December 13
FLORIDA----impending execution
Florida Supreme Court refuses to halt execution of Jose Jimenez
Rejecting what it described as a “novel” argument about a voter-approved
constitutional amendment, the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to
halt the scheduled Thursday evening execution of death-row inmate Jose Antonio
Jimenez.
Justices, in a unanimous decision, denied a motion to stay the execution of
Jimenez, 55, who was convicted in the 1992 murder of a Miami-Dade County woman.
Jimenez also had two cases pending Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court,
according to an online docket. The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday
at Florida State Prison.
The Florida Supreme Court decision dealt with arguments by Jimenez’s attorneys
that he should be spared execution because of a constitutional amendment that
voters approved Nov. 6. Part of the amendment changed what is known as the
“Savings Clause” of the Florida Constitution, a more than century-old provision
dealing with how revisions in criminal laws should be applied to older crimes.
The Savings Clause historically has required that criminal laws in effect at
the time crimes are committed govern the sentences that are imposed. But the
November ballot measure, Amendment 11, included a change in the clause. It
allowed revisions to criminal laws to affect sentences for older crimes.
Jimenez’s attorneys contended that the amendment is important in his case
because of changes in Florida’s death-penalty sentencing laws in 2017. The
sentencing laws had to be rewritten because of a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that said the state’s death-penalty sentencing structure was
unconstitutional because it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries.
With the passage of Amendment 11, Jimenez’s attorneys argued the revised laws
should be applied to his case --- and that they should prevent his execution.
In part, the revised laws require juries to unanimously find at least one
“aggravating” factor to help justify a death sentence, a tougher standard for
prosecutors than was in place when Jimenez was sentenced to death.
But the justices flatly rejected the arguments, saying that the constitutional
amendment does not take effect until Jan. 8 and that, “even if the amendment
were in effect, it does not change the law applicable to Jimenez’s conviction
of first-degree murder and sentence of death."
The four-page decision called the arguments by Jimenez’s attorneys a “novel
assertion” and said lawmakers will have authority to determine how to apply the
change in the Savings Clause.
Justices said the change means “that there will no longer be any provision in
the Florida Constitution that would prohibit the Legislature from applying an
amended criminal statute retroactively to pending prosecutions or sentences.
However, nothing in our Constitution does or will require the Legislature to do
so, and the repeal of the prohibition will not require that they do so."
Jimenez was convicted of killing Phyllis Minas, 63, during a burglary.
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 court documents.
(source: Orlando Sentinel)
**************************
Opponents death penalty hold vigils before scheduled Florida execution
The State of Florida is set to execute a death-row prisoner Thursday evening;
it would be the 28th execution under Governor Rick Scott, and several vigils
are planned in the Tampa Bay area. Mark Elliott is director of Floridians for
Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said “Thursday December 13th is the
scheduled execution date for Jose Jimenez. It would be the second execution
this year [in Florida].
“Recently, in fact last month, we had another exoneration of someone on death
row. And that was the second exoneration in a little over a year. This
execution, if it takes place, would be the 28th execution under [Florida
Governor Rick Scott], which is a new state record.
“And the exoneration last month of Clemente Aguirre was also the 28th
exoneration of a Florida death row inmate and set a new state and national
record. So the numbers tell a lot in regard to this.
“Florida’s had 96 executions since executions restarted in the 1970s. During
that same time there’s been 28 innocent people exonerated off our death row.
So, it’s almost one exoneration for every 3 executions, which should trouble
anyone.”
And ‘exoneration’ – essentially what that means is that the justice system said
that this person deserves to die and then evidence came out that that wasn’t
the case.
“It’s a little different in each case, but essentially that’s it. And we need
to keep in mind the State of Florida tries to preserve these convictions and
executions. They go to great lengths to do this.
“These people are exonerated because they were able to demonstrate – or some
attorneys or investigators a lot of times, at no charge, took interest in the
case and were able to demonstrate – innocence. And then they were released.”
