Sept. 29
MISSOURI:
State Supreme Court hears arguments in appeal of reinstated death penalty
The state Supreme Court's considering arguments in an appeal of a 2nd death
sentence of a man convicted of killing 2 people 16 years ago.
Michael Tisius was granted a new penalty phase trial after originally being
sentenced to death in 2001. In 2010, Tisius was again sentenced to die after
the state claimed he was a threat to kill other inmates during the time he was
awaiting the new penalty trial.
His attorney before the Supreme Court, Public Defender Bill Swift, claimed the
lawyer in the second penalty trial failed to contest the state's argument that
his possession of a boot shank was proof he would harm other inmates. "He
admitted that he possessed this boot shank" said Swift. "But he did not admit
the intention that was attributed to him by the state in the penalty phase that
he intended to use it in a harmful manner. What he admitted to doing was
possessing it because he was coerced by a cell-mate to hold onto it." Charles
Hurt is the cellmate Swift claims Tisius feared. A boot shank is a piece of
metal inside boots which have been fashioned into a knife.
Other evidence the state used to reinforce its case in the 2nd penalty phase
included a statement attributed to Tisius by a jail guard, suggesting he
bragged about the murder he'd been convicted of, and a 3rd incident where
Tisius mimicked holding a gun aimed at a jail guard.
Before the state's high court Wednesday, Swift claimed Tisius' lawyer in the
2nd penalty phase neglected to bring up fears expressed by Tisius. "In fact,
counsel had information that he'd often requested to be in protective custody
because he feared for his life from other inmates." State attorney Richard
Starns claimed the strength of the evidence backs up the ruling, regardless of
the lawyer's performance. "The evidence wasn't wrong said Starns. "Appellant
(Tisius) just believes another inference should be raised from it. That's not
sufficient to show reasonable probability of a different result in the trial."
Tisius was first convicted of killing Randolph County jailers Leon Egly and
Jason Acton in 2000 during a botched jail break.
Early in 2000, Tisuis and Roy Vance were cellmates in the facility, which is
located in Huntsville, Missouri. Tisius was serving a 30 day term. Vance told
him he was in jail for 50 years. Tisius and Vance then discussed scenarios
where Tisius would return to the facility to help Vance escape.
Upon his release, Tisius contacted Vance's girlfriend, Tracie Bulington, who
expressed interest in helping with the jailbreak.
On June 15th, 2000 Tisius and Bulington were admitted into the Randolph County
Jail where they told officers they were delivering cigarettes to Vance.
It was shortly afterward that Tisuis pulled a gun he was hiding in his pants
and shot both officers.
Tisius is currently being held at the maximum-security Potosi Corrections
Center in Mineral Point while the Supreme Court considers his 2nd death penalty
appeal. Bulington is serving 2 life sentences in Chillicothe after being
convicted of 2 counts of 2nd degree murder. Roy Vance is serving a life
sentence without parole at Potosi.
(source: missourinet.com)
NEW MEXICO:
'Guilty' needs death penalty to keep NM's officers safe
For the family, friends and fellow officers of slain Rio Rancho police officer
Gregg "Nigel" Benner, the fact the jury dealt with his killer last week by
delivering a guilty verdict in just 3 hours was likely cold comfort.
As is the fact Andrew Romero will die in prison.
And while it won't bring back Benner, a military veteran who was shot by Romero
last Memorial Day during a traffic stop, reinstituting the death penalty for
those who kill law enforcement officers would not only force such murderers to
face the death sentences they have single-handedly delivered, but common sense
and New Mexico history dictate that it would act as a deterrent. Nothing else
will for this hardened class of criminal.
Back in 1980, during the infamous State Penitentiary riot, 33 inmates were
gruesomely murdered, but all guards taken hostage survived. Killing a New
Mexico prison employee in 1980 meant the death penalty.
In 1987, convicted mass-murderer William Wayne Gilbert led the escape of 6
other New Mexico inmates out of the pen's maximum security unit and shot a
prison guard in the shoulder. Considering his death sentence had been commuted
by then-Gov. Toney Anaya the year prior, there is strong reason to believe he
did not shoot to kill or finish the job because killing a prison employee in
1987 meant the death penalty.
In 2001, prisoner-for-life Matthew Griffin, aka the ninja bandit, explained
that when he attacked a State Penitentiary employee, "I wasn't trying to cut
his throat. ... I was just trying to maim him" because killing a New Mexico
prison employee in 2001 meant the death penalty.
