A federal judge expects a psychiatric evaluation to determine if accused
Emanuel AME Church shooter Dylann Roof is competent to stand trial will be
completed Tuesday, but when the public will learn what it says remains unclear.
Roof's defense team wants the public barred from his competency hearing,
scheduled for Thursday morning to discuss the evaluation's findings. They argue
that U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel should close the hearing to protect
attorney-client privilege and keep confidential material out of the public eye,
which includes perspective jurors in the case.
Prosecutors disagree. They want the hearing open to the public, contending that
the nine victims' loved ones and the shooting survivors have the right to
observe proceedings against the self-avowed white supremacist.
"The victims in this case have a right to know what is occurring," their motion
says.
On Monday, The Post and Courier also objected to closing the hearing, along
with NPR, WCSC-TV, The (Columbia) State newspaper and the Associated Press. The
public is guaranteed access to trial proceedings except in the most extreme
circumstances, said attorney Jay Bender, who represents most of the news
organizations.
Gergel had expected the court-appointed examiner to complete Roof's evaluation
by Monday. Late in the day, he said in an order that the evaluation wouldn't be
completed until Tuesday but gave no reason for the delay.
If he finds Roof is incompetent to stand trial, Gergel could commit the
22-year-old to a prison psychiatric facility where doctors would try to restore
his competency in order to move forward with the trial. If the judge finds Roof
competent, jury selection is scheduled to begin Nov. 21.
Roof is accused of gunning down 9 worshipers during Emanuel AME Church's Bible
study in June 2015. Authorities contend he targeted his victims because they
were black. The Eastover man now faces 33 federal charges, including violations
of hate crime laws and religious freedoms. Federal authorities are seeking the
death penalty.
New questions about Roof's mental state arose last week just as jury selection
was set to begin. Defense attorneys filed a sealed motion after which Gergel
found probable cause to believe that Roof might suffer a "mental disease or
defect" that rendered him unable to assist properly in his defense or to grasp
the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him. That led to the
psychiatric evaluation.
"The competency concerns being raised are different than the mental health
issues that have been under investigation since the defendant's arrest, and
were prompted by a new development in the case which the Court cannot disclose
at this time," a defense motions says. It doesn't elaborate on the new issue.
Meanwhile, state prosecutors also are seeking the death penalty against Roof.
That trial is scheduled to begin in mid-January.
(source: thepostandcourier.com)
**************
Should President Obama pardon Ethel Rosenberg?
Before President Obama leaves office at the end of this year, he'll have to
deal with 1 more issue, the case of which was closed several decades ago. I'm
referring to the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the most high profile case
of the Cold War.
For those who aren't familiar with the name Rosenberg, let me give you a little
history lesson. Back in the 1940s, the FBI arrested two American citizens and
accused them of being Soviet spies. The individuals in question were Julius
Rosenberg and his wife Ethel. Both were members of the communist party as well
as being outspoken about their beliefs, which did put them somewhat in the
government's crosshairs to start with. However, in truth neither of them were
actually breaking any law by preaching their political opinions. Rather, the
crime that landed them in the public spotlight was the act of espionage.
Julius and Ethel were accused of leading a Soviet spy ring as well as selling
secrets that gave the USSR the atomic bomb. At the time, the Rosenbergs had a
lot of sympathy from the public, thinking that the government was trying to
suppress their right of free speech. People detested the arrest and their
outcry only got louder when news of the death penalty was carried down. On June
19, 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were killed via electric chair, leaving
behind their 2 children, Michael and Robert, who were quickly adopted by
supporters of their parents' innocence.
Later, after growing up, the children though now adults and living under the
name Meeropol, tried to clear their parents' names. Sadly for them, it didn't
turn out so well. While it's true that their mother was in fact not a spy, the
accusations to their father weren't falsified. Julius Rosenberg actually had
been a Soviet spy, and actually did lead a spy ring. Unsurprisingly, this took
some of the wind out of the sails of Michael and Robert.
It was only until recently that they tried to push forth the case again, this
time toward President Obama, and this time not advocating for the pardoning of
both their mother and father. Instead, they want a pardon for only their
mother, who based on her crimes, should not have gone to the electric chair.
They made their plea to the Whitehouse a few times before appearing on Sixty
Minutes, and while I can understand their position and sympathize with them, I
also don't think Obama should pardon Ethel Rosenberg.
