Nov. 4
TEXAS:
Fort Worth man guilty of capital murder in deaths of boy, 2 women
A Fort Worth man was found guilty of capital murder Thursday for shooting his
pregnant girlfriend, her 10-year-old brother and their 39-year-old mother.
Amos Joseph Wells III elected to not to have anyone testify on his behalf in
the guilt/innocence phase of his case, paving the way for the Tarrant County
jury to begin deliberations.
Wells, 26, was accused of killing his estranged 22-year-old pregnant
girlfriend, Chanice Reed; her mother, Annette Reed, 39; and Chanice's
10-year-old brother, Eddie McCuin Jr., inside the family's east Fort Worth
house on July 1, 2013.
Wells just shook his head as one of his relatives stormed out of the courtroom
crying and shouting: "You all are just murderers. No DNA. Just murderers."
Tarrant County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. A defense motion
asking the court to set aside the death penalty was denied July 13. The jury
was released for the remainder of Thursday and instructed to return to the
courtroom Friday to begin hearing evidence in the punishment phase.
In his closing arguments, Tarrant County Prosecutor Kevin Rousseau told jurors
there should be no doubt in their minds that Wells was guilty of killing
Annette and Chanice Reed.
Rousseau projected the evidence of the defendant's guilt on a screen under the
label "Amos Wells is Guilty" and showed it to the jury. Among the evidence was
the fact that 12 shells were missing from a box of ammunition found in Wells'
room - the exact number of shells used at the residence where first responders
found the 3 mortally wounded victims.
Prosecutors also showed the jury that all the bullets came from the same type
of handgun authorities believe were used in the slayings.
Wells surrendered to Forest Hill police, asking to be shot and killed,
prosecutors said.
(source: Fort Worth Star Telegram)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Kevin Murphy execution date for 3 murders set, quickly stayed
State Corrections Secretary John Wetzel signed a notice of execution Wednesday
for an Indiana County man convicted in 2013 of 1st-degree murder for shooting
his mother, sister and aunt just seven months after the state Supreme Court
upheld his death sentence.
However, department of corrections documents indicate the death warrant setting
Kevin Murphy's execution for Dec. 19 was almost immediately stayed this
morning, allowing the 55-year-old a chance to appeal.
The state Supreme Court upheld Murphy's death sentence in March. A Westmoreland
County jury convicted him of shooting Doris Murphy, 69; Kris Murphy, 43; and
Edith Tietge, 81, at Ferguson Glass in Loyalhanna Township on April 23, 2009.
The 3 women worked at the family business, which Kevin Murphy owned.
Murphy used a .22-caliber revolver to shoot the women in the head because they
disapproved of his romantic relationship with a married woman and didn't want
her live at the family home near Saltsburg, police said.
The jury imposed the death penalty for Doris Murphy's killing and imposed life
sentences in the deaths of Kris Murphy and Tietge.
In prior appeals, Murphy has argued prosecutors failed to prove he was the
killer and the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
In a 14-page last spring, 5 Supreme Court justices disagreed.
"Viewed in its totality, we find the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence
to enable a reasonable jury to find all elements of the crimes of 1st-degree
murder beyond a reasonable doubt," they said in an opinion authored by Chief
Justice Thomas Saylor.
Jurors imposed the death penalty based on evidence Murphy "deliberately and
maliciously" killed his relatives, according to the opinion, and prosecutors
"plainly established ... aggravating circumstances found by the jury, given the
multiple killings involved."
Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue and Kevin M. Dougherty joined
in the opinion. Justice David N. Wecht did not participate in the proceedings.
Gary Heidnik was the last person to be executed in Pennsylvania in 1999 for
murdering 2 women he had imprisoned and tortured in the basement of his
Philadelphia home.
Murphy is incarcerated at SCI Greene in Waynesburg.
(source: triblive.com)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Black juror's dismissal, death penalty revisited in double homicide
A black man facing execution for a pair of South Asheville murders could come
off death row, brought on by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding
racial bias in jury selection and a woman who arrived at the Buncombe County
courthouse wearing a cross earring and Tweety Bird shirt.
That woman, Wanda Jeter, was called as a prospective juror in the 1997
sentencing of Phillip Antwan Davis, who had already pleaded guilty to 2 counts
of 1st-degree murder, the 1st for fatally shooting his 17-year-old cousin, and
then shooting and attacking her mother with a meat cleaver.