(source: WMNF news)
*********************
Judge schedules court date in murder case
NEXT COURT DATE SET FOR COUPLE ACCUSED IN LECANTO MAN’S MURDER
Attorneys for Christopher Eugene Smith and co-defendant Sara Jane Atwood on
Wednesday asked Judge Howard for more time until their next hearing so they can
finish depositions in their clients’ alleged murder of a Lecanto man. Charles
Vaughn, Atwood’s attorney, and Chief Assistant Public Defender Edward Spaight,
Smith’s lawyer, told Howard between 20 and 25 key witnesses will be deposed in
mid-January, and requested a February court date.
With no objection heard from Assistant State Attorney Pete Magrino, Howard
scheduled Atwood’s and Smith’s next appearance for Feb. 13.
A Citrus County grand jury in September indicted Atwood and Smith on a
capital-felony count of 1st-degree premeditated murder and a life-felony count
of armed burglary, in connection to the April 30, 2017, murder of 73-year-old
James Thomas Roman.
According to reports, Atwood, 24, allegedly conspired with Smith, 33, to murder
her grandfather for financial gain. Smith then broke into Roman’s home off of
West Cardamon Place and choked him to death, the indictment alleges.
Magrino announced in October he will be seeking the death penalty for Smith,
not for Atwood.
If Smith is convicted of capital murder but a jury doesn’t find him eligible
for the death penalty, Howard must still issue him a life sentence. Atwood will
also stay behind prison bars for life if jurors find her guilty of murder.
(source: Citrus Chronicle)
KENTUCKY:
Defense attorney accused of felony for hiding bullet casings in Louisville
death penalty case
A lawyer for a man charged with killing 15-year-old Gregory Holt in 2012 claims
an attorney with the Louisville Public Defender’s office committed a felony by
hiding key evidence in the death penalty case.
The attorney for James Mallory said in a recently filed motion that public
defender Angela Elleman “concealed” bullet casings linked to the shooting at
the request of her client, Anthony Hogan, a co-defendant in the murder case.
In the motion, filed late last month, Lexington attorney Gregory Coulson asked
Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Susan Schultz Gibson to investigate whether
Elleman and any other employees with the public defender’s office have
committed a crime, specifically felony tampering with physical evidence.
That investigation should include a review of Elleman’s communications with her
client and prosecutors as well as an inspection of the defense’s case file to
“determine that the services of (the defense team) have been used in
furtherance of a crime or fraud upon the court,” according to Coulson’s motion.
Mallory’s trial was delayed earlier this year after the Jefferson
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office found out Elleman and an investigator working
with the public defender’s office had for six years been in possession of the
casings without disclosing them.
In hearings about the issue, Gibson has repeatedly asked whether concealing the
shell casings amounted to tampering with physical evidence. No charges have
been filed.
/ But the head of the public defender’s office, Dan Goyette, has defended the
actions in a previous statement to WDRB News:
“After a careful review of the rather complex legal and evidentiary situation
that arose in this case, it’s clear that the actions of Mr. Hogan’s attorneys
were directed in the best interests of their client and were consistent with
their professional obligations."
Elleman did not immediately return a phone message Wednesday.
In the recent motion, Coulson, who recently took over representing Mallory,
acknowledged that requesting an investigation by the judge of the public
defender’s office is unusual, but argued that the “conduct is clearly
felonious.”
Elleman and an investigator dug up the shell casings buried in a tree stump
outside a bar in Louisville just months after the April 11, 2012, murder.
The casings were put in a safe at the public defender’s office for years until
prosecutors learned of them in February when talking with Hogan about his
agreement to testify against Mallory days before Mallory’s trial was to begin.
Hogan claims he saw Mallory bury the shell casings after Holt was shot to death
in his mother’s apartment near Dixie Highway and East Rockford Lane.
Coulson said that Elleman – identified only as A.E. in the motion – posted a
picture on social media in 2013 showing her in the tree stump with the
evidence.
“The conduct of attorney A.E. in conspiracy with Mr. Hogan has crossed over
from zealous advocacy within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints to
criminal conduct,” Coulson wrote.
Coulson has also requested that Elleman’s communications with police,
prosecutors, jail officials or other law enforcement agencies be turned over to
the defense.
The case is scheduled to be heard in court on Dec. 19.
Holt was a student at Farnsley Middle School. Prosecutors have said Holt’s
mother, Kendra Wilson, participated in a robbery and attempted execution of
Mallory hours earlier, and that Mallory shot the teen while trying to retaliate
against Wilson.
