April 4
TEXAS:
Texas bars all spiritual advisers from death chambers after Supreme Court order
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice will bar chaplains, ministers and
spiritual advisers from execution chambers in the wake of a Supreme Court
ruling last week that halted the execution of an inmate who sought to have his
Buddhist spiritual adviser in the death chamber.
The move is the latest step in a controversy that pit the religious liberty
concerns of death row inmates against security concerns of prisons.
The justices agreed to stay Patrick Henry Murphy's execution, but weeks
earlier, had denied a similar request from an inmate in Alabama.
Murphy's initial request had been denied by Texas because officials said for
security reasons only prison employees were allowed into the chamber, and the
prison only employed Christian and Muslim advisers.
Lawyers for Murphy challenged the policy arguing that it violated Murphy's
religious liberty rights. The Supreme Court stepped in and put the execution on
hold.
In a statement released Wednesday, the state now says that, "effective
Immediately," the protocol now only allows security personnel in the execution
chamber.
"Chaplains and Ministers/Spiritual Advisors designated by the offender may
observe the execution only from the witness rooms," the state says.
When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Murphy, only Justice Brett Kavanaugh
detailed his thinking in the brief order. He said that the government "may not
discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious
denominations."
Kavanaugh also said that states had two options going forward: allow all
inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room or
allow inmates to have a religious adviser, including a state-employed chaplain,
only in the viewing room, not the execution room.
"What the State may not do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates
but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the
execution room," he wrote.
Murphy's planned execution has not been rescheduled.
(source: CNN)
******************
Texas House committee hears testimony on Lauren's Law, possible changes to
death penalty
As he addressed the criminal justice committee of the Texas House of
Representatives, Rep. James Frank said his bill attempted to answer a question.
“The question is when should a child lose the highest level of protection
afforded her in a criminal court system," the Republican from Wichita Falls
said of House Bill 261.
H.B. 261, also known as Lauren’s Law, seeks to raise the age at which capital
punishment is applicable from murdering a child under the age of 10 to any
victim under 15.
"I do not believe the life of a 13 year old should be worth any less in the
eyes of the law than that of an 8 year old,” Frank said. “This is the theory
behind the law. Unfortunately, this isn't just a theory. This is based on real
life events that happened in my district."
Frank said, in preparing the bill, he looked at how murder laws were enhanced
when the victim was a child in other states.
Texas, at the age of 10, is the lowest of any other he had seen during his
research. Some states have it set as high as 17, he said. Others range from 13
to 15 years old.
Up until 2011, the age at which capital murder was applicable was 6 years old.
Vern Landavazo and his wife, Bianka, travelled to Austin for Monday’s hearing
to speak on behalf of H.B. 261, named in their daughter’s memory.
They were also scheduled to speak to a Texas Senate committee on a companion
bill late Tuesday afternoon, but that hearing was cancelled .
"Our lives changed forever on Sept. 2, 2016. On that day, we were living the
dream,” Vern Landavazo told the committee. “We were the luckiest people in the
world – we were parents. We had a loving daughter; we have a loving son.
“No matter what we had done in our lives, no matter what we'd done to try to
help others, there's no title we've had, no job we've ever had, that's more
important than that of a parent. The title of mommy and daddy. Nothing more
precious to us than our children. No greater gift, and they are the future of
our country as well."
On that day, Lauren Landavazo was shot over a dozen times by a man who has
since been convicted of her murder.
"You do everything you can to protect your children,” Vern Landavazo said. “The
day Lauren was murdered, she was simply walking home from school. She was
guilty of nothing more than being beautiful and being in love – and having
caught the eye of a monster."
The Landavazos were unaware that the 20-year-old killer had been watching
Lauren walk home from school with her boyfriend, Donovan, for over a year.
“And, seeing the beauty, the good that radiated from her, and for whatever
reason made a decision to pull up across the street as Lauren and her friends
walked home from school on a Friday afternoon, full of promise and full of
life,” Vern Landavazo said.
“This cowardly maniac ambushed her and shot her 15 times with an assault
rifle."
While processing the tragedy that had struck their family, Vern Landavazo said
they were devastated again to learn that her killer would not be eligible for
capital punishment.
"As we reeled from the horror and the shock of what happened, we got another
shock when we found out under current law in Texas – which we thought always
prided itself on being tough on crime – that the person responsible for what
had happened to our daughter would not face what we considered true justice,”
he said.