And in 2002, a shank-wielding Sierra County Detention Center inmate took guard
Marylyn Crawford prisoner and cut, but did not kill, her. Killing a prison
employee in 2002 meant the death penalty.
In 2009, the state Legislature passed and Gov. Bill Richardson, who was a
political convert while seeking the Democratic nomination for president, signed
the law abolishing the death penalty in New Mexico, replacing it with a maximum
sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
And Benner, along with Hatch officer Jose Chavez, Albuquerque officer Daniel
Webster, Alamogordo officer Clint Corvinus, Farmington officer Victoria Chavez
and Sandoval County Sgt. Joseph Harris have all been shot and killed since.
Gov. Susana Martinez is calling for lawmakers to reinstate the death penalty in
New Mexico for murderers of police officers, corrections officers and children.
She is correct in saying that "a society that fails to adequately protect and
defend those who protect all of us is a society that will be undone and
unsafe."
Just ask the families, friends and fellow officers of Benner, Chavez, Webster,
Corvinus, Chavez and Harris.
(source: This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was
written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the
opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers)
COLORADO:
The insanity of once again considering the death penalty in Colorado
Re: "Arraignment continued for man accused in Centennial rampage as death
penalty, insanity plea are weighed," Sept. 23 news story.
Once again, we read that 18th Judicial District's District Attorney George
Brauchler may seek the death penalty, this time against Kevin Lee Lyons, whose
lawyers are already positioning for an insanity plea. One would think this DA
would have learned a few lessons via the James Holmes prosecution, which cost
taxpayers many millions of dollars, only to reach a verdict no better (and
arguably worse) than what Holmes' defense lawyers had offered as a plea bargain
virtually on day one of that case. Colorado jury instructions heavily disfavor
capital punishment by essentially giving any single juror a power of veto - and
in the broader context, for a great many years, no one on Colorado's death row
has been put to death, as every such case becomes mired in decades of
subsequent appeals and other legal maneuvering.
Peter Ehrlich, Denver
(source: Letter to the Editor, Denver Post)
MONTANA:
Death Penalty ---- Manipulating a witness?
The ACLU says Attorney General Tim Fox has some explaining to do.
Confronted with a challenge to the state's lethal injection cocktail, the
Department of Justice leaned on a controversial medical expert last year to
argue the sedative it planned to use to kill 2 death row inmates would work as
quickly as Montana law requires. But Auburn School of Pharmacy Dean Lee Evans
didn't say what state attorneys needed him to - at least not initially.
Evans' evolving testimony became a central issue at trial, ultimately
backfiring when a Helena judge struck down the drug protocol in October 2015
and effectively put a moratorium on the death penalty in Montana. Now the
parties who won the case think they know why Evans seemed to change his
professional opinion: because Fox's attorneys told him to.
That's what evidence uncovered after trial suggests, they allege in March
filings. 6 months later, they're still awaiting a judge's order so they can try
to prove it.
"This is a death penalty matter," says ACLU Montana Legal Director Jim Taylor.
"If in fact somebody manipulated a witness, that's something everybody needs to
know."
The case, Smith v. Batista, hinged on whether a drug known as pentobarbital and
commonly used to euthanize pets works in the "ultra-fast acting" manner
required by state law. In his 1st expert witness disclosure before trial, Evans
did not address the "ultra-fast acting" definition, instead calling
pentobarbital a "short acting" drug. A month later, he filed a second, shorter
disclosure stating pentobarbital "could be" considered ultra-fast acting.
Lewis and Clark County District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock questioned the
reliability of Evans' testimony in issuing his decision in the case, noting
discrepancies in his statements about the drug's speed and classification.
Sherlock wasn't the 1st person puzzled by Evans. One of the only medical
professionals still willing to testify on behalf of states defending their
lethal injection protocols, Evans has been criticized by his peers and U.S.
Supreme Court justices for relying on consumer website Drugs.com for parts of
his testimony. The Montana DOJ contracted with Evans in 2015 after its previous
expert witness quit consulting on death penalty litigation.
After the trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs discovered deposition statements
Evans made in a separate case in Tennessee in which he acknowledges that he
doesn't classify pentobarbital as "ultra-fast acting." The inmates' attorneys
raised the issue with Fox's office, which "discussed the concerns at the
executive team level" and took "appropriate actions" with the lawyers who
represented the state on the case, according to a DOJ email included in court
documents. The state has refused to say more.
