Nov. 17
FLORIDA----new and impending execution date
Rick Scott schedules execution in 1992 murder
After the Florida Supreme Court cleared the way, Gov. Rick Scott on Thursday
scheduled a Dec. 13 execution for a Death Row inmate convicted in the 1992
murder of a Miami-Dade County woman.
Scott signed a death warrant in July and initially scheduled the execution of
Jose Antonio Jimenez in August.
But the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution so it could look further at
issues in the case.
The Supreme Court on Oct. 4 lifted the stay, allowing Scott to reschedule the
execution. Jimenez, now 55, was convicted in the killing of 63-year-old Phyllis
Minas during a burglary, according to court documents.
Neighbors tried to enter the home through an unlocked front door after hearing
Minas’ cries, but Jimenez slammed the door shut, locked it and fled by going
onto a bedroom balcony, according to documents.
(soruce: Orlando Sentinel)
***************
Florida's Latest Death-Row Exoneration Shows Why Death Penalty Wrong
The tally continues to tick upwards for those tracking the number of wrongful
convictions found on death row. An anomaly these occurrences are not, as the
figures already even out to at least 1 person exonerated for every 10
executions in this country.
On November 5, a man named Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin was at long last freed
after spending more than 14 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit in
Seminole County, Florida — becoming the 164th person exonerated from death row.
Whenever the subject of wrongful convictions comes up, the immediate demand
from most audiences is “how did this happen?” followed by “what happened to
those in the system who were responsible?” The answers are usually infuriating,
and Aguirre-Jarquin’s case is no exception.
The victims in this case, Cheryl Williams and Carol Bareis, were neighbors of
Aguirre-Jarquin’s at the time of their death.
On the morning following their murder, Aguirre-Jarquin found their bodies in
their trailer home where they had been stabbed dozens of times. He quickly
checked for signs of life, during which time he got the victims’ blood on his
clothing. When he realized that they were dead, he picked up a knife in
self-defense in case the killer was still in the home. He then panicked and
fled the scene, dropping the knife behind him.
Aguirre-Jarquin had no criminal history, no motive, and confessed to the police
that he had been at the crime scene. There was nothing but circumstantial
evidence against him at best, and yet he was held without bond for ten days
before he was charged with the double murder.
It gets worse from there. During his trial, Aguirre-Jarquin received woefully
terrible representation (as is often the case for those who end up on death
row). His attorneys failed to request DNA testing of crime scene evidence that
could have proven his innocence, and they did not hire forensic experts or even
examine 197 items of evidence that were collected. Lastly, and perhaps most
importantly, they failed to investigate Samantha Williams, the
daughter/granddaughter of the victims. Aguirre-Jarquin was convicted and
sentenced to death by a non-unanimous jury.
Over the next 14 years, Aguirre-Jarquin repeatedly begged for a blood sample to
be tested that he felt certain would clear him, while Samantha Williams
confessed to several people that she was the one who committed the murders.
Fortunately for Aguirre-Jarquin, the Innocence Project took his case in 2011
and began to make progress proving his innocence.
In 2013, Aguirre-Jarquin’s lawyers presented new evidence at a hearing that
implicated Samantha Williams in the case, including a statement made by her and
captured on police video where she suggested her responsibility for the
murders. Shortly thereafter, the blood sample was finally tested. It proved
that Aguirre-Jarquin’s blood was not at the scene, but the blood of Samantha
Williams’ was and within inches of one of the victim’s blood.
In 2016, after introducing even further evidence that indicated Samantha as the
person behind the crimes, the Florida State Supreme Court ruled unanimously to
overturn Aguirre-Jarquin’s conviction and death sentence.
Unbelievably, the state (the District Attorney) decided to try Aguirre-Jarquin
for the same crime again — pursuing the death penalty. Go ahead and read that
again. I know I had to.
Fortunately, common sense prevailed (for once) and Florida Circuit Judge John
D. Galluzzo dismissed all new charges against Aguirre-Jarquin after prosecutors
announced they would not proceed with the trial. They did this only when even
more evidence of Samantha William’s guilt poured in during the jury selection
process for Aguirre-Jarquin’s second trial.
And what happened to all those involved you might be wondering? The
court-appointed attorneys who failed to do the bare minimum to prove their
client’s innocence, the police that picked an easy scapegoat to wrap up a case
instead of fully investigating all suspects, the prosecutors who decided to
proceed with a death penalty trial despite their evidence being weak? Nothing.
Florida is especially egregious when it comes to wrongful convictions. They
lead the nation with 28 exonerations from death row and countless others for
lesser charges. But Florida is far from the only state where you can read a
story that plays out like this.
When you consider all of the factors involved in a death penalty case — the
likelihood of a wrongful conviction, a system marred by corruption and shoddy
investigating, the vast costs, and the multiple instances of bias on both
racial and socioeconomic grounds, there is absolutely no excuse for letting
this system hold the power of life and death.