The only eligible African-American called for jury duty in the case, Jeter was
removed by prosecutors over objections from attorneys for Davis. He faced an
all-white panel of jurists, who could decide between life without parole or
death.
They chose death, making Davis, then 19, the youngest inmate facing execution
in North Carolina.
Late last month, Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams in court
documents agreed that Davis should have a new sentencing hearing, one that will
again consider whether he should spend his life in prison or remain on death
row.
The hearing is scheduled for Nov. 14 before a Superior Court judge.
Defense attorney Mark Kleinschmidt had earlier filed a motion that largely
argued Jeter was removed because she was black, a violation of constitutional
protections.
"Discrimination affecting one individual is too much discrimination. Making a
decision that's influenced by racial bias that affects one person is one person
too many," Kleinschmidt said. "This is an issue that doesn't belong just to the
defendant. It's important to jurors and to public confidence in our criminal
justice system."
The state's death row is home to 9 men who committed murders in Buncombe
County, all of them sent there during the 24-year tenure of former District
Attorney Ron Moore.
Williams won that office in 2014, and has declined to comment on the new
hearing, but his response in court documents to the Davis motion - one that
does not offer objections to the claims - suggests the state may join in
recommending a term of life without parole.
Top guns
When Jeter arrived as a prospective juror in 1997, the Supreme Court's ruling
in Batson v. Kentucky had already been in place for a decade. That decision,
hailed as a landmark case, found that jurors could not be removed from service
based on race.
It was also nearly toothless.
Legal practitioners have long known that African-Americans tend to be more
adverse to the death penalty and skeptical of police, who are often key
witnesses for prosecutors. Research into juries indicates an all-white panel is
more likely to find for the death penalty than a jury box that includes one or
more African-Americans.
In jury selection - 1 part science, 1 part art and a healthy dose of gut
instinct - the courts seek fair and open-minded jurists, but attorneys on both
sides of a case also look to seat individuals inclined to favor their
arguments.
The Batson decision was initially viewed as a way of precluding the practice of
striking black juror-candidates because they are black and required attorneys -
usually prosecutors - to explain why they did not want to seat an
African-American.
In 1995, North Carolina's conference of district attorneys provided a
workaround. It offered "Top Gun II," a training course that held to the letter
of the Batson decision, while disregarding its spirit. It provided reasons
prosecutors could cite in striking jurors - inappropriate dress, lack of eye
contact with a prosecutor, a disheveled appearance - none of them relying on
race.
While those reasons are valid, critics say they are applied unevenly depending
on the skin color of the prospective jury member.
Both attorneys who prosecuted Davis, Moore and his top assistant Kate Dreher,
had attended Top Gun II. Nether Moore nor Dreher returned calls for this story.
After Wanda Jeter was summoned as a potential juror, Dreher sought to remove
her, prompting a Batson challenge from Davis' attorney.
The prosecutor explained the cartoon character on Jeter's shirt indicated she
might not take her duty seriously, while her cross earring suggested a
religious consideration that could complicate her ability to find for death.
Jeter was never questioned about her religious beliefs or church attendance,
though most of the final jury, one that included a Catholic, a Christian
Scientist and Baptists, indicated they often attended church.
Judge Ronald Payne disregarded the earring and shirt, but allowed prosecutors a
third reason to strike Jeter: She testified her brother had a criminal history
in Buncombe County, and believed it was related to forgery. The case might have
been pending, she told them, but she didn???t ???keep up??? with her brother,
and was uncertain of the details.
Dreher explained to the court that the brother had a pending sex offense or
rape case, and after she was dismissed, Jeter testified in an affidavit that
she learned the charge related to indecent liberties with a child.
In that document, she described Moore's questioning as hostile, and remembered
saying she wasn't close to her brother.
"After I had been questioned by Mr. Moore, I was dismissed and told that I
wouldn't be serving on the jury," she told investigators for Davis. "I felt at
the time that Mr. Moore was looking for an all-white jury."
Jeter could not be reached for comment for this story.
In their motion, Davis' attorneys allege that prosecutors were uninterested in
the familial criminal histories of white jurors.
2 women, 1 with a brother who had a recent embezzlement conviction, were seated
after indicating on jury questionnaires they had family or a close friend with
criminal histories.
According to Davis' motion, neither prosecutor asked follow-up questions about
those criminal issues.
A 3rd woman wrote on the jury questionnaire that she had no relatives with
criminal histories, though current defense attorneys for Davis found her
husband had 3 times been charged with driving while impaired, most recently in
1996.
