Death Penalty and Execution News

JULY 4, 2009:

IRAN:

2 men were hanged in Shiraz

2 men were hanged in the Adelabard prison of Shiraz early Wednesday morning, July 1, reported the Iranian daily newspaper Etemad today.

The men were identified as "Yavar" convicted of a murder in 2003, and Masoud convicted of a murder in 2006, according the report. The report also said that Masoud had withdrawn his confession and claimed that his confession to the murder was taken under pressure.

Age of none of the men was mentioned in the report.

Besides these 2, 12 people were hanged in the cities of Tehran and Qom on July 1 and 2.

According to reports from Iran, at least 29 people are scheduled to be executed in Ghezel Hesar prison of Tehran on Saturday July 4.

(source: Iranhr.net)

JULY 3, 2009:

TEXAS:

Man sentenced to death a second time for '89 slaying in Dallas

Mark Robertson was sentenced to death Thursday for the 2nd time for killing an 81-year-old Preston Hollow woman.

He won a 2nd sentencing hearing when a federal appellate court ruled that his original jury had been given confusing instructions about how to consider his punishment. The instructions involved the jury's consideration of mitigating factors, including a defendant's abusive childhood.

Robertson shot Edna Brau between the eyes in 1989 as she slept on the couch with her feet propped up. He then stole the Cadillac of the 3-time cancer survivor and drove to Las Vegas, where he was arrested outside a casino.

Robertson appeared to stare ahead when State District Judge Carter Thompson read the verdict. But he smiled at his family when he entered and left the courtroom.

'Cancer to humanity'

Brau's son, John Brau, said after the verdict that Robertson was a "cancer to humanity" who has only cared about himself.

"It's been 18 years between the 1st trial and this trial. The only difference is he's 18 years older," Brau said outside a Dallas County courtroom. "The jury saw the truth: He's still a sociopath."

Robertson is already serving 2 life sentences for killing her grandson, Sean Hill, while they were fishing, and 7-Eleven clerk Jeffrey Saunders.

While Brau and Hill's family hugged after the verdict, Robertson's sister, Denise Breedlove, could only cry.

Breedlove's tears got louder and she ran from the courtroom when John Brau addressed Robertson in a victim impact statement. John Brau said he would be there when the state executed him.

Breedlove declined to comment after the verdict. But she said in an e-mail that she would continue supporting her brother.

Family ties

"My heart is broken [by]... the jury's decision," she said. "I love my brother Mark with all my heart and will always love and support him for the rest of our lives."

Defense attorneys Robbie McClung and Richard Franklin argued that jurors should sentence Robertson to life in prison because of his upbringing and drug use.

Robertson was not abused. But he watched as father beat and terrorize his siblings, according to testimony.

His father then rewarded Robertson with money, candy and pats on the head. McClung said this taught Robertson that life had no value.

But Dallas County prosecutors Pat Kirlin, Josh Healy and Ellyce Lindberg argued that Robertson's crimes and his potential to commit future violence mean he should get a death sentence. They also said his past should not prevent jurors from imposing a death sentence.

John Brau, who also is Hill's uncle, said it was hard to come to terms with wanting someone to die.

"It's a horrible thing to wish death on anybody," he said. "But that's the only way to make sure no other family will go through what he put us through, what he put Jeffrey Saunders' family through."

As he spoke, he stopped to read an e-mail that arrived on his phone. It was from a friend who said that now that the verdict was in, all that was left to do was to pray for Robertson and forgive him.

"I guess that's all we can do," Brau said.

(source: Dallas Morning News)

GEORGIA:

Tears, relief as Sparkle Rai’s killer gets death sentence----Hitman was paid $10,000 to strangle her

Sparkle Rai's father Bennet Reid wiped away a tear Thursday evening when he heard the sentence.

"Death," the forewoman read from a Fulton County jury box, condemning Cleveland Clark, the man convicted of murdering Reid's daughter.

