[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----S.DAK., COLO., ARIZ., USA, US MIL.
May 29 SOUTH DAKOTA: SD High Court Hears Death Sentence Appeal For the 2nd time, a convicted killer's death sentence is in front of South Dakota's Supreme Court. Rodney Berget won an element of his 1st appeal to the high court, but his attorney returns with arguments that the process and procedures of his sentencing aren't fair. Rodney Berget's attorney begins speaking to 5 justices on the bench in South Dakota's Supreme Courtroom with an acknowledgement that the Court doesn't embrace this appeal. Jeff Larson says he submitted petitions, briefs and a request for oral arguments, which the high court denied. But statute says, when the sentence is capital punishment, the parties shall have the right to present oral argument. "A motion to reconsider denial of oral argument was filed with the court. Although we have never received a ruling on this, we did 2 days later receive a letter from the clerk stating the request for oral argument had been granted," Larson says. "So I stand here before you today facing the dilemma of presenting an oral argument you, as a Court, have already indicated you do not want to hear." Larson has been here representing Rodney Berget before. His earlier appearance in front of the state Supreme Court resulted in the court siding with the state on 11 of 12 issues. Berget's guilty plea to the murder of correctional officer Ron Johnson during an escape attempt from the state penitentiary 3 years ago stands. Aggravating factors exist that make the death penalty a legal punishment in South Dakota. But convicted killer Rodney Berget won on one issue. The high court said trial Judge Bradley Zell should not have considered a psychiatric report in determining punishment, so the Supreme Court ordered Zell to re-sentence Berget without that piece of evidence. Zell did that, and he resentenced Rodney Berget to death. Now Attorney Jeff Larson argues that his client deserves a new sentencing from a new judge for 3 primary reasons. Larson says the 1st is that the more recent sentencing didn't allow Berget to offer evidence that could mitigate some of the grave factors working against him. Larson says one is that Berget now has a meaningful relationship with his son. "Rodney Berget knew he had a son. He always assumed his son knew that Rodney was his father and had stayed away because of Rodney's problems with the law," Larson says. "After these hearings became public, his son learned that Rodney was his father, the 1st time he had learned that. His son's family sought us out. There is now a relationship." Larson says the lower court followed the Supreme Court's instructions and didn't believe it could consider that new mitigating factor. Larson claims the relationship speaks to Berget's character and intrinsic worth - and that it indicates he could lead a constructive life in prison. Assistant Attorney General Paul Swedlund says that isn't enough. He says Berget knew of his son for more than 3 decades, and he can't sit on mitigating evidence to bring it up later. Swedlund says Berget failed to follow a legal path to incorporating the evidence of his familial ties. "When his rehearing petition was denied, he did not tell this Court, 'I have this evidence, and I need to put it in.' In being coy with the Court about what his remand evidence was in his rehearing petition, he waived any further right to present that evidence," Swedlund says. Even if this was an oversight, Swedlund calls not acknowledging Berget's new family relationship...harmless. He says it can't possibly outweigh the mountain of aggravating evidence that is the foundation of Berget's sentence of death. In another element, Attorney Jeff Larson says the statute the Supreme Court cited for the resentencing doesn't apply, but Assistant Attorney General Paul Swedlund says that doesn't really matter, because the Supreme Court - simply because it is the top court - has inherent authority to direct lower bodies. Rodney Berget's lawyer Jeff Larson has another primary argument for his client. Larson says the re-sentencing violated Berget's rights. He says Judge Zell's decision to resentence Berget without a hearing stripped him of his ability to make a statement on his own behalf and to be present in person when a sentence is rendered. Justice Steven Zinter questions Larson. ZINTER: The court asked if you wanted any other hearings at the remand hearing, and you didn't indicate you wanted to reallocute it. LARSON: I think the question is, Do you want any other hearings about the Supreme Court's directive? I think is what was said. I can tell you I don't think I presumed that my client was going to be sentenced to death without seeing the judge face-to-face.<>P> The state counters that point. Assistant Attorney General Paul Swedlund cites the federal counterpart to state law. "A defendant need only be present when his sentence is made more onerous or w
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, CONN., PENN., DEL., S.C., GA., FLA.