(source: WDRB news)
MISSOURI:
Incoming County Prosecutor won't commit to death penalty in the Catholic Supply
murder----"On a personal level that case angers me and on a personal level I
would like to do it myself if I could, but from a public policy standpoint, it
can’t be about revenge. It has to be about justice," said Bell.
Could the Catholic Supply Store shooter be tried as a death penalty case?
For the very first time, we had the opportunity to ask incoming St. Louis
County Prosecutor Wesley Bell in an exclusive interview.
"I think it’s inappropriate for me to comment on pending cases. There’s one
prosecutor at a time and I’m going to respect that," Bell said.
5 On Your Side asked Bell, if he stands by the statement on his website, that
he will never seek the death penalty.
"Well my positions are what they are, and those are still on my website," he
replied.
He added, he would still have to evaluate the case again after he's officially
sworn in.
"Let’s talk about that on January 1st," Bell said, referring to his swearing-in
date.
Last month, incoming councilman and former St. Louis County police chief Tim
Fitch called on Bell to move the case to another jurisdiction that would try
the shooter, Thomas Bruce, as a death penalty case.
Bell said he never directly heard from Fitch.
"Tim Fitch didn’t ask me anything, and had he reached out, we could have had a
conversation. With that being said, I will not respond through media. If he
wants to have a conversation with me as a County Councilman I would welcome
that opportunity," he said.
Thomas Bruce faces charges of murder, sodomy and kidnapping. The details of
what investigators believe happened are horrific.
Bell says, not only does he understand the outrage, he feels the same way.
"On a personal level that case angers me and on a personal level I would like
to do it myself if I could, but from a public policy standpoint, it can’t be
about revenge. It has to be about justice," says Bell.
Transition
Bell also spoke to 5 On Your Side about his ongoing transition effort into the
office. He says he and his team are working on several initiatives, including
expanding diversionary programs and Veterans courts.
He says his key focus, on day one, will be prosecuting fewer low-level
misdemeanors and focusing more on violent crimes that have injured victims.
Bell cites misdemeanor marijuana possession charges as an example of a
low-level victim-less crime.
“Since we’re not going to be emphasizing the low-level crimes as much, we’ll be
able to use those man and women hours on more serious and violent crimes. I
think that will not only make us safer, save us taxpayer dollars, and help
people," says Bell.
Cash Bail
One of Bell's key initiatives is phasing out cash bail for low-level,
nonviolent offenders.
He says the current system is skewed to favor the rich and punish the poor.
"They can’t get out because they can’t post a $1500 bail," says Bell.
He says, beyond the monetary penalty, housing those who can't post cash bail
can cause someone to lose their job or get evicted because they're behind bars.
He says this program will be ushered in in phases.
In the short term, on day one, he will not ask for cash bail for low level and
non-violent offenders.
In the long term, he wants to work with local judges and state lawmakers to
pass legislation that will implement a similar policy statewide.
Minimizing the Turnover
Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's office has been criticized for the number of
prosecutors that have left since she took over.
Bell is hopeful, that won't be his experience. He tells 5 On Your Side, he
expects an overwhelming majority of attorneys will stay on his team.
“We want input on those expectations and buy-in so the men and women of that
office have the opportunity to be a part of this team and I want to be a part
of their team," says Bell.
(source: KSDK news)
UTAH:
He's spent 30 years on death row. Now a Utah convict wants a new trial
A Chicago native has spent nearly 1/2 of his life on Utah's death row for the
killing of a Provo grandmother.
Now, 33 years after a jury first sentenced him to die, 63-year-old Douglas
Stewart Carter is asking Utah's highest court to order a new hearing based on
details of the case that came to light years after he was convicted.
Carter's attorneys argue that they learned in 2011 of gifts police gave to star
witnesses in the case, saying the Provo officers paid the couple's rent and
instructed them to lie about the financial help.
"Mr. Carter's been on death row for over 30 years and all he's asking for is a
fair trial," defense attorney Eric Zuckerman said Wednesday after the Utah
Supreme Court heard arguments in Carter's case.
His lawyers contend the new information could have changed the outcome of the
case and a lower court should review the evidence at a new hearing. Prosecutors
say that's not true, arguing the testimony from Carter's friends mirrored his
own admission to police about killing 57-year-old Eva Olesen — the aunt of a
former Provo police chief — during a robbery of her home.