“He'd have a chance to be back out in society, even after pointing an assault
rifle at our innocent, beautiful daughter, pulling the trigger 15 times, and
also shooting her friend in the chest one time. That he would have a chance to
be back out on the street under current law."
Frank said after hearing this story from the Landavazos, he felt it was
important to find a way to change this in the future.
“After hearing the story directly from the parents, and in talking to them, I
could see no reason for the law to treat her differently," he said.
Lauren's Law seeks justice for innocent victims, not to expand death penalty
Frank initially filed the bill late in the 2016 legislative session, but it
never made it out of committee. He filed it again in November for consideration
this session.
"I know that many members (of this committee), ... and members in the public,
have qualms about expanding anything that could possibly bring the death
penalty,” Frank said. “While I do not have such qualms, I do understand and
respect that. It is not my goal to expand the death penalty.
“I would simply like to give prosecutors more options to pursue life without
parole in more cases like these when the victims are children. However, this
has proven difficult to do with the way capital murder is handled in code."
As the Texas Penal Code is written, capital punishment includes life without
parole or the death penalty. A prosecutor must give notice if they plan on
seeking the death penalty at trial.
While the Landavazos hope to equip prosecutors with all available tools in
seeking justice for victims and their families, they said they did not want
their daughter’s killer to receive a death sentence.
"We, believe it or not, were not proponents of the death penalty,” Vern
Landavazo said. “We did not want to see the death penalty. I think, personally,
we believe that would be too easy on him. He would be segregated. He would be
entitled to appeals. He would be protected. That, to us, was not suffering.
"What we wanted to see, true justice for our daughter, that he would never walk
the streets again. The decision he made that day 15 times as he pulled the
trigger would be enough to keep him in prison for life without the possibility
of ever seeing the streets again – freedom."
Several organizations also spoke at the hearing Monday in opposition of the
bill, including Kristin Houlé, executive director of the Texas Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty.
"The members of our organization abhor violence against children of any age,”
Houlé said. “We are mindful of the devastation murder inflicts on families
suffering from such an inconceivable loss. We also express our deepest
condolences to the family of Lauren Landavazo."
Houlé cited several objections regarding the increased range at which the death
penalty could be applicable.
"Our opposition to this bill is to not be construed as sympathy for those who
take innocent life,” Houlé said, “but rather our belief that the State of Texas
already has the ways and means to punish those who are truly guilty of these
heinous crimes and protect society without more capital offenses that could
lead to new death sentences."
Houlé said the TCADP appreciates Frank’s intention of not expanding the death
penalty, but believe it is currently a consequence of the way it is written.
She said it “reinforces the inherent arbitrariness in the application of the
death penalty in Texas” and expands upon an already arbitrary standard of a
victim’s age – "a standard that is always going to leave out those above the
line. ... The bill, regrettably, is not going to deter offenders nor prevent
the murder of children."
Frank, in his closing statements on H.B. 261 to the committee, objected to
Houlé describing the victim age change as arbitrary.
“I think the reality is the legislative process is not arbitrary. You guys get
to make that decision,” Frank said. “This number is not arbitrary. It was
decided by a legislature to go to 6 years. It was decided to go to 10. It can
be decided – and it won't be arbitrary. It'll be well thought out whether you
decide to or not."
Following Houlé’s comments, Michael Barba, the associate director of public
policy at the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, also spoke against the
bill, but he left the door open to a way the TCCB could possibly support the
legislation.
"The bishops of Texas support ending the use of capital punishment in our
state. That said, the bishops respect Rep. Frank and, on this topic as on many
others, we see that he seeks to advance a proper respect for innocent life. He
is motivated by that desire, and that is clear,” Barba said.
"It is true that each of us has an obligation to care for each other. Moreover,
we have an even greater obligation to care for those among us who are weak and
who are vulnerable. By nature, these categories include children. For this
reason, it is right and it is just that a person be punished more severely for
murdering those who are vulnerable, for murdering a child.”
While the church’s traditional teaching does not exclude punishment by death
“if it is the only way of effectively defending human life against unjust
aggressors,” Barba said the bishops cannot support an expanded use of capital
punishment.
He also expressed gratitude for Frank’s desire to only expand life without
parole and hoped the legislature could find a way to achieve that goal.