(source: Hannah Cox is the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About
the Death Penalty. Hannah was previously Director of Outreach for the Beacon
Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank. Prior to that, she was Director
of Development for the Tennessee Firearms Association and a policy advocate for
the National Alliance on Mental Illness---- newsmax.com)
ALABAMA:
Alabama Supreme Court rejects appeal from man who killed MPD officer in 2006
The Alabama Supreme Court has denied the appeal of a man sentenced to death for
the 2006 murder of a Montgomery police officer.
Mario Dion Woodward was convicted in 2008 on two counts of capital murder for
fatally shooting MPD Officer Keith Houts.
Woodward’s petition for a rehearing argued that biometric examination of
dashcam footage of the shooting confirmed Woodward’s innocence, and “neither
the state nor defense counsel presented any evidence to prove or disprove that
Mr. Woodward was the shooter,” according to court documents.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s denial of Woodward’s appeal was announced Friday.
Woodward’s conviction and subsequent appeals became a national referendum on
the death penalty and whether or not a judge should have the right to overrule
a jury’s sentencing decision.
Woodward was convicted of shooting Houts, 30, during a routine traffic stop on
North Decatur Street on Sept. 28, 2006. The two capital murder charges stem
from shooting an officer and shooting from a vehicle. Houts was shot in the
head, fell to the ground and was shot four more times, according to Montgomery
Advertiser coverage of the shooting. He died two days later.
After the shooting, Woodward fled to Georgia, where he was caught and returned
to Montgomery.
A Montgomery jury voted 8-4 against the death penalty, instead sentencing
Woodward to life in prison in 2008, according to a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court
decision denying Woodward’s first appeal of his conviction.
Montgomery County Circuit Judge Truman Hobbs overrode the jury, however, and
sentenced Woodward to death.
Until the Alabama Legislature voted to end judicial override in capital cases
in 2017, Alabama was the last state in which judges could impose the death
penalty against the recommendation of the jury.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court denied Woodward’s 1st appeal in 2013, Supreme
Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissension criticizing the
process that led to Woodward being placed on death row.
"There is no evidence that criminal activity is more heinous in Alabama than in
other states, or that Alabama juries are particularly lenient in weighing
aggravating or mitigating circumstances," Sotomayor wrote. "The only answer
that is supported by empirical evidence is one that, in my view, casts a cloud
of illegitimacy over the criminal justice system: Alabama judges, who are
elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral
pressures."
Hobbs stood by his decision, telling the Montgomery Advertiser that he did
“what the law compelled me to do.” He said he did not disagree with Sotomayor’s
larger point that the law allowing judicial override created space for elected
judges to bow to political pressure on important decisions, although Hobbs said
politics played no role in his decision.
Hobbs said his decision at the time was partially influenced by a previous
manslaughter conviction for killing a woman in Prattville, for which Woodward
served eight years in prison, according to Montgomery Advertiser reports on the
sentencing.
Woodward’s latest appeal sought to challenge the adequacy of his defense
counsel prove that the procedure for Woodward’s conviction was faulty and
omitted evidence.
Woodward’s defense argued dashcam footage of the incident didn’t identify the
assailant. The appeal also claimed the gun was never recovered and no DNA
evidence ever connected Woodward to the shooting, according to the petition.
Woodward’s counsel argued that it had biometrics expert Manfred Schenk ready to
testify that the shooter was not Woodward, a conclusion derived by comparing
the largest part of Woodward’s wrist to that of the arm seen firing the gun in
the dashcam video. According to Schenk, Woodward’s wrist is 1.46 inches smaller
than that of the shooter, the petition reads.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied the appeal this summer before the
latest denial by the Alabama Supreme Court.
(source: Montgomery Advertiser)
TENNESSEE:
Tennessee Supreme Court sets 6 execution dates in next two years
The state's highest court set new execution dates in 2019 and 2020 for 6
men sentenced to death in Tennessee.
All of the men had prior execution dates set by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Those plans were temporarily halted as a result of pending legal challenges to
Tennessee's lethal injection protocol. Those challenges, which reached the U.S.
Supreme Court, ultimately failed.
The new execution dates were announced Friday, a day after a federal judge in
Nashville denied a request to delay the execution of death row inmate David
Earl Miller.
Miller wanted the delay so his lawsuit, which argued he had the right to select
a firing squad as his method of execution, could be heard.
Miller, convicted in the 1981 murder of 23-year-old Lee Standifer in Knoxville,
is scheduled to be executed as originally planned on Dec. 6, according to a
spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Correction.