Another woman, also white, wrote on her jury questionnaire that she had no
criminal history, but under questioning from Davis' attorney, admitted she had
a previous conviction for driving under the influence. She was removed by
lawyers for Davis.
30 years of Batson
Jeter was not the only black person to appear in court, but 6 others were each
removed for cause, typically a common-sense reason that prevents jury service.
A prospective juror who is friends with the judge or the defendant is typically
excused, as are those who admit their own unyielding beliefs about a trial
issue, such as the death penalty, will color their decision.
But the use of peremptory strikes, used at the discretion of attorneys,
continues to raise concerns among researchers studying the legal community,
decades after the Batson ruling.
Neither North Carolina's Court of Appeals nor its Supreme Court have ever found
intentional discrimination in peremptory strikes favoring a defendant in the 3
decades since the nation's highest court weighed in, according to a study
published earlier this year in the North Carolina Law Review.
"In other Southern states, there have been lots of Batson violations found.
What's happened in North Carolina is the appellate courts have not enforced
Batson and we're hoping that's going to change because the U.S. Supreme Court
has issued a series of decisions," said Ken Rose, attorney with the
Durham-based Center for Death Penalty Litigation. "There have been many
Superior Court judges who have enforced Batson."
Superior courts have upheld Batson both during jury selection, he said, and
sometimes in motions years or decades after the original case, though their
rulings are not always consistent.
The new Davis hearing comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued
this past term, one that found Timothy Foster, a black Georgia man sentenced to
death, is entitled to a new hearing after he discovered prosecutors highlighted
the names of all black prospective jurors, later striking them. He was handed
death by an all-white jury, and state appellate courts later denied his Batson
claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court case determined the federal courts had jurisdiction to
review Batson challenges.
Unlike the Foster case, much of the jury paperwork in the Davis case no longer
exists. The judge asked both sides to turn over those documents to the court
clerk as the sentencing hearing got underway, but Dreher said theirs had
already been shredded, "so that we're not cluttered up with paper."
Then a high school student, Davis moved in with his aunt because his mother,
who had long been drug addicted, was arrested on a probation violation. His
father was not present.
According to his attorneys, he has an IQ of 78, placing him in a borderline
intellectual capacity.
Shortly before the murders, Joyce Miller discovered $800 had disappeared and
suspected her nephew, who had purchased new clothes and a gold chain. She
returned the clothes and hid the necklace. Davis threatened his cousin,
demanding its return.
Following the deaths, he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in both cases
and left his sentencing fate to a jury.
He was taken to death row and his mother, Phyllis Moore, moved to California.
She said she's clean now, and for the last 15 years has returned annually to
see her child on North Carolina's death row.
Should he win life, Moore knows she will never see her son outside of a prison,
but she hopes to be able to reach out to him, to give him a hug. Her visits now
are through a small window laced with chicken wire.
"It's not been easy. Only by the grace of God giving me strength. I did go
through a lot of depression," she said through tears. "I'm waiting on the day,
and I will one day, as far as I know, have a contact visit."
About the crime
Time of crime: May 24, 1996, about 5:30 p.m.
Demographics: Black male, 18 years old at crime, now 38
Victims: His aunt, Joyce Miller, 43, and her daughter, Caroline Miller, 17.
The crime: Davis, who lived with the Millers, shot Caroline in the head and
chest. When her mother arrived home more than an hour later, Davis shot her in
the head before attacking her with a meat cleaver.
Motive: Joyce Miller believed Davis had taken a missing $800, buying clothes
and a gold chain. Miller returned the clothes and hid the necklace. Davis told
his cousin, "Well, if I don't get my chain, it's only going to hurt you in the
long run."
Initial charges: 2 counts 1st-degree murder, eligible for death penalty.
Plea: Guilty to 2 counts of 1st-degree murder.
Jury sentencing: Death penalty in his aunt's death; life without parole in his
cousin's death.
Current disposition The case is scheduled for a new sentencing hearing on Nov.
14, one in which a judge with consider if Davis should remain on death row or
be moved to life without parole.
(source: Asheville Citizen-Times)
*******************
State seeking death penalty against quadruple murder suspect
The state plans to seek the death penalty for a man charged with beating his
wife and children to death with a hammer.
On Thursday during a Rule 24 hearing at the Pitt County Detention Center,
District Attorney Kimberly Robb told Superior Court Judge J. Carlton Cole that
aggravating circumstances apply in the cases against Dibon Jad Toone and
qualify for the death penalty.