The plaintiffs are awaiting a judge's ruling that could force the department to
hand over records of its communication with Evans as well as its internal
investigation. Taylor says if someone in Fox's office did improperly instruct
Evans to change his testimony, the state would be liable for attorneys' fees
and the case never would have gone to trial.
In a statement, DOJ spokeswoman Anastasia Burton describes the claims as
"unsupported" and calls the plaintiffs' motion "an inappropriate attempt to
extend this litigation, in the context of increasing their attorney fees."
Evans was paid $14,350 for his expert witness testimony last year, Burton says.
The state has severed ties with him.
(source: The Missoula Independent)
CALIFORNIA:
S.B. Attorney Helps Write Initiative to Repeal Death Penalty----Bob Sanger Says
the System Is So Broken it Can't Be Fixed
Among Santa Barbara criminal defense attorneys, Bob Sanger's about as
ubiquitous as they get. Now he's about to become even more so. Come November 8,
voters statewide will confront a ballot initiative bearing the whorls and
swirls of Sanger's intellectual and ideological fingerprints.
It's a big one. If passed, Proposition 62 would effectively abolish the death
penalty in California. In its stead??- ?by default??-??would be life without
the possibility of parole, also known as LWOP. At a League of Women Voters
forum last week, Sanger disclosed he was 1 of 3 attorneys to author Prop. 62,
while minimizing his role in the same breath. "I played a very minor role, but
a role nonetheless," he said, "and a role of which I'm proud.
To courthouse watchers, Sanger's opposition to the death penalty comes as no
surprise. Indefatigable and outspoken in court, he's been equally outspoken
outside the halls of justice, working with statewide organizations like Focus
on Death Penalty for nearly 23 years. Sanger was involved 4 years ago, when
voters last decided whether to uphold the death penalty in the guise of Prop.
34. That effort, he told those attending the forum, came up just a couple of
points short of victory. Part of that measure, he said, called for the
abolition of the death penalty. But it did more. The money saved - roughly $150
million a year - would then be spent on more cops. "Our message was a little
mixed," he said. "We were doing too many things. And some people who opposed
the death penalty didn't want more police on the streets."
This time, Sanger said, the measure was crafted to be as simple as possible. He
and 2 other attorneys - Paula Mitchell and Mary Broderick - painstakingly
sifted through all the California criminal codes and excised any mention of
death penalty. Mitchell and Broderick, he stressed, did the heavy lifting.
Prop. 62 also includes language stating that those convicted of what otherwise
would be death-penalty-eligible offenses would have to work while incarcerated,
and the proceeds would go to compensating victims' families.
Sanger starts with the premise that the death penalty simply does not work in
California and cannot be reformed. Of the 746 inmates on death row, 46 have not
seen an attorney at all and 260 have yet to see an attorney about their habeas
case, referring to the legal spadework necessary to challenge any aspect of
their conviction or sentencing. The state of Illinois concluded 15 years ago
that roughly 10 % of its death-row population had been wrongfully convicted. By
the same measurement, California would have nearly 75 innocent people waiting
for execution.
A massive study of capital punishment in California concluded in 2011 that the
death penalty was no deterrent to violent crime, with the average inmate
serving 30 years or more on death row, and nearly 4 times as many inmates dying
of natural causes than actual execution. That report concluded a typical
execution costs taxpayers $380 million.
Death-penalty advocates have seized on the same dysfunction as Sanger, but
they've come up with a resoundingly different solution. They've crafted Prop.
66, which would streamline the appeal process and vastly expand the pool of
eligible defense attorneys. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office,
these changes could cost taxpayers "tens of millions of dollars a year" at
first as the changes take place, and then save an equal amount down the road if
and when the legal infrastructure is in place to handle the intensely expanded
caseload.
Sanger is just as passionate in his opposition to Prop. 66 as he is in his
support of Prop. 62, which he insists would accelerate the risk of the
genuinely innocent being executed. Polling to date has been contradictory. A
recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times in conjunction with USC
indicates 51 % of respondents oppose Prop. 62. Sanger refers instead to a
recent Field Poll indicating Prop. 62 gets more than 50 % support. But when the
people are asked about Prop. 66, even more respond affirmatively.
Sanger has been trying death-penalty-eligible cases for nearly 40 years. Not
one, he said, has ever been sent to death row. As November draws closer, Sanger
is hoping for the best. "Given the craziness of this particular election," he
said, "anything can happen."