Now I know that makes me seem like a villain of sorts. "How can you condone the
death of an innocent woman?" you might ask. Well, she wasn't innocent, not by a
long shot. She knew exactly what her husband was doing and when questioned by
the FBI under oath she lied. This alone is a federal offense and thus a crime.
Also, she actively tried to assist Julius with his recruitment of moles and
other spies from within the United States, and since the Soviet Union was our
enemy at the time, she was aiding a criminal, another crime. True, she didn't
have a code name from the Kremlin and she wasn???t technically under the
jurisdiction of the USSR, but she was still a felon and should have been
arrested.
However, don't mistake my words. Just because I don't think she should be
pardoned, does not mean I think she should have been killed. Her crimes were
not worthy of an execution and if Obama can issue some sort of apology, I
readily believe that he should. The only reason for her sentencing was that
prosecutors thought it would prompt Julius to give up information. However, it
clearly didn't work. She was collateral damage and should have never been
handed down the ruling she was given. I'll admit, it is a shame how the case
turned out and admittedly it???s not a high point in our judicial history, but
does that make it right to pardon her? No, she was a criminal and she was
intentionally acting against the United States. Pardoning her would make her
previous crimes null and void, when in fact Ethel Rosenberg still broke the
law.
To summarize, she should not be pardoned, even if the death penalty was too
drastic. I'll agree that her crimes were not worthy of her life, but at the
same time it does mean she is innocent. Rather than a pardon, I hope that the
Whitehouse instead gives an apology. Even if the crimes are old and the case is
long since closed, it still wouldn't be right to pardon her for what she did.
(source: Editorial, Hunter Allan, The Knight Crier)
*********************
How Donald Trump Could Revitalize The Death Penalty----Trump could have a
serious impact on the death penalty if he wanted to. Here's how.
Over the past several decades, President-elect Donald Trump has proved
malleable on a wide array of policy - from Iraq and abortion, to marriage
equality and immigration.
But he has been steadfast in his support for the death penalty.
Back in 1989, Trump paid for a full-page ad calling for the reinstatement of
New York's death penalty to be used on 5 young black men after a grisly and
violent rape in Central Park. Even after the 5 men were exonerated and another
man confessed to the crime, Trump expressed skepticism that the men were
actually innocent, as recently as this fall. More broadly, Trump continued to
advocate for the death penalty in the time since 1989.
Now that Trump will become president, he will have a chance to revitalize the
death penalty. Here's how he could do it.
The Supreme Court
Trump's most obvious effect on the death penalty will be through the US Supreme
Court. The prospect of the court ruling the death penalty unconstitutional in
the near future was already a longshot. Now, abolition would dependent on
support from all 4 more liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy - with no
likelihood of getting a supportive 6th possible vote over the next 4 years.
In practice, the high court's actual interaction with the death penalty is much
more mundane than a hypothetical sweeping ruling on its constitutionality. The
court deals with questions about how the death penalty is carried out: from
decisions about who is even eligible for the death penalty to issues with trial
procedure and sentencing rules to challenges to the methods of execution.
These are the questions that, absent outright abolition, have a massive effect
on how the death penalty works in practice. Another conservative vote (or more)
could have a lasting effect. This is particularly true when it comes to
challenges relating to sentencing law. Justice Antonin Scalia had been a leader
on the court in advancing a resurgent jury trial right, which - in one of his
last votes - was solidly, and broadly, applied to provide the protection of a
jury vote not just for guilt but also as to the sentencing part of a death
penalty trial. Whether that area of law continues to advance - as criminal
defense lawyers hope - could change dramatically depending on Trump's nominee
or nominees to the court.
Reinvigorating The Federal Death Penalty
A Trump administration - from Trump and his attorney general on down - likely
will be more supportive of the death penalty across the board.
The federal death penalty exists, but is extremely rare currently. There are
only 64 people on federal death row, and there's hasn't been a serious prospect
of them being executed in years. There have only been three federal executions
in the modern era.
Obama has called the death penalty "deeply troubling" and his former Attorney
General, Eric Holder, was an outspoken critic of it. His current attorney
general, Loretta Lynch, still has not announced findings of a review of the
death penalty that was begun during Holder's tenure. Needless to say, the
outcome of the review - even if it comes before the end of the Obama
administration and is critical of the death penalty - likely will not form the
basis of a Trump administration's implementation of it.