"If this were accomplished – if the bill were amended in this way, the TCCB
could support the bill,” Barba said. “But, as it is, the bill expands the use
of capital punishment and therefore, we must ask you to vote against the bill."
Amanda Marzullo, executive director of Texas Defender Services, said there is a
way the legislature could accomplish this goal of expanding life without parole
but leaving the death penalty off the table.
"I think it may actually be possible. We would need to create a new penalty
class of offense, but I don't think that would necessarily be prohibited,”
Marzullo said. “It's something we'd have to do some research into, but it's
feasible."
Marzullo was initially set to speak against the bill, but she changed her
stance to speaking on the bill neutrally.
"From our organizational standpoint, I think the reason why we would go from
being against the bill to being on it is we really have a narrow focus on the
death penalty,” she said.
In this case, their concern was increasing the number of offenders eligible for
the death penalty.
“You're actually undermining the integrity of the system” by adding to it,
Marzullo said. “In order for our capital punishment system to be
constitutional, it needs to separate out the worst of the worst killers that
are out there.
“We already have it where 1 out of every 3 murders qualifies as a capital
murder. Continuing to expand that means, at some point, there is no
differentiation."
Following the testimony, Rep Joe Moody, who serves on the criminal justice
committee, thanked Frank for researching the topic of capital murder in this
facet.
"I think it's important to do this work," the El Paso Democrat said. "But, I
think, ultimately, ... why this topic is so complicated and so difficult to
deal with is because it necessarily involves situations like we heard about
today.
"And my heart breaks for their family. It does. There is nothing that change
that – what they've been through – no matter what we do here in this session."
Having worked with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and observed their
process, Moody said he doesn't believe Lauren Landavazo's killer would be
receiving parole anytime soon, once he became eligible.
"I don't see that happening, but that's not something you can guarantee this
family either," Moody said.
One of his concerns was how the change could affect peer-to-peer murders
involving a 15-year-old killing a 14-year-old and being certified as an adult.
"I've heard maintaining this punishment range or this punishment sanction as a
protection," Moody said. "All data will point us to that there is zero
deterrent effect by having the death penalty on the books in Texas. It is not a
deterrent. People like the monster that did this don't consult the penal code
before they do these things."
Summarizing his thoughts, Moody came back to Frank's analogy of the bill
attempting to answer the question of the value of a human life.
"I think the ultimate question that we have to come down to is not whether
someone deserves to die, but if we deserve to kill," Moody said. "That is the
crux of it for me, and it is not an easy thing to think through."
(source: Wichita Falls Times Record News)
****************
Texas Attorney General Paxton Gloats After Cruel and Unusual Supreme Court
Decision
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is celebrating because a Missouri man might
choke to death on his own blood.
Paxton led a 16-state coalition last year asking the U.S. Supreme Court to deny
Russell Bucklew's death row appeal and uphold Missouri's lethal injection
procedures, claiming that upholding Bucklew's appeal would open new avenues for
death row prisoners to delay their sentences. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the
appeal this week.
“Prisoners would challenge each alternative method subsequently adopted by the
state as lacking in some way due to the prisoner’s unique anatomy, history, or
combination of conditions,” Paxton wrote.
Bucklew has cavernous hemangioma, a rare, congenital disease that has caused
blood-filled tumors to grow in his head and throat. His Supreme Court brief
argues that one or more of the tumors could rupture after he is given the
lethal injection drugs, causing Bucklew to choke to death on his blood.
Writing for the 4-vote minority, Justice Stephen Breyer said that Bucklew
proved to the court that he could "sputter, choke, and suffocate on his own
blood for up to several minutes before he dies,” causing his execution to
violate the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and
unusual punishment.
Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court,
disagreed.
“The Eighth Amendment has never been understood to guarantee a condemned inmate
a painless death.” — Neil Gorsuch
“The Eighth Amendment has never been understood to guarantee a condemned inmate
a painless death,” Gorsuch said as he announced the court's decision to let
Bucklew's execution go forward. “That’s a luxury not guaranteed to many people,
including most victims of capital crimes.”
Paxton celebrated Gorsuch's opinion for ensuring that states can continue to
carry out the death penalty, before detailing the murder Bucklew committed.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is important in allowing the states to proceed
with the solemn duty of enforcing the death penalty enacted by their
legislatures,” Paxton said. “Had the court ruled otherwise, it would have
invited death row inmates to challenge each alternative execution method
subsequently adopted by the state as lacking in some way, resulting in a flood
of costly lawsuits and lengthy delays in executions.”