"Carter confessed to the police, and he told his friends, the Tovars, what he'd
done," Utah's Assistant Solicitor General Erin Riley said after the hearing.
"These new declarations don't change anything about their testimony, about
Carter telling them he committed the murder."
Justice Deno Himonas suggested he sees it differently.
"It renders them impeachable to the nth degree, if they're being paid by the
state" and disclosing they felt pressured to lie, he said.
What's more, argued Carter's defense attorney, Paula Harms, the police
officers' alleged secret behavior lends more credibility to Carter's assertion
that he was coerced to confess, she said.
"We believe the confession is thrown into doubt because the veracity of law
enforcement is thrown into doubt," Harms said in court. She said the defense
would have argued the case differently and the jury deserved to know about the
money.
The state, however, emphasized in court filings that Carter presented no
evidence at the 1985 trial that his statement was false, noting the witnesses
have not recanted their testimony.
During a roughly hourlong hearing, justices quizzed the attorneys on both
sides. The court did not issue a decision Wednesday and Carter was not present.
Jurors originally convicted him of stabbing and shooting Olesen during a
home-invasion robbery in Provo on Feb. 27, 1985, and sentenced him to death.
The jury considered Carter's written confession and his bragging to friends
Epifanio and Lucia Tovar that he killed a woman. He appealed the sentence and
in 1992, and another jury upheld the death penalty.
He also has a petition pending in federal court, but that is stayed as the Utah
Supreme Court weighs its decision. No execution date has been set.
Last year, 4th District Judge Lunn Davis sided with prosecutors, ruling that
Carter failed to show his constitutional rights were violated and that the
newer evidence likely wouldn't have led to a more favorable outcome. In 2011,
Davis decided that the new evidence came too late to be included in Carter's
state petition for post-conviction relief.
The Tovars had testified during trial that police provided no incentive for
them to take the stand beyond a $14 check they each received. But Carter's
attorneys said they learned in 2011 that the couple received more money and
gifts and police coached them to lie.
In a sworn declaration, the pair said police relocated them twice to protect
them from Carter, paid their rent and utilities, gave gifts to them, including
a Christmas tree, and bought toys for their children. They also said police
threatened to deport them, file criminal charges and take away their son if
they didn't cooperate in the case.
Epifanio Tovar, who admitted to disposing of Carter's .38-caliber handgun used
in the murder, "had every reason to cast suspicion away from himself and onto
someone else," Harms said Wednesday.
She also argued that Lucia Tovar gave inconsistent statements at different
points in the case, but the state countered that's because she feared
retaliation from Carter.
Wednesday was not the 1st time Utah's Supreme Court has weighed an appeal from
Carter. The court rejected other petitions he filed on other grounds, including
an alleged conflict of interest by a mental health expert who evaluated him and
testified in the 1992 trial.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Associate Chief Justice Thomas
Lee recused themselves. 2 judges from the Utah Court of Appeals took their
place.
(source: Deseret News)
**************************
Utah Supreme Court focuses on lies and payments to witnesses in death penalty
case
The justices of the Utah Supreme Court focused on lies and payments to
witnesses in the case against death row inmate Douglas Carter.
Whether it is material to the homicide case or not could help decide if Carter
lives or dies. The state’s top court heard arguments on Wednesday largely
focusing on the statements.
Carter is facing execution for the 1985 murder of Eva Olesen in Provo.
Prosecutors said the 57-year-old woman, who was a relative of Provo’s
then-police chief, had been stabbed 10 times and shot in the back of the head
in a home-invasion robbery.
Carter was placed at the scene by 2 key witnesses in the case, Epifanio and
Lucia Tovar, who told police he had confessed to them. In court, the Tovars
claimed they had only been paid $14 for their testimony. But Carter’s lawyers
found later it was much more than that — police paid their rent and bills — and
suggested the Tovars were instructed to lie about it.
“They are impeaching and the jury needs to know about it,” Paula Harms,
Carter’s attorney, told the Utah Supreme Court. “It’s also the promise of them.
You have to remember before he (Epifanio Tovar) gave these statements, he was
threatened with deportation. He had every reason to cast suspicion from himself
on to someone else.”