These effects wouldn't only be seen in the higher echelons of the
administration, either. Trump almost certainly will appoint U.S. attorneys more
eager for the death penalty than those under Obama.
Across the country, this could have a broader effect as well. Currently, new
death sentences are way down. The sentences that are given out now are sought
by just a handful of prosecutors, and the cases are incredibly expensive. A
Trump administration could be more eager to help provide assistance to state
death penalty prosecutions - or to seek the death penalty more frequently when
it is possible to do so under federal law.
Allow States To Get (Illegal) Execution Drugs
An important reason executions have been on decline is because there's been a
difficulty in obtaining lethal injection drugs. For years, states have
struggled to find a consistent supply of them after manufacturers began
enacting stringent guidelines to keep their products away from lethal
injections.
Trump's largest impact on executions in the United States could be getting
involved in an ongoing, but little noticed, feud between death penalty states
and the federal government over importing illegal execution drugs.
The states' reliable lethal injection drug for decades, sodium thiopental, has
been impossible for states to get. The sole Food and Drug
Administration-approved manufacturer stopped making the drug to keep it out of
the hands of executioners.
States have turned to illegal suppliers of the drug. Last year, BuzzFeed News
reported that Texas, Arizona, and Nebraska all purchased illegal sodium
thiopental from a supplier in India. Nebraska's shipment never left India. The
Texas and Arizona shipments were detained by the FDA once they entered the US.
2000 vials of execution drugs have sat in a government warehouse for well over
a year while the states and the FDA argue behind the scenes over whether the
drugs can be released. The FDA argues that there is a court order preventing
them from releasing the drugs.
The decision over what to do with these execution drugs involves the
highest-ranking people at the FDA. Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show the
commissioner of the FDA asked to be briefed on the issue last year.
With a Trump-appointed FDA head, the decision could be different.
The FDA, under Obama, initially wanted no part of the issue. Years ago, the FDA
allowed drugs to be imported by states wishing to carry out the death penalty,
with the federal agency saying it wasn't its role to regulate execution drugs.
But a federal appeals court panel ruled the FDA didn't have discretion to
ignore a law that says unapproved drugs aren't allowed into the country -
leaving in place a court order that mandates such continued enforcement.
If Texas and Arizona were to sue over such drug importation while Obama was
president, they would not only have to argue that the drugs should be allowed
to come in - they'd have to go much further. They'd also have to argue that the
court order doesn't apply and that the FDA doesn't have discretion to bar the
drug.
Under an FDA commissioner that's more sympathetic to the states' argument,
however, their case could become significantly easier to make. If the FDA wants
to allow the drugs in, states would just need to convince the court that the
earlier injunction doesn't apply now and that the court should defer to the
FDA's interpretation and expertise on what drugs should be allowed into the
country.
Large drug manufacturers in the US and Europe take great lengths to keep their
products away from executioners. That would not be true of small manufacturers
and distributors in countries like India. The change could be huge - and could
allow for a steady supply of execution drugs.
(source: Chris McDaniel is a death penalty reporter for BuzzFeed News)
*********************
Prisoner charged with killing correctional officer plans to use 'mental defect'
defense against death penalty
Gang assassin Jessie Con-ui on Monday put federal prosecutors on notice that he
plans to use a "mental disease or defect" defense against the death penalty if
convicted of murdering a correctional officer at U.S. Penitentiary at Canaan.
Con-ui is slated to stand trial in April over the February 2013 attack on
officer Eric Williams, a Nanticoke native. Prosecutors allege Con-ui kicked
Williams down a flight of stairs before beating and slashing him to death with
2 shanks because he was angered over a cell search.
Con-ui's attorneys have not disputed he was responsible for the attack, which
was caught on video, but maintained poor treatment by prison guards led him to
snap. In the filing Monday, his attorneys notify prosecutors they intend to
"introduce expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other
mental condition of the defendant bearing on the issue of punishment."
Prosecutors are seeking to prohibit Con-ui from introducing prison culture
evidence showing that the federal Bureau of Prisons was negligent in its
treatment of inmates, saying it is irrelevant to Con-ui's case.
(source: The Citizen's Voice)
_______________________________________________
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