Miller's execution will mark the 3rd in Tennessee this year — and only the 8th
time Tennessee has exercised the death penalty since 1960. On Aug. 9, Billy Ray
Irick was executed by lethal injection. On Nov. 1, Edmund Zagorski was executed
by electric chair.
Tennessee inmates scheduled for execution:
May 16, 2019, for Donnie Edward Johnson, who was convicted in 1985 of killing
his wife, Connie Johnson, in Benton County. Johnson suffocated his wife in 1984
by stuffing a plastic garbage bag into her mouth.
Aug. 15, 2019, for Stephen Michael West, convicted in 1986 for the fatal
stabbings of a mother and daughter, Wanda Romines, 51, and Sheila Romines, 15,
in Union County. West was also convicted in the rape of Sheila Romines. West's
co-defendant, Ronnie Martin, confessed to being the actual killer. Martin was a
juvenile at the time and ineligible for the death penalty.
Oct. 10, 2019, for Charles Walton Wright, convicted in 1985 of 2 counts of
premeditated 1st degree murder for the 1984 killings of Gerald Mitchell and
Douglass Alexander during a drug transaction in Nashville.
Dec. 5, 2019, for Lee Hall, also known as Lee Hall Jr. convicted in 1993 for
the murder of Traci Crozier in Hamilton County. Hall threw gasoline on Crozier,
his ex-girlfriend, then set her on fire while she was inside her car. Crozier
suffered 3rd-degree burns to nearly all of her body and later died.
Feb. 20, 2020, for Nicholas Todd Sutton, convicted in 1986 for the stabbing and
killing of Carl Estep in Morgan County. Sutton was in prison for the murder of
his grandmother when he and another inmate stabbed Estep 38 times.
April 9, 2020, for Abu-Ali Abdur' Rahman, formerly known as James Lee Jones,
convicted in 1987 for the murder of Patrick Daniels in Nashville, where Daniels
was selling marijuana.
(source: The Tennessean)
CALIFORNIA:
Tulare County 'Psycho' sentenced to death
\
After sitting in a Tulare County jail cell for 6 years, a man known as "Psycho"
on the streets was told he deserved death for the crimes he committed.
This week, Tulare County Judge Kathryn Montejano sentenced Eric Jimenez, 34, of
Strathmore, to death for the multiple slayings and other crimes. Jimenez, a
Norteño gang member, was previously found guilty of killing 2 people.
One of the killings took place behind bars, prosecutors said.
“Californians have consistently re-affirmed their support of the death penalty,
most recently with Proposition 66, for the most heinous, depraved crimes
imaginable," said Tulare County District Attorney Tim Ward. "With that support,
we hope to see justice carried out for the victims and their families in this
case."
At sentencing, Jimenez refused to be present while the family of one of his
victims talked about how Jimenez's crimes impacted their lives, DA officials
stated.
The murder trial for Jimenez began on April 23.
It took 12 jurors — 10 men and 2 women — 8 hours of deliberations to return a
guilty verdict.
Jimenez was convicted of 1st-degree murder with the special circumstances
that the murder was committed in the commission of a robbery, that the crime
was committed for a criminal street gang, and that the murder was part of
multiple murders.
He was also found guilty of 2nd-degree murder with the special allegation that
the crime was committed for a street gang, 1 count of conspiracy to commit
murder, 1 count of conspiracy to dissuade a witness, 1 count of dissuading a
witness, 1 count of 1st-degree residential robbery, and 1 count of vehicle
theft.
The penalty phase with the same jury began in June. It took jurors half the
time to decide Jimenez deserved death.
Jimenez becomes the 16th inmate sentenced to death in Tulare County.
Soon, he will be transferred to San Quentin State Prison, where he will most
likely spend the rest of his life.
Life before death
Jimenez has 5 prior felony convictions dating back to 2004. In 2012, his crimes
turned deadly.
On March 28, 2012, Jimenez and Matthew Campos, 29, walked into the garage of
Jimenez’s girlfriend, Raquel Espinosa, 31.
Espinosa and a 39-year-old man were talking in the garage. Jimenez knew the
victim had cash and drugs.
At some point, Jimenez pistol-whipped the victim and held his hands while
Campos struck him with brass knuckles. Jimenez yelled for Espinosa grab an
electrical cord he then used to strangle the victim.
Jimenez and Campos stole drugs and cash from the victim, rolled his body up in
a carpet and tossed the body into the cab of the victim's truck.
Campos was dropped off at his home before Jimenez burned the body at a mechanic
shop in Porterville.
The owner of the shop saw smoke and called police.
A month later, Jimenez was arrested by Porterville police after they found him
with brass knuckles.
While Jimenez was behind bars, Campos spoke to people about the murder. He and
Espinosa were arrested in May 2012.
After these arrests, Jimenez feared he would be ratted out. While in jail,
Jimenez conspired to kill someone he believed would implicate him in the
homicide, a 19-year-old man.