In both 2016 and 2017, Texas executed just 7 people, tying for the lowest total
since the state killed just 3 people in 1996. In 2018, however, Texas’
execution rate ticked back up, with 13 people being put to death. So far in
2019, Texas has executed 2 people.
(source: Stephen Young has written about Dallas news for the Observer since
2014. He's a Dallas native and a graduate of the University of North
Texas----Dallas Observer)
***************
Can Elsa Alcala Reform Death Row?
Up until January, Elsa Alcala had 1 of 9 seats on the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. She was a judge on the state’s highest court that handles criminal
cases. That includes ruling on all death penalty cases.
But while on the bench, Judge Alcala saw problems with the legal process with
capital punishment and she began to lose faith in how some people were being
sent to the Texas death chamber.
Alcala became a loudest voice on the state’s most prominent criminal court
pointing out the unreliability of the death penalty.
She declined to seek reelection and retired from the bench. Alcala is now
working with the Texas Defenders Service to work with state lawmakers to reform
the death penalty.
Alcala said she wants to make the death penalty reliable and in line with the
U.S. Constitution.
(source: Texas Public Radio)
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Death Penalty Repeal Favored By Senate Committee in NH----The Senate Judiciary
Committee voted to repeal the death penalty in NH on Tuesday, and the bill now
moves to the full Senate.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted in favor of abolishing the death
penalty in a vote Tuesday morning. The bill, which was approved by the House of
Representatives last month, is now scheduled to go before the full Senate.
WMUR has reported that the bill passed in a 4-1 vote, with Sen. Sharon Carson
being the only committee member voting against it. As proposed, House Bill 455
would replace the death penalty with life in prison without chance of parole as
punishment for capital murder. If passed, the proposed law would not take
effect for Michael Addison, the only man currently on death row in New
Hampshire.
The House already has approved the bill in a 279-88 vote last month. The vote
reached more than 2/3 majority need to override Gov. Chris Sununu's expected
veto. The Senate is expected to reach a 2/3 majority as well.
(source: patch.com)
NEW JERSEY:
N.J. led the way, I urge other states to end the death penalty, too: Corzine
When California Governor Gavin Newsom suspended executions in his state, he
took a momentous step in our nation’s long journey toward justice. The
importance of his action - at this moment of awakening to the undeniable
influence of race in our justice system - cannot be overstated. His example, as
the leader of the state with the largest death row, laid the foundation for the
next chapter on ending capital punishment.
The history of the death penalty in the United States is long and shameful.
Governor Newsom, in announcing his order, cited well-documented racial bias in
death sentencing and the prevalence of wrongful convictions. He joins other
state leaders from both parties over 20 years who have shown tremendous moral
conviction in standing against capital punishment, which has repeatedly been
unjustly and unequally applied.
Colts Neck killings spur calls for death penalty in N.J.
“The Colts Neck murderer deserves nothing less than the death penalty,” one of
the legislators said.
I well recall the roots of this new era on capital punishment. It was 19 years
ago, in January 2000. I was soon to enter the U.S. Senate after running on a
platform that included working to end to the death penalty. A spate of innocent
people who had been sentenced to die had been released after evidence of their
innocence came to light. Thirteen of them were from Illinois, and the specter
of coming close to executing one of them shook Illinois Governor George Ryan to
his core. Ryan, a Republican, announced that he was suspending executions. It
was an unprecedented action for a Republican governor – or any governor – at a
time when public support for the death penalty was high.
Governor Ryan cited fairness and justice as the basis for his action, which
sparked the beginning of the end of the death penalty in America. Today, we
stand on the precipice of finishing the job.
2 years later, Maryland instituted the country’s second executive moratorium,
and then in 2005, New Jersey’s legislature followed suit with a bipartisan bill
that also created a blue ribbon commission to study the issue. Members included
families of murder victims, sitting prosecutors, a police chief, faith leaders,
and other leaders in our state. After months of careful study and public
hearings, the commission concluded that capital punishment must end in New
Jersey.