(source: The Santa Barbara Independent)
*******************
Guilty verdict in murder of retired Hercules teacher
A jury late Wednesday convicted a Southern California man of murdering
55-year-old Susie Ko in her Hercules home, making him eligible for the death
penalty.
Darnell Washington, 28, was convicted of 1st-degree murder and a slew of other
charges and enhancements for the 2012 murder of Ko, who was beaten and stabbed
with a knife and the barrel of a shotgun. A month before her death, Washington
escaped from San Bernardino County jail, beginning a roughly 6-week crime spree
that ended with Washington and his wife, Tania, being arrested in Washington
state.
The verdict was announced roughly a week before the 4-year anniversary of Ko's
death. She was a popular retired kindergarten teacher and married mother of 4,
who spent her last day on earth home alone, working on a gardening project. She
and her husband were scheduled to go abroad for vacation the day after she was
killed.
"I'm happy," Susie Ko's husband, Kelvin, said in a brief statement to
reporters. "It's been a long trial."
Dressed in a gray suit, with his elbows on the defense table, Darnell
Washington showed little reaction as the clerk read the verdicts. At one point,
he whispered something to his defense attorney, Tim Ahearn. Next, the jury must
decide whether Washington should be sentenced to death.
More than a dozen friends and family members of Susie Ko were in the courtroom
Wednesday. Her son, Simon, an accomplished artist, has taken sketches
throughout the trial, and also did so for the verdict reading.
The reading of the verdict took roughly 30 minutes, as jurors were polled on
the guilty verdict, for the murder of Ko, burglarizing her Hercules home,
carjacking her blue Subaru, robbing her and a K-Mart in Pinole earlier in the
day, along with several enhancement charges. The 12 jurors cumulatively
answered "yes" more than 200 times, as the court clerk asked each of them if
guilty was their true verdict.
Neither attorney in the case, nor other members of Ko's family, commented to
reporters after the verdict. But a friend of the family who attended, Hercules
Mayor Dan Romero, talked about what it meant to him.
"Susie Ko will always live through her children and her grandchildren," Romero
said. "As far as Darnell Washington, Darnell is a devil of destruction; we know
for a fact he's a loving son to his mom, yet he unleashed this violence on this
loving wife, mother and grandmother of 3. It's hard to understand how a person
who could be that loving to his mom could do what he did to Susie Ko."
(source: East Bay Times)
USA:
Jury for Dylann Roof's federal trial will be chosen from pool of 748 people
Some 748 prospective jurors in the upcoming Dylann Roof federal death penalty
trial have been picked to go on to a second, more intensive, phase of jury
screening that will begin Nov. 7.
The 748 who survived the initial screening process this week were picked over a
2 1/2 day period that began Monday in a small federal courtroom in Charleston.
About 3,000 were initially summoned for this week's screening process. Federal
Judge Richard Gergel had said he would like to come up with a pool of 700
potential jurors.
This week's screening went faster than expected. By around noon Wednesday, the
court had surpassed that goal and wound up with 748 - a number that should be
more than enough to produce a final jury panel of 12 jurors and 6 alternates.
Reasons some potential jurors were excused this week included child care or
work-related duties.
The 748 who survived the initial screening this week have filled out extensive
questionnaires about their lives and any reservations they might have about
being deciding on a death penalty, should Roof eventually be found guilty and
the trial move on to a sentencing phase.
Between now and Nov. 7, prosecutors and Roof's defense attorneys will study the
completed questionnaires. From those, lawyers will develop additional questions
and submit them to Gergel, who will then, beginning Nov. 7, question the
prospective jurors 1 at a time as attorneys watch and possibly submit more
questions.
Roof, 22, a white supremacist from Columbia, is charged with various federal
hate crimes and obstruction of religion resulting in death in the June 2015 gun
slayings of 9 African-Americans at a Charleston's historic "Mother" AME Emanuel
Church.
(source: thestate.com)
************************************
We should have death row inmates fight like gladiators for freedom
You might be surprised to know that in the United States, it costs tens of
millions of dollars to house convicted felons in prison - and on top of that,
it costs tens of millions more to house prisoners on death row. As reported by
Forbes, the state of California alone spent more than $1 billion between 1978
and 2011 on the incarceration of death-penalty prisoners. Lifetime
incarceration of such people costs California alone $11.5 million per person.