Toone, 40, is charged with 4 counts of 1st-degree murder and 1 count of felony
larceny of a vehicle. He is accused of killing his wife, Garlette Rose Howard,
32; their 2 daughters, Ayona Toone, 7, Myona Toone, 5; and his stepdaughter,
Bryana Nicole Carr, 11, sometime before Aug. 16, when their bodies were found
in Apt. A-2 at 1101 Grovemont Drive in Greenville.
Toone was arrested in Richmond, Va., after he allegedly stole Howard's
work-issued vehicle. Law enforcement authorities used the OnStar tracking
device in the vehicle to locate it at a convenience store there.
Robb told the judge that when police went to do a welfare check on Aug. 16,
they found 4 people deceased that appeared to have been killed with a hammer.
The mother was in her bed, and the children were in and around their beds, she
said.
For a case to be eligible for the state to seek the death penalty, there must
be 1 or more aggravating factors as defined by state law.
Robb said the 1st aggravating factor was that the deaths of the children was to
avoid or prevent arrest.
"There is some evidence that the children may have been murdered to prevent
them from calling 911 after the mother was killed," she said.
Another aggravating factor would be that the killings were committed for
financial gain, Robb said. In addition to allegedly stealing the vehicle, there
is evidence that Toone may have left the apartment and returned to take items
such as TVs and jewelry to pawn, Robb said.
Another aggravating factor would be that the deaths were especially heinous,
atrocious and cruel, Robb said.
"I don't think that once the court sees the evidence, there would be any
question about that," she said.
Another aggravating circumstance would be "course of conduct," meaning the
defendant was engaged in other crimes of violence against another person or
persons, Robb said.
Pitt County Public Defender Ann Kirby was appointed to represent Toone. Because
the case is capital, the Capital Defender's Office will appoint another
attorney to work with Kirby.
Toone, wearing an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs, did not speak during the
hearing and shook his head no when the judge asked if he had any questions.
(source: Greenville Daily Reflector)
GEORGIA----impending execution/volunteer
Clemency hearing scheduled for Georgia man set for execution
The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has scheduled a clemency hearing for a
man who's set for execution later this month.
Steven Frederick Spears is to be put to death Nov. 16 at the state prison in
Jackson. The parole board set a hearing for Nov. 15. Clemency hearings aren't
open to the public or media
The 54-year-old was convicted of murder in the August 2001 death of his
ex-girlfriend Sherri Holland at her Dahlonega home.
A Georgia Supreme Court summary of the case says Spears killed Holland because
he suspected she'd been romantically involved with someone else. The summary
says Spears choked her, wrapped tape around her mouth and face and put a
plastic bag over her head.
Spears would be the 8th Georgia inmate executed this year.
(source: The Republic)
FLORIDA:
Lawyers for Death Row inmate fire back at Bondi
Lawyers for a death row inmate Larry Darnell Perry are blasting Attorney
General Pam Bondi's request that the Florida Supreme Court clarify a decision
that struck down a new law because it did not require unanimous jury
recommendations in death-penalty cases.
In the Oct. 14 decision in Perry's case, a 5-2 majority of the court found that
the law was unconstitutional because it only required 10 of 12 jurors to
recommend the death penalty and that it "cannot be applied to pending
prosecutions."
Bondi's lawyers, in the request for clarification, maintained that cases in
which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty can move forward, even without
a change in the law, so long as trial courts require unanimous recommendations.
But in a response filed Thursday, Perry's lawyers accused Bondi of essentially
asking the courts to rewrite the law, something the defense lawyers argued can
only be done by the Legislature.
"Simply put, there is no need for this court to 'clarify' its decision - which
could not be clearer - and which properly respects the role of the Legislature
under the Florida Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Indeed, it is
obvious that respondent (Bondi's office) is not seeking 'clarification' at
all," lawyers J. Edwin Mills and Frank Bankowitz wrote in the 12-page document.
The response by the lawyers representing Perry, who was convicted in the 2013
murder of his infant son, is the latest in a drawn-out battle over the state's
death penalty.
In a case known as Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court in January ruled
that the state's death-penalty sentencing system was unconstitutional because
it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries.
At the urging of Bondi and prosecutors, the Legislature in March passed a law
that requires at least 10 jurors to recommend that the death penalty be
imposed.
Defense lawyers repeatedly warned lawmakers that failing to require unanimous
jury recommendations would further endanger the state's death penalty, a
caution borne out by the Florida Supreme Court's decisions in a pair of cases,
Hurst's and Perry's, last month.