By 2007, as governor of New Jersey, I was honored to promote and then sign our
nation’s first bill to repeal the death penalty in the modern era of capital
punishment. I will always be grateful to those who fought for that day,
including the lead bill sponsors: Senators Christopher Bateman (R), Raymond
Lesniak (D), and Robert Martin (R), and Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D).
These public servants stood up for their ideals, and New Jersey is better for
their leadership.
The night of the bill signing, the Coliseum in Rome was bathed in light to
honor the step forward for our nation. The next day, editorials from red states
and blue states alike proclaimed the act historic, and presciently predicted
more states would follow.
In fact they did. New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and
Washington have all ended the death penalty since then. Executions are
suspended in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and now California.
The movement to end this injustice continues to be bipartisan. This year,
Wyoming came within a few votes of repealing the death penalty with strong
Republican support. In previous years, strong bi-partisan votes have emerged in
Utah, New Hampshire, and Louisiana. A little over a year ago, a national group
called Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty released a report
finding that Republican sponsorship of death penalty repeal legislation had
skyrocketed in recent years.
The death penalty is gasping its last, egregious breaths. Death sentences and
executions have plummeted. Just a fraction of states and counties use the death
penalty. Exonerations based on DNA and other evidence continue to demonstrate
how broken the system is.
All Americans should applaud Governor Newsom’s actions to bring California in
line with this national trend towards fairness, justice, and human rights.
Ending the death penalty is an essential reform on the way to a criminal
justice system that is worthy of our great nation. It fails by every measure of
justice and distracts from the needs of those who have been harmed. This failed
policy should end.
(source: Guest Columnist; Jon S. Corzine is the former governor of New Jersey.
He co-chairs the lawyers committee for the Judge John J Gibbons Fund for
Justice at Equal Justice USA (EJUSA), which funds EJUSA’s program to end the
death penalty----The Star-Ledger)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Lawmakers look to repeal death penalty in North Carolina
A group of lawmakers will file a bill in the NC House of Representatives on
Thursday to repeal the death penalty in the state.
Under House Bill 587, all current prisoners sentenced to North Carolina's death
row would be re-sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The bill's sponsors say nine people in North Carolina who were sentenced to
death were later found innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. The
sponsors also say that capital punishment is disproportionately imposed on the
poor, minority groups and the mentally disabled.
They also say the legal process for death penalty cases is costly, and that
studies have shown that capital punishment doesn't deter crime.
There are more than 140 people on death row in North Carolina, but the state
hasn't executed anyone since 2006. Some prosecutors say having capital
punishment as an option gives them move leverage when pressing cases against
certain suspects.
Rep. Graig Meyer, Rep. Maryann Black, and Rep. Zack Hawkins -- all Democrats --
are the primary sponsors of the repeal legislation, which faces an uncertain
future in the GOP-controlled General Assembly.
(source: WTVD news)
SOUTH CAROLINA:
The Death Penalty In South Carolina----“The system does not work …”
Earlier this week our news outlet kicked off a renewed discussion regarding the
ends and means of capital punishment in South Carolina. Of course “capital
punishment in South Carolina” is a poor choice of words, because as we have
consistently pointed out it doesn’t exist anymore.
South Carolina hasn’t executed an inmate since May of 2011 because state’s
Department of Corrections (SCDC) has been unable to purchase one of the drugs
used to perform lethal injections. No American company manufactures the
substance, and the European companies that produce it refuse to sell it in
America due to their opposition to capital punishment.
State lawmakers finally decided to address earlier this year. A bill sponsored
by state senator (and former solicitor) Greg Hembree is currently making its
way through the S.C. General Assembly. Hembree’s bill – S. 176 – would compel
death row inmates to choose between electrocution or a firing squad in the
event the drugs used to perform a lethal injection are not readily available.
The bill cleared the Senate over the objection of several Democratic lawmakers,
although it is currently “languishing in the House,” according to GOP senator
Katrina Shealy, one of the legislation’s supporters.
Do we support Hembree’s bill? Absolutely. In fact we have consistently called
for even harsher methods of execution to be employed in certain especially
heinous cases – such as the brutal murder of 21-year-old University of South
Carolina student Samantha Lee Josephson.
That case has shaken the Palmetto State to its core … and rightfully so.
Still, ending the death row logjam in South Carolina and beginning to ensure
that punishments more closely fit crimes is only part of the equation.
Expanding the available methods of execution won’t mean a damn thing if capital
punishment is never carried out.