May 29 TEXAS: Condemned Texas inmate loses Supreme Court appeal The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review an appeal from condemned Texas inmate Duane Buck, whose supporters contend his death sentence decided by a Houston jury 17 years ago unfairly was based on race. "His death sentence is the product of pervasive racial discrimination," attorneys Christina Swarns, Kathryn Kase and Kate Black said in a statement Wednesday. Without comment, the high court Tuesday rejected Buck's appeal. The ruling was an appeal of a similar rejection in November from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court. Buck, 50, was convicted of capital murder and sent to death row for the slaying of his ex-girlfriend and a man at her Houston apartment in July 1995. During the punishment phase of Buck's 1997 trial, psychologist Walter Quijano testified under cross-examination by a Harris County prosecutor that black people were more likely to commit violence. Advocates for Buck, who is black, say that unfairly influenced jurors, who in Texas capital cases must decide when deliberating a death sentence whether an offender would be a continuing threat. Quijano, called as a defense witness, had testified earlier that Buck's personality and the nature of his crime, committed during rage, indicated he would be less of a future danger. Buck's lawyers also insisted Wednesday that Texas "violated his due process and equal protection rights by reneging on its promise to ensure that Mr. Buck received a new, fair sentencing." Buck's case was among 6 in 2000 that then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, now a Republican U.S. senator, said needed to be reopened because of racially charged statements made during the trial sentencing phase. In the other 5 cases, new punishment hearings were held and each convict again was sentenced to death. The attorney general's office has argued Buck's case was factually and legally different from the five others and that Buck's trial lawyers first elicited the testimony from the psychologist. They also said the racial reference was a small part of larger testimony about prison populations. Buck does not have an execution date. He was in a 6-hour window for a lethal injection scheduled for September 2011 when the Supreme Court halted the punishment. His lawyers now are in a federal court in Houston arguing the performance of his trial attorneys and lawyers early in his appeals was "wholly inappropriate" and that he's entitled to a new punishment trial. State lawyers are opposing the appeal. Buck was convicted of gunning down ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner, 32, and Kenneth Butler, 33, a week after Buck and Gardner broke up. Buck's stepsister also was shot but survived. (source: Associated Press) CONNECTICUT: Sentencing Death After the Death Penalty's Repeal In 2012, Connecticut repealed the death penalty for crimes committed after the law was changed. That doesn't mean more people won't end up on death row. A man convicted of a 2006 triple murder was sentenced to death last week. On the one hand, the law seems clear. If you committed a crime before the law was repealed, and that crime qualified for the death penalty, you may still get sentenced to die. If you commit a crime today, the worst fate you can face is life in prison. Mike Lawlor, the governor's undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning, said on WNPR's Where We Live that Connecticut isn't the only state to have passed what's called a prospective repeal of the death penalty. "Of the 6 states that have repealed the death penalty in the last few years," he said, "all of them did it prospectively. There's nothing unique to Connecticut." Then there's this issue: Lawlor said Connecticut uses lethal injection, but it doesn't have any drugs to inject. "Just to be clear," Lawlor said, "Connecticut doesn't have the drugs that were traditionally used in lethal injection, because they were manufactured in Europe, [and] the manufacturer has basically banned their use for this purpose. The states that have conducted executions have sort of improvised going to these compounding factories. At the moment, we don't have a drug that can be used for this purpose. If and when the time comes, we'll have to figure out how to obtain such a drug." Not long ago, Oklahoma officials botched the execution of a man by lethal injection and that protocol is now under review. The idea that any of the people on Connecticut's death row will be executed seems slim, regardless of when they committed their crime. Lawlor said that only two people have been put to death by the state in more than 50 years, and they both volunteered. (source: WNPR) PENNSYLVANIA: Pa. Supreme Court Denies Baumhammers' Appeal The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the prosecution in the case of convicted mass murderer Richard Baumhammers. But th