In a strong signal that courts may not be able to move forward with capital
trials until the Legislature changes the statute, the Florida Supreme Court on
Friday stopped a Clearwater judge from proceeding with a death penalty case.
Perry's lawyers on Thursday accused Bondi of attempting an "end-run" around
limitations on requests for rehearings by raising new issues in her request for
clarification. For example, lawyers seeking a rehearing are barred from making
new arguments.
"Respondent (Bondi's office) simply believes that this court was wrong in
holding that the lack of a unanimity requirement for the jury's final vote
rendered the statute unconstitutional," the defense lawyers wrote. "The motion
for rehearing is not a vehicle for counsel or the party to continue its
attempts at advocacy."
Arguing that the courts cannot rewrite statutes, Perry's lawyers relied on a
decade-old case, known as State v. Steele. In the 2005 case, the state argued
against allowing trial courts to adopt individual procedures in death penalty
cases. The majority of justices agreed, writing that "any changes should be
made systematically" to ensure consistency in the death penalty sentencing
process, Perry's lawyers noted.
Perry lawyers also asked that, if the court is going to allow death penalty
cases to move forward without a rewrite of the statute, that the changes be
made by the Supreme Court and "not by trial judges."
(source: ocala.com)
ALABAMA----stay of execution
Tommy Arthur avoids execution 7th time: Supreme Court issues stay in Alabama
murder-for-hire
Alabama death row inmate Tommy Arthur, who one victim advocate already referred
to as "Houdini" for escaping execution 6 times, on Thursday had his execution
postponed for the 7th time in 15 years.
The execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court officially at 10:55 p.m., a
prison spokesman said. "There will be no execution tonight," said Alabama
prison spokesman Bob Horton.
The Alabama Attorney General's Office had notified the prison system of the
stay, Horton said.
The stay will remain in place until the court decides whether it will grant
agree to review Arthur's appeal, according to the SCOTUS order. If they don't,
then the stay automatically is removed and Alabama would be free to set another
execution date. Two justices, Thomas and Alito, stated they would not have
granted the stay.
Four of the justices were in favor and the Chief Justice stated he didn't favor
a stay or review but agreed out of courtesy.
Attorney General Luther Strange criticized the decision to halt the execution.
"With all due respect to the Supreme Court, tonight's order undermines the rule
of law. While I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that 'this case does not merit
the Court's review,' in my view, there is no 'courtesy' in voting to deny
justice to the victims of a notorious and cold-blooded killer," Strange said.
SCOTUS had twice delayed the execution Thursday night.
An order shortly before 9:30 p.m. Thursday signed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas had been a temporary order staying the execution, Horton said.
At that time prison officials were still waiting to see if the court ruled
again and they could go forward with the execution before midnight.
If the court had ruled before midnight and denied the stay then it would have
possible the execution could go forward, Horton said.
"We're in a holding pattern ... We're going to continue to wait for the Supreme
Court," Horton said at that time.
Earlier Thursday evening, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Jeff
Dunn agreed to a 2-hour delay of the scheduled 6 p.m. execution so the Supreme
Court could review the split 11th Circuit decision, said Horton.
In that 2-1 decision, 11th Circuit decision Circuit Judge Charles Wilson said
the execution should have been stayed in order for Arthur's appeals on his
lethal injection challenge.
"Due to the scarcity of and secrecy surrounding lethal injection drugs, it is
all but impossible for a prisoner to set forth a viable lethal-injection-based
alternative," Wilson wrote in his dissent in Wednesday's opinion. "The
Majority's decision therefore checkmates countless Alabama and Florida
prisoners, nullifying their constitutional right to a humane execution."
Wilson also stated that the majority in the ruling - Hull and Circuit Judge
Stanley Marcus - determines that Arthur's suggestion of a firing squad was not
feasible and readily implemented because Alabama law does not authorize the
firing squad.
"Arthur should be permitted to amend his complaint to include the firing squad
as an execution alternative to Alabama's lethal injection protocol. The firing
squad is a potentially viable alternative, and Arthur may be entitled to relief
under Baze and Glossip (U.S. Supreme Court ruling) based on that method of
execution," Wilson wrote.
Arthur remained defiant Thursday as he waited to see if the U.S. Supreme Court
would stay his execution at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore.
Arthur's attorneys Wednesday night filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
seeking a stay after the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block
the execution.