Assistant Utah Attorney General Erin Riley said Carter still confessed to the
murder. But she argued to the justices that the situation with the Tovars was
not relevant to the homicide itself.
“If it’s not material, why are they instructed to lie about it?” Justice Deno
Himonas asked.
“Mr. Tovar says in his declaration why they told him to lie. He claims they
told him that they didn’t need to mention because it was such a minimal
amount,” Riley replied.
“But it’s not a minimal amount, and you as a prosecutor would have disclosed
this if you were back in the 1980s trying this case?” Justice Himonas said.
“I would have, yeah,” Riley conceded, but said it was disputed that the Tovars
were instructed to lie.
“On a death sentence case, it doesn’t trouble you that an official from the
prosecuting arm specifically told the material witnesses to lie about the
benefits received from the state?” Justice Himonas retorted.
“If that’s true, of course it troubles me,” Riley said.
“It is true, for purposes of this hearing, it is absolutely true,” he said.
Harms reiterated to the Court her belief the witnesses were told to lie.
The Utah Supreme Court took the case under advisement but did not signal when
it would issue a ruling.
(source: Fox News)
CALIFORNIA:
Jerry Brown, Save the 740 People on Your Death Row----6 former governors call
on California’s governor to follow in their footsteps and grant clemency to
death row prisoners.
By Richard Celeste, John Kitzhaber, Martin O’Malley, Bill Richardson, Pat Quinn
and Toney Anaya
The authors granted clemency to death row prisoners in their states.
Among a governor’s many powers, none is more significant than signing a death
warrant. It’s a terrible responsibility, hard even to imagine until you’re
asked to carry it out, as we were. But we became convinced that it wasn’t
something a civilized society should ask of its leaders. That’s why we halted
executions in our states, and we call on Gov. Jerry Brown of California to do
the same.
Mr. Brown has done a remarkable job in his four terms. His overhaul of the
state’s criminal justice system has ensured his legacy as one of the most
courageous and effective governors in California’s history. Some of the changes
include eliminating cash bail; prohibiting the incarceration of children under
12; no longer allowing children younger than 16 to be tried as adults; and
prohibiting prosecutors from charging accomplices with 1st-degree murder.
Given this good work, we know it must weigh on Mr. Brown that, unless he acts
soon, he will leave behind 740 men and women on California’s death row. It’s a
staggering number and our hearts go out to him. From a humanitarian
perspective, it is horrifying to imagine executing that many humans. As a
practical matter, it’s beyond comprehension.
Even the most ardent proponents of capital punishment would shudder at
composing a plan to execute 740 people. Would California’s citizens allow mass
executions? If the state were to execute a single person every day, people
would still be waiting on death row after 2 years.
Vicente Benavides might have been one of them. In April, the California Supreme
Court released him from death row at San Quentin, where he spent 25 years after
being convicted based on evidence that the court found was “false, extensive,
pervasive and impactful.” We know a leader must then ask: “Are there more
people wrongly convicted among the 740 in my custody?”
Perhaps. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that 164 men and women
have been found innocent and released from death rows around the country since
1973, 5 of them from California. Even more disturbing, the National Academy of
Sciences found that at least 4 % of people on death row were and are probably
innocent. This is the horror every governor of a killing state has to live
with.
Since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976, 11
governors have granted clemency to death row prisoners in their states. They
did not free them; they either reduced their sentences to life, declared a
moratorium on executions or repealed their death penalty. We have all done one
of these; so have Gov. George Ryan of Illinois in 2003; Gov. Jon Corzine of New
Jersey in 2007; Gov. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut in 2012; Gov. Jay Inslee of
Washington in 2014; and Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania in 2015.
The achievement of high office demands that one be courageous in leadership.
Mr. Brown now has the chance to do what others in our ranks have done after
they became aware of the price paid for taking a human life. We were compelled
to act because we have come to believe the death penalty is an expensive,
error-prone and racist system, and also because our morality and our sense of
decency demanded it.
Mr. Brown has the power to commute the sentences of 740 men and women, to save
740 lives. Or, he can declare a moratorium on the death penalty and give
Governor-elect Gavin Newsom the time he will need to figure out how to end a
system broken beyond repair. Such an act will take political will and moral
clarity, both of which Mr. Brown has demonstrated in the past. In the interest
of his legacy, the people of California need his leadership 1 more time before
he leaves office.