That brings us to an article published last spring in The (Rock Hill, S.C.)
Herald by reporters Andrew Dys and Hannah Smoot.
In their story, Dys and Smoot interviewed S.C. sixteenth circuit solicitor
Kevin Brackett – who did not mince words in discussing his decision to seek
life imprisonment for Christian McCall, who pleaded guilty last May to the
murder of York County sheriff’s detective Mike Doty in January 2018.
South Carolina explicitly authorizes the death penalty in cases involving the
killing of cops, however Brackett explained to the family of the dead officer
that the appeals process for such a sentence could take decades.
He told them he would still push to put McCall on death row if they wanted him
to, but that they might “never get closure.”
They agreed … telling Brackett to make the deal for life imprisonment.
That’s what Brackett did, but in announcing the decision he did not hold back
in his criticism of capital punishment as currently configured in the Palmetto
State. Specifically, he called it a “sham,” citing the 1992 murder of York
County deputy Brent McCants. McCants’ killer – Mar-Reece Hughes – was convicted
and sentenced to death in 1995.
Twenty-seven years after committing this crime, Hughes remains on death row.
“The (death penalty) system does not work,” Brackett told Dys and Smoot. “The
death penalty is not a deterrent if it is never carried out. Either do away
with it or figure out a way to make it a real option.”
“I sent people to death row and nobody is even close to being executed,”
Brackett added.
We concur …
“There’s no point having a debate over the efficacy of capital punishment if it
is only going to be carried out once a year using the most genteel of methods,”
we wrote in the fall of 2017 in an expansive piece on criminal justice reform.
“There’s simply nothing to debate under these circumstances except that killing
someone in America (has become) a ticket to stardom and ‘three hots and a cot’
for life courtesy of the taxpayers.”
Again, as we noted earlier this week we are not naïve enough to believe the
mass reimposition/ expansion/ strengthening of capital punishment in South
Carolina would be a panacea for the epidemic of violent crime in our state.
Many other issues – most notably mental health – are in dire need of
addressing.
But it is abundantly clear, as Brackett said, that the current system is not
working – meaning justice is being denied to those who need it while judgment
(the best we can come up with on this side of the mortal coil, anyway) is being
withheld from those who richly deserve it.
We have said it before, we will say it again: Life is the indispensable
liberty. Either we are serious about protecting it or we are not. In South
Carolina, the answer to that question is painfully clear.
(source: FITSNews)
FLORIDA:
Marsy's Law was meant to protect crime victims. Lawyers say it may lead to an
innocent person's execution
One day after Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin took his first free steps last November
after spending more than a decade on death row, Florida voters passed Amendment
6 by a razor-thin margin.
But had the amendment, known as Marsy’s Law, been in place when Aguirre-Jarquin
was convicted and sentenced to die in 2006, he might still be in prison. A
provision of the law caps all death-penalty appeals at five years after the
beginning of an appeal.
Advocates for the law — versions of which have been passed in at least 10 other
states — say it was designed to protect people victimized by crime by placing
their rights “on the same legal level as the rights of the accused.” But
defense attorneys say Marsy’s Law could create chaos in the state’s court
system.
One provision in the amendment says “all state-level appeals ... must be
complete within 2 years from the date of appeal in non-capital cases and 5
years in capital cases,” unless a judge requests an extension with a specific
explanation for why the deadline could not be met. In Florida, capital cases
are felonies in which life imprisonment or the death penalty is an option,
including 1st-degree murder and certain sexual offenses.
Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, a Tampa-based lawyer and attorney for the Capital
Collateral Regional Counsel, an agency that represents death-row defendants,
described Marsy’s Law as a “well intentioned … but ill-conceived law that
doesn’t take into account some of the very genuine problems in the criminal
justice system.”
“There are so many problems with the criminal justice system in Florida,”
Parmer said. “It’s underfunded and courts and prosecutors are overburdened.
This law will just add to that burden — and at the same time deny people who
are wrongfully convicted justice.”
This provision creates a substantial risk that an innocent person can be
executed. — Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer
Aguirre-Jarquin was convicted and sentenced to die in 2006 for the stabbing
murders of his next-door neighbors, Cheryl Williams and her mother, Carol
Bareis, 2 years prior. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a new trial in 2016,
based in part on testimony that Williams’ daughter, Samantha, had repeatedly
confessed to the killings. She has not been charged with a crime in her
relatives’ deaths.