Arthur on Thursday told AL.com in a telephone interview he was hopeful this
execution would be stayed.
"We've still got wiggle room," Arthur said this afternoon. "We're not done
yet."
Asked if he accepted the reality he might not avoid today's execution, Arthur
replied: "All I can do is sit here and hate it."
Arthur said he had no visitors Thursday although his lawyers had just arrived
at the prison when he spoke to AL.com. Arthur said he planned to make a final
statement if he was executed.
Arthur was convicted at 3 trials and sentenced to death each time for the 1982
murder-for-hire shooting death of Troy Wicker, of Muscle Shoals.
At the time of the Wicker murder, Arthur was serving at a Decatur work release
center for a conviction in the 1977 murder of his sister-in-law in Marion
County.
Arthur was hired by Wicker's wife, Judy, with whom he was having a romantic
relationship. Judy Wicker testified at one trial that she paid Arthur $10,000
of the insurance money. Wicker was killed with 1 shot through the right eye as
he slept.
Arthur maintains his innocence.
On Wednesday, both the Alabama Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals denied requests by Arthur's attorneys to have the execution stayed.
Each decision had 1 dissent.
Had Arthur been executed, it would have been the 2nd execution in Alabama this
year.
When it denied Arthur's stay the U.S. 11th also affirmed U.S. District Court
Judge Keith Watkins' ruling that dismissed Arthur's lawsuit challenging the
lethal injection drug combination and the consciousness test procedure during
the execution. Arthur had claimed that the correctional officers conducting the
execution did not - or did not do it properly - perform the "pinch test" on the
condemned inmate's left arm to make sure he was sedated before the 2nd 2 drugs
were administered.
Watkins this week also tossed out similar claims filed by a group of other
death row inmates.
Arthur's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay centers on the
constitutionality of Alabama's death penalty sentencing scheme.
The petition states that SCOTUS should grant the stay and decide whether
Alabama's death sentencing scheme is unconstitutional in light of the SCOTUS
ruling in January in the case Hurst v. Florida. In that ruling the court found
Florida's death sentencing law unconstitutional. Alabama's law is similar to
Florida's law, Arthur's attorneys argue.
"This court's decision in Hurst invalidates Alabama's death sentencing scheme,"
according to Arthur's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The Alabama Supreme
Court refused to recognize the validity of Hurst, both as it applies generally
to Alabama and specifically to Mr. Arthur. This court should stay Mr. Arthur's
scheduled execution and resolve the important constitutional issues raised by
Mr. Arthur's petition for certiorari (review)."
Alabama has executed 209 inmates since the state switched from hanging to
electrocution in 1927. Many offered final words, some contrite, some defiant to
the end. Some chose the traditional last meal, while others snacked from
vending machines.
District attorneys and Attorney General Strange have said Alabama's law is not
the same as Florida's former law. They have said the U.S. Supreme Court held in
the Florida case that a jury, not the judge, must find the aggravating factor
in order to make someone eligible for the death penalty. Alabama's system,
however, already required the jury to do just that in either the guilt or
sentencing phase, they said.
Once a jury has unanimously made the factual determination that a defendant
meets the criteria to be eligible for the death penalty, the judge may make the
legal determination of whether to impose it or not, the attorney general has
stated.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the spring sent three death sentence cases back to
the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to review in light of its decision in
Hurst v. Florida. While the state appeals court hasn't ruled on those 3 cases,
it and the Alabama Supreme Court have both ruled the state's capital murder
sentencing scheme constitutional in other cases since that time.
Vernon Madison, one of Alabama's longest-serving death row inmates, had his
execution stayed by the 11th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court the day of the
execution in May.
Madison was convicted in the April 1985 slaying of Mobile police Cpl. Julius
Schulte. Madison has claimed that he is mentally incompetent to be executed.
Alabama also has set another execution for Dec. 8 for another death row inmate,
Ronald Bert Smith, who was convicted in Madison County in the November 1994
slaying of Circle C convenience store clerk Casey Wilson during a robbery.
(source: al.com)
NEBRASKA:
Death penalty: is the ballot language clear for voters?
Next week Nebraskans will go to the pools and decide the future of capital
punishment for the state.
For weeks KMTV has been telling you the language on the ballot might be a bit
confusing.
The ballot item is Referendum 426 and the vote is retain or repeal Bill 268, or
in simpler terms: should Nebraska have the death penalty?
So, voters vote retain to eliminate the death penalty, repeal to keep it.