Sparkle Rai was murdered April 26, 2000, in her Union City apartment in the presence of her infant daughter.

Donna Lowery, Rai's stepmother, let out a tremendous sigh.

Then, it was Clark's turn to hear his fate. Clark, who had made several outbursts during the two-week trial and sentencing hearings, was led into the courtroom in shackles.

Judge T. Jackson Bedford then repeated the sentence with Clark present. This time, Clark showed little emotion until he was led out of the courtroom. He glared at the jury.

The same Fulton County jury that last Friday convicted Clark of murdering Rai, decided Thursday he should die by legal injection. Clark, 52, stabbed and strangled Rai with a vacuum cleaner chord in front of her crying 6-month-old daughter for $10,000.

"I feel like a big burden has been lifted from my shoulders," Bennet Reid said after the sentencing. "I really believe that Sparkle has seen this happen, and she's smiling down."

He and Lowery exchanged hugs with other loved ones in the courtroom.

"I think they truly saw what type of an evil man he really is,

Lowery said of the jury's death sentence.

Rai's father-in-law, Chiman Rai, a native of India, wanted Rai dead because he opposed his son marrying an African-American woman. Sparkle, then 22, and Rajeeve "Ricky" Rai had been married a month when she was murdered.

Clark was the last of those implicated in Rai's death.

Chiman Rai, 68, was sentenced in 2008 to life in prison without the possibility of parole for hiring Clark to kill Sparkle Rai.

2 other men — the links between Chiman Rai and Clark — each were sentenced to 10 months' probation because they helped prosecutors bring cases against the father-in-law and Clark.

The 6-3, nearly 300-pound Cleveland's volatile personality showed Thursday in an obscenity-filled rant that led Bedford to clear the jury and the prisoner from the courtroom.

"I said I didn't kill no … woman," Clark said, pounding a table with his fist. "What's wrong with you? I'm sick of this … telling lies on me."

Asked after the hearing to compare Clark's death penalty to the life without parole outcome of convicted multiple killer Brian Nichols, Fulton County prosecutor Kellie Hill said Clark "sealed his own fate" with his outbursts.

"The jury got to see the killer that Sparkle got to face," Hill said.

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

LOUISIANA:

Eternal life on death row

Razor wire in neatly stacked rows welcomes guests and inmates alike to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. Guests wait at the entrance until an unseen guard -- somewhere inside the building -- observes you through a closed-circuit camera.

Next, a buzzer sounds and you hear the raspy scrape of a lock turning. You enter the first section, close the gate and wait for the scenario to play out again before walking to the entrance of the locked brick building.

This is the prison's death row.

Inside the building, there is a central control room with cellblocks feeding outward in every direction. Every leg of the cellblock has a thick, locked, steel door at its entrance. The metallic clanging of doors and cells reverberating through the halls is a constant reminder to the men of their isolation.

Apart from legal intervention, the inmates on death row are going nowhere else in this life but the graveyard. Most have lost contact with family members, even if they've been on death row for only a few years. It is a place of separation and judgment.

There is no air conditioning in each cellblock -- only fans to circulate the humid, hot, south Louisiana swamp air. Death row is a place of constant tension and punishment for those found guilty of the most heinous of crimes.

Walking down death row, you see that some men are asleep, while others -- wearing headphones -- are watching televisions that are mounted on exterior hallway walls. The prisoners leave their cells for two hours a day -- one hour of human interaction with the 16 or so men on their cellblock and another hour in a highly secure outdoor facility. The inmates spend the other 22 hours of the day in isolation.

Never have I been to a place where the stark difference between eternal life and eternal death is so evident. For those who have surrendered their lives to Jesus, there is joy and peace. For those who do not know Jesus, there is only the hope of an earthly judge overturning their sentence.