Jimenez was charged with the 1st murder on Aug. 20, 2012, and was arraigned on
the 2nd murder in October 2013.
Campos was convicted of 2nd-degree murder on Nov. 9, 2017, and sentenced to 16
years-to-life in prison.
Espinosa pleaded to accessory after the fact and is awaiting sentencing.
(source: visaliatimesdelta.com)
USA:
Justice Thomas vs. Justice Breyer on the Death Penalty
Justice Breyer’s statement on Tuesday regarding the denial of certiorari in a
death-penalty case (Reynolds v. Florida) elicited a noteworthy response from
Justice Thomas.
In his statement, Justice Breyer repeated several concerns that he has
expressed before. I’ll highlight 3 of them here: (1) that “lengthy delays—made
inevitable by the Constitution’s procedural protections for defendants facing
execution—deepen the cruelty of the death penalty and undermine its penological
rationale”; (2) that the jurors (in this or other cases in which the Court has
recently denied review) might not have had sufficient information to “have made
a ‘community-based judgment’ that a death sentence was ‘proper retribution’”;
and (3) that the constitutionality of the death penalty should be reconsidered.
Here is what Justice Thomas had to say in response (some citations and
quotations marks omitted):
[1] Justice Breyer’s 1st concern is “that the death penalty might not be
administered for another 40 years or more” after the jury’s verdict. That is a
reason to carry out the death penalty sooner, not to decline to impose it. In
any event, petitioner evidently is not bothered by delay. Petitioner has
litigated all the way through the state courts and petitioned this Court for
review three separate times. He can avoid “endur[ing]” an “unconscionably long
dela[y]” [Breyer’s words] by submitting to what the people of Florida have
deemed him to deserve: execution. It makes a mockery of our system of justice
for a convicted murderer, who, through his own interminable efforts of delay
has secured the almost-indefinite postponement of his sentence, to then claim
that the almost-indefinite postponement renders his sentence unconstitutional.
It is no mystery why it often takes decades to execute a convicted
murderer. The labyrinthine restrictions on capital punishment promulgated by
this Court have caused the delays that Justice Breyer now bemoans. As “the Drum
Major in this parade” of new precedents [quoting Justice Scalia in Glossip v.
Gross], Justice Breyer is not well positioned to complain about their
inevitable consequences.
[2] On the night of July 21, 1998, petitioner Michael Gordon Reynolds
murdered nearly an entire family. While the father, Danny Ray Privett, relieved
himself outside the family’s camping trailer, petitioner snuck up behind him
and “viciously and deliberately battered [his] skull with a piece of concrete.”
Petitioner would later explain: “‘[W]ith my record’”—which included aggravated
robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery —“‘I couldn’t afford to
leave any witnesses.’” So petitioner entered the trailer, where he brutally
beat, stabbed, and murdered Privett’s girlfriend, Robin Razor, and their
11-year-old daughter, Christina Razor. Robin “suffered multiple stab wounds
along with multiple blows to the side of her face and a broken neck resulting
in injuries to her spinal cord.” She desperately fought back, suffering
“significant defensive wounds” and “torment wounds” — shallow slashes that
occur when “the perpetrator tak[es] a depraved, measured approach to the
infliction of the injury and tak[es] pleasure in his cruel activity.”
Eleven-year-old Christina also resisted, suffering “blunt force trauma to her
head, a stab wound to the base of her neck that pierced her heart, and another
stab wound to her right shoulder that pierced her lung and lacerated her
pulmonary artery.” Only petitioner knows whether Robin had to watch her
daughter die, or whether Christina had to watch her mother die. “Regardless, in
the close confines of that cramped camping trailer, Christina Razor, in great
pain and fear, was forced to fight a losing battle for her life knowing that
either her mother had already been killed and she was next or that after
Reynolds killed her, he was sure to end her mother’s life.” “For a child to
experience the fear, terror and emotional strain that accompanied Christina
Razor as she fought for her life, knowing full well that she was fighting a
losing battle, is unimaginable, heinous, atrocious and cruel.” “Christina was
found not wearing any underwear,” and petitioner’s DNA was matched to both a
pubic hair and Christina’s underwear, both found near her body….
Justice Breyer worries that the jurors here “might not have made a
‘community-based judgment’ that a death sentence was ‘proper retribution’ had
they known” of his concerns with the death penalty. In light of petitioner’s
actions, I have no such worry, and I write separately to alleviate Justice
Breyer’s concerns.
[3] Justice Breyer final (and actual) concern is with the death penalty
itself. As I have elsewhere explained, it is clear that the Eighth Amendment
does not prohibit the death penalty. The only thing “cruel and unusual” in this
case was petitioner’s brutal murder of three innocent victims.
(source: nationalreview.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