Reporter Miranda Christian asked voters if they understood the language on the
ballot.
"Retaining is to eliminate the death penalty, I feel like it is really funky
wording," said one UNO student.
"It is kind of tricky, retain you think let's keep it, well no we are repealing
the death sentence," said Errol Hald.
Out of the 12 people she spoke with, 8 of them voted retain, 3 voted repeal,
and 1 undecided. Fortunately everyone said they were able to read the ballot
and make an informed decision.
"I think it is pretty straight forward; you definitely should at least read it
and make sure you know where you stand on it," said one voter.
(source: KMTV news)
******************
Why did the Unicameral vote to end the death penalty?
When 30 senators voted to end Nebraska's death penalty, we did so after
extensive research, analysis and reflection.
What drove many of us was not theoretical or moral, but practical
considerations. After years of study and dozens of hours of debate we concluded
that there is no way to have a workable death penalty and Nebraska was better
off with life imprisonment.
Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's unworkable death penalty. Life in
prison removes the risk of executing an innocent person. To date over 156
innocent people have been released from death rows across the country. Here in
Nebraska we know we aren't immune to mistakes because of heartbreaking cases
like the wrongfully convicted Beatrice 6. In Douglas County, the top crime
scene investigator planted blood evidence in a murder case. We can release an
innocent person from prison if an error comes to light, we could never release
an innocent person from the grave.
Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's death penalty because the long
process the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated - to ward off executing the
innocent - takes an awful toll on the families of victims. Our last execution
was nearly 20 years ago. Carey Dean Moore has been sitting on Nebraska's death
row for 36 years. The process takes far too long, and while a case snakes its
way through the required proceedings, the victims' families are caught in the
middle. It would be kinder to victims' families to promise to lock up their
offender and throw away the key.
Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's death penalty because there is no
solution in sight to our lethal injection quagmire. For nearly 20 years, our
state has been unable to carry out an execution. This is not from want of
trying - we had pro-death penalty Governors, Attorney Generals, and majorities
in the Unicameral this entire time. Yet no solution was found. And, let's
remember the $54,000 wasted when Governor Ricketts attempted to import illegal
drugs.
The financial cost of life imprisonment is far, far less than the death
penalty. Creighton University economist Ernie Goss' study confirmed the
enormous costs of trials, years and years of appeals, additional incarceration
costs -- the list goes on and on. The $14.6 million dollar annual cost to
Nebraska taxpayers would be better spent giving better pay and training to
prison guards and law enforcement professionals. The legislature and many other
government entities have long relied on Dr. Goss' expertise and analysis, but
we already knew the death penalty was more expensive when we voted to end the
death penalty, because it's what every study on the costs of the death penalty
have shown.
We did not walk away from our death penalty lightly. We decided it was time to
move forward, to accept life imprisonment as the superior alternative to the
death penalty because for nearly 2 decades we've been unable to fix all these
problems and implement a working death penalty. We see no possible way to have
a system that was safe, fair, and effective. We hope you will do your own
research into the issue, and ask yourself if the death penalty is worth the
expense, risk, and emotional energy so many must pour into it to keep the
system afloat. We believe life imprisonment is a harsh, sensible punishment for
the worst of the worst crimes. We hope you will vote to retain our decision
when you vote on Referendum Measure 426.
(source: Galen Hadley, of Kearney, is Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature. He
was elected to the Legislature in 2008 and is serving his last term. He served
previously as mayor of Kearney, Neb.----York News-Times)
. ****************
Convicted killer Jenkins takes death penalty challenge to court
Convicted killer Nikko Jenkins was back in court Thursday where his attorneys
are challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Jenkins and his public defender also contend that the legislature's move to
abolish capital punishment is another reason why Jenkins shouldn't be put to
death.
Jenkins also claims his No Contest plea isn't valid anymore due to what he says
is, "new evidence" he uncovered. He's accusing OPD of misconduct and falsifying
evidence.
Jenkins is facing the possibility of execution for his conviction in 4 murders.
In court on Thursday he said, "I never committed those crimes."
He is scheduled to be sentenced November 14.
(source: WOWT news)
**********************
Faith leaders speak out against death penalty ahead of referendum; 'Our job is
to protect life, not destroy it'
Episcopal, Jewish and other faith leaders stood shoulder to shoulder Thursday
at an Omaha church as they spoke out against the death penalty.
"We share a vision of a world without the death penalty," said J. Scott Barker,
bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska.