According to Forbes, "State spending on corrections, including prisons, has
nearly quadrupled over the past 2 decades; it is now the fastest-growing budget
item after Medicaid." Think of other worthwhile things this fortune in taxpayer
money could fund: education, roads, mental health services, public safety
programs, etcetera.
I have a solution. I wish I could claim originality for it, but many others
have thought of it first. In fact, a good number of science-fiction and
alternate-realty books and movies have put it forward - such as The Condemned,
Running Man, Gamer, Tenth Victim, and Death Race. Even Suicide Squad counts,
flirting with the idea of using talents of criminals for another purpose. And,
of course, we can also look at history for the grandest, real-life example on a
very large scale: gladiator combat in the ancient Roman arenas. What am I
talking about? Fighting to the death between condemned prisoners - for the
entertainment of the public.
Think about it. The largest building in the ancient world (next to the Egyptian
pyramids) was the Colosseum, opened in Rome in A.D. 80 and was in operation
until around A.D. 520. There were many arenas in the Empire, but this was the
largest; it could seat at least 50,000 people, and had events on many days
throughout the year. Tickets to the Colosseum were free to Roman citizens,
though you had to sit in the sections marked for your class. In the mornings
they had animal fights, and at noon they had public executions, generally
throwing the prisoners to wild beasts. But, in the afternoons, they had the
ever-popular gladiator fights.
Life in Rome could be cruel; certainly. In general, life in the ancient world
was very hard. Malnutrition, wild animals, war, crime, and disease were
everywhere. As Keith Hopkins wrote in his book Death and Renewal: Sociological
Studies in Roman History, "the popularity of gladiatorial shows were part of
this culture of war, discipline, and death. Rome was a militaristic society.
For centuries it had been devoted to war and mass participation of citizens in
battle ... public executions were a gruesome reminder to non-combatants, fellow
citizens, or subjects, that vengeance would be exacted if they betrayed their
country, rebelled, or were convicted of serious crimes."
According to Encyclopedia Romana, the public execution of those who committed
various transgressions, including being convicted of heinous crimes, vividly
demonstrated the consequences of those actions. Per the encyclopedia, "In a
society that was deeply stratified, the usurpation of 'undeserved rights' could
be rectified only by public degradation and death." Having rejected civilized
society, the criminal no longer could claim his or her protection. "In publicly
witnessing such punishment, citizens were reassured that the proper social
order had been restored." The gladiatorial games in the arena reaffirmed and
reestablished the moral and political order of things, that civilization
triumphed over the barbarian, over the enemy, and over the outlaw.
Today, the blood lust of the Roman spectators, the brutality of the combat, and
the callous deaths of men and animals disturb our sensibilities.
Or do they?
Some people have referred to the United States as "the New Rome," for a number
of reasons. One of those reasons might be that, in modern times, our society
seems to like violence just fine. Witness the popularity of stadium or
televised events such as boxing (for many years, my great-grandfather would
never miss watching "Friday Night at the Fights" on black-and-white TV),
roller-derby, ice hockey (you know, fighting where a game occasionally breaks
out), rugby, mixed-martial arts, World Wrestling Federation events and, of
course, football. American football. "Stuff the quarterback" football.
So, back to my solution. Let's have convicted prisoners on death row fight each
other, publicly, to the death. Heck, in the spirit of capitalism and liberty,
let's have brave members of the public compete if they think they could make a
career out of it. This would serve many good purposes: it would give
well-deserved justice to evildoers, it would eliminate such criminals from
incarceration, saving millions of dollars, and it would provide huge
entertainment to the masses. It might also generate revenue with ticket sales.
After all, why shouldn't we be more advanced than the Romans and not give such
entertainment away for free?
All prisoners would have to be volunteers, of course, if we wish to be more
civilized than the Romans and honor the 8th Amendment, which protects against
cruel and unusual punishment. The motivation to sign up would be earning
amenities and privileges for fighting well, with the exception of their
freedom.
Think of it. What if we could match up Charles Manson and Son-of-Sam? Jeffrey
Dahmer and John Gacy? What about the Aurora theater shooter and the surviving
Boston Marathon bomber? The arenas would be full. The television audience would
be ginormous. The Pay-Per-View revenue would be staggering.
What are we waiting for?
(source: Opinion; Micah Maffeo----The (Colo. State Univ.) Collegian)
_______________________________________________
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