The Seminole-Brevard State Attorney’s Office dropped the case in the middle of
jury selection for Aguirre-Jarquin’s re-trial after testimony emerged casting
doubt on Samantha Williams’ alibi the night of the killings.
Florida has seen more death-row exonerations than any other state in the
country, with 29 people having been absolved from the state’s capital
punishment since 1973. Just last week, Clifford Williams Jr. was exonerated
after being wrongfully convicted of murder in Jacksonville in 1976. He had
spent 43 years on death row.
Of the 29 people absolved from the state’s death row, 15 were released from
prison at least five years after their conviction — after their appeals may
have been exhausted under Marsy’s Law, according to the Death Penalty
Information Center, a nonprofit organization that analyzes capital punishment
in the United States.
“This provision creates a substantial risk that an innocent person can be
executed, or that an innocent person can spend the rest of their life in prison
on a noncapital case,” Parmer said. “There are certainly more Clemente Aguirres
out there — and it took more than 14 years for him to be released.”
Paul Hawkes, a former judge on Florida’s First District Court of Appeal and
lobbyist for Marsy’s Law for Florida, a political organization that backed the
amendment, said the provision limiting capital appeals is simply a “reporting
mechanism” requiring judges to notify the Florida Legislature of any delays in
an appeals process.
The provision, Hawkes said, “doesn’t require completion [of an appeal]. It
requires reporting and it requires reporting with the thought that when there
is reporting, people are more careful.”
Frank Bankowitz, an Orlando-based attorney who has defended more than 20
death-penalty cases, including Aguirre-Jarquin’s, also said he believed the law
has the potential to “wreak havoc on the courts.”
“We don’t have enough judges to hear the cases or attorneys to handle them,”
Bankowitz said.
Bankowitz said becoming an attorney qualified to defend death-penalty cases is
an extensive process, and the issue is compounded by the fact that only one
attorney is assigned to each death-penalty appeal. “You don’t have enough
qualified appellate attorneys to handle them,” he said.
“I have no idea why they tacked that provision in there,” Bankowitz said. “I
don’t think it affects one way or another the rights of crime victims —
Florida’s already had victims’ rights.”
But Hawkes argued Marsy’s Law will benefit victims and death row inmates alike:
victims, because “everybody likes finality ... victims especially;” and
inmates, because death row “is a miserable place to live and they ought not to
be there if they’re not going to be executed.”
“I don’t think it will overburden. I don’t think judges will neglect their
duties. I don’t think as a consequence innocent people will be executed — but I
do think it will show victims that we do care,” Hawkes said.
Aside from the capital-appeal cap provision, law enforcement agencies across
the state have reported confusion on how to implement another provision of
Marsy’s Law, which grants victims the right “to prevent the disclosure of
information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the
victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information
of the victim.”
The Florida Times-Union reported Monday that authorities in Jacksonville have
stopped reporting the location of where some crimes were committed. The agency
has also stopped identifying alleged victims, a practice the Times-Union said
law-enforcement agencies in other states with Marsy’s Law have reported has
hindered their ability to generate tips to solve crimes, because authorities
are prevented from releasing information pertaining to the case.
Agencies in Central Florida are also redacting information that was previously
publicly available.
“The Orange County Sheriff’s Office recognizes a victim’s right to have
identifying information withheld,” spokeswoman Michelle Guido said in an email
Tuesday. “This applies retroactively. It can be requested by a victim in any
crime or it can be offered by, for example, a deputy or detective.”
The Orlando Police Department said Tuesday the agency allows victims to request
that identifiable information be made confidential, a policy that has been in
effect since January. The agency does not track how many victims have requested
confidentiality citing Marsy’s Law, spokesman Sgt. David Baker said.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office declined to identify
victims in two shootings the agency publicized in press releases. “We are
protecting the identity of our victims per Florida’s Amendment 6,” spokesman
Kevin McGinley said in an email when asked why the agency was withholding the
victims’ names.
Spokespeople for Seminole Sheriff Dennis Lemma and Orange County Mayor Jerry
Demings, both of whom are listed as endorsers of the amendment on the Marsy’s
Law for Florida website, did not immediately return requests for comment this
week regarding their support for the amendment.
(source: Orlando Sentinel)
_______________________________________________
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