He spoke at a news conference that he said was intended to show the range of
faith groups that oppose the death penalty.
Speakers at the event included a Soto Zen Buddhist priest, Unitarian
Universalist and United Methodist ministers, and a Catholic priest. More than
60 lay people and clergy members from a variety of faith groups stood behind
him during the event at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.
The event was organized by the faith leaders and Retain a Just Nebraska, an
organization working to preserve the Legislature's 2015 repeal of capital
punishment. On Tuesday, voters will decide on a referendum on the repeal
legislation.
Speakers urged voters to retain the Legislature's repeal of the death penalty.
"This is not a time to be silent or apathetic," said Rabbi Steven Abraham of
Beth El Synagogue. "Our job is to protect life, not destroy it."
Death penalty proponents, who obtained the signatures needed for Tuesday's
referendum, say capital punishment in Nebraska should be reserved for a small
number of killers. They say it helps protect prison officers from violence by
inmates who would have nothing to lose if the death penalty were eliminated.
The Rev. Kyoki Roberts, a Soto Zen Buddhist priest, said protecting life is an
important theme of Buddhism. "If we want a society where all life is revered,
we must revere all life," she said.
The Rev. Dennis Hamm, professor emeritus of theology at Creighton University,
said the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty fits the church's
"consistent ethic of life." Life in prison without parole is reasonable
alternative to the death penalty, he said.
(source: Omaha Wolrd-Herald)
CALIFORNIA:
Could Prop. 66 increase risk of executing an innocent inmate?
The long public debate about the death penalty is still controversial, and
nowhere is the debate more prominent today than in California, where voters
will decide whether to repeal it with Proposition 62 or try to streamline it
with Proposition 66.
Proposition 66 is unlikely to achieve its stated goals of making the death
penalty cheaper and more efficient, and will instead decrease the quality of
legal representation. What's more, instead of bringing swift justice, the
measure could increase the risk of executing an innocent person.
While the American Bar Association takes no position on whether the death
penalty should be abolished, our members - who include prosecutors, defense
lawyers and judges - have long been committed to ensuring that capital
punishment is fair, unbiased and accurate. For nearly 20 years, the ABA has
called upon states to suspend executions until procedures are in place that
ensure due process and minimize the risk that an innocent person will be
executed. In addition, the ABA publishes the widely cited guidelines for
qualifications and expectations of death penalty lawyers across the country.
Our expertise gives us a unique perspective on some of the likely pitfalls and
unintended consequences of Proposition 66.
First, it would require attorneys with no death penalty experience to represent
prisoners in their first appeal if qualified lawyers are not available. Imagine
being required to visit a dermatologist after you have been diagnosed with lung
cancer because no oncologist is available. Expertise and experience are
critical to avoiding deadly mistakes.
In fact, ineffective counsel is 1 of the primary reasons innocent people wind
up on death row. Of the 156 death row inmates who have been exonerated since
1989, nearly 1 in 5 were found to have had ineffective lawyers, according to
the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan and the
Death Penalty Information Center.
2nd, Proposition 66 would impose strict deadlines for attorneys investigating
cases and courts reviewing them. Such deadlines violate the ABA???s guidelines
for a fair death penalty system.
Capital cases are highly complex, and attorneys typically need to review
thousands of pages of trial records, witness statements, police and medical
documents and other evidence to adequately prepare an appeal. The ABA has found
that having enough time to review existing evidence and look for previously
undiscovered information is critical to ensuring that legitimate legal claims
are reviewed by the courts and to increasing the chances that the wrongly
convicted are discovered. Though the average exoneree spent 11 years on death
row before proving their innocence, Proposition 66 would cut the total time for
appeals to just 5 years.
3rd, Proposition 66 was designed to speed up the appeals process and save
California money. But supporters fail to take into account that if unqualified
attorneys make mistakes or new evidence is uncovered after the shortened
deadlines, state and federal judges could be forced to send cases back to lower
courts for additional review or to correct constitutional errors. This could
end up taking even longer and further burden California's courts.
The ABA is sympathetic to the frustrations of the families, victims and
defendants who have suffered from the massive delays and inefficiencies in
California's death penalty system. But people deserve changes that will address
the problems effectively, not diminish the fairness and accuracy of our justice
system. We should not cut corners in the administration of the death penalty.
Unfortunately, that is what Proposition 66 would do.
(source: Opinion; Linda A. Klein is president of the American Bar
Association----Sacramento Bee)
_______________________________________________
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