(source: Opinion; Richard Celeste was the governor of Ohio. John Kitzhaber was
the governor of Oregon. Martin O’Malley was the governor of Maryland. Bill
Richardson was the governor of New Mexico. Pat Quinn was the governor of
Illinois. Toney Anaya was the governor of New Mexico---- New York Times)
USA:
Despite numerous attempts, NM has yet to see a federal execution
The 2 men and a young woman accused of beating, killing and mutilating an
Albuquerque man over marijuana could face the federal death penalty. However,
history has shown that it's rare for anyone to be executed by the federal
government.
It's a lengthy process that begins with getting the U.S. Attorney General to
approve seeking the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in New
Mexico, but the feds can still seek it.
In August 2017, Mariah Ferry, Jose Torrez and Chase Smothermon allegedly
kidnapped and killed John Soyka of Albuquerque over stolen weed. Soyka was
reportedly dismembered and buried in a shallow grave.
The feds have since taken over prosecution, and court documents reveal the feds
may seek the death penalty for all 3. In order to do that, the government is
required to meet certain criteria first, then ultimately get approval from the
U.S. Attorney General.
The U.S. Attorney for New Mexico won't confirm to KRQE News 13 if they're
asking the AG for that approval, but court documents suggest that's the case
after a recent extension to the deadline for the AG to approve seeking the
death penalty.
Even if the AG does give the approval, data shows the likelihood of Ferry,
Smothermon and Torrez being executed is very small.
The feds have only received AG approval to seek the death penalty 10 times in
New Mexico and none of those cases have resulted in execution.
Most recently, the AG approved it for Kirby Cleveland, who killed a Navajo
Nation police officer. In that case, the feds ended up taking another
direction.
Prior to Cleveland, John McCluskey faced lethal injection for kidnapping and
killing a retired couple traveling through New Mexico in their RV. Jurors,
however, voted for a life sentence rather than death.
It's a trend across the country. Data from the Death Penalty Information Center
shows in more than half of cases, a plea agreement is reached or juries vote
for a life sentence instead of death. Other reasons people are not executed
include suicide before trial, clemency and acquittal.
In fact, only three people have been federally executed in modern history. One
of those was Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber.
Right now, 63 people are on death row.
In the 2 years that President Trump has been in office, his AG -- formerly Jeff
Sessions -- has approved at least a dozen death penalty prosecutions, according
to the Associated Press.
It's an uptick from President Obama's final year in office, but not necessarily
more overall.
(source: KRQE news)
**********************
Impact the death penalty may have on loved ones
According to death penalty data, the last time a person was executed at the
federal level was back in 2003 in Texas.
A letter from the U.S Attorney's office indicates that prosecutors are
considering federal murder charges against the accused gunman in the Chili's
double homicide.
If convicted, William Wood, Jr could face the death penalty. Back in September,
2 employees at Chili's in Dewitt on Erie Boulevard East were killed.
Prosecutors believe Wood intended to kill 4 employees that day.
Federal death penalty executions are rare and according to death penalty data,
the last time a person was executed at the federal level was back in 2003 in
Texas. This case could be the 1st local consideration of a death penalty in 5
years.
In 2013m David Renz murdered a Liverpool school librarian and raped a
10-year-old girl near the Great Northern Mall in Clay.
47-year-old Lori Bresnahan died in the attack. Renz admitted to stalking his
victims, kidnapping them in the mall parking lot and forcing them into his car.
Bill Gregg was driving on Verplank Road when he saw the 10-year-old girl
running away from Renz. He then found her mother, Bresnahan, who collapsed
after being stabbed several times.
The death penalty was considered, but it never happened, and now Renz is
serving a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole.
Cregg thinks a death penalty trial would have been too difficult for the
family, especially the young girl who survived.
He says pursuing the death penalty would have meant the release of
heart-wrenching details about one of the worst crimes in Onondaga County
history.
"The impact on the young girl having to testify the death penalty case those
things were taken into consideration you know the district attorneys office
they're made up of men and women with families, and I know they work with the
victims' families to maximize justice but also care about the families and the
victims," Cregg said.
(source: cnycentral.com)
_______________________________________________
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