One of the new Christians I met was baptized in the walkway in front of his cell. As he shared about his new life in Christ, he sounded like an evangelist. The Word of God fell easily from his lips as he overflowed with the Truth so fresh and new to him. God had radically changed him, and he was desperately trying to express his love for Christ. Jesus set him free -- even though the prison system will hold him captive until his execution or natural death.

The contrast of those who know Jesus and those who don't is overwhelming. Without Jesus, there is spiritual darkness, disease and death. With Jesus, there is freedom, hope, joy and an excitement about how God will use their remaining days for His glory.

The Bible says we are all under a death sentence apart from the Christ, whether we are incarcerated or not. Jesus explained to Nicodemus why people are under this sentence (John 3:17-21). First, we are found guilty because we do not believe in Jesus. Second, we are guilty because we love the darkness; our deeds are evil. Finally, we are guilty because we hate the Light -- meaning Jesus.

Jesus described the difference in the lives of those who love Him versus those who do not. Those who are evil hate the Light because Jesus will expose their deeds for what they are. The people who love Jesus run to the Light so the Father can be glorified and exposed as the one who changed the deeds of a sinner into the deeds of a saint. The change is magnificent.

Angola is home to men who are radically saved and men who are radically lost. I pray the people of God on the "outside" will reflect the transforming power of the cross with the same intensity and fervor as the people of God found inside the corridors of death row. No matter where you reside, when Jesus changes you, the contrast is dramatic.

(source: Keith Manuel is an evangelism associate on the Louisiana Baptist Convention's evangelism & church growth team; Baptist Press)

TENNESSEE:

Tennessee Wins Ruling on Execution

A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned a lower court's finding that Tennessee's lethal injection procedure is unconstitutional.

The case concerns Edward J. Harbison, who was sentenced to death for the 1983 murder of an elderly woman.

In 2007, as a result of Mr. Harbison's appeals, the Federal District Court in Nashville found that Tennessee's procedures for execution were unconstitutional, in part because of the potential that the process would cause unnecessary pain to the condemned.

After that decision, however, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that largely supported lethal injection. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was one of several in a fractured decision and approved Kentucky's process, which uses a sequence of 3 drugs. The opinion said a state with procedures "substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today" would pass muster.

Thursday’s decision, by a 3-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said that the procedures in Tennessee, which uses the same 3 drugs, were substantially similar to those in Kentucky and that the lower court's bar on executing Mr. Harbison should be lifted. The decision was written by Judge Eugene E. Siler Jr. and joined by Judge Deborah L. Cook.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Eric L. Clay argued that the Supreme Court's decision required a careful examination of the execution procedures, an effort that he said should have been taken on by the lower court in a new proceeding. By deciding on its own that the Tennessee process was similar to that of Kentucky, Judge Clay said, "the majority effectively usurps the district court's role as a fact-finder."

Eric Berger, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who has written on lethal injection, said the decision narrowly read the Supreme Court's opinion, in order to limit constitutional attacks on the practice.

(source: New York Times)

INDIANA:

Stephenson Triple-Murder Death Penalty Case Overturned

A man convicted of 3 murders more than a decade ago in Warrick County could get a new trial.

A federal court has overturned the conviction and sentence of John Stephenson.

A Warrick County jury convicted Stephenson in May 1997.

He was sentenced to death, and he's been on death row for 12 years.

But, issues surrounding a device Stephenson wore during the trial, meant to protect people in the courtroom, he might soon get another a shot at clearing his name.

It was the longest and most expensive trial in Indiana history with tons of starts, stops, recesses and chapter after chapter.

Now, it could add another chapter.

And, that doesn't really surprise the man who defended Stephenson during his trial.

"It's not at all uncommon that the perception of these proceedings in federal court is different than at the state court level," said Anthony Long, Stephenson's attorney back in 1996-97.

Stephenson was convicted in the murders of Kathy and John Tyler and Brandy Southard.

They were shot and stabbed at a rural Warrick County intersection.

Every death penalty case gets a series of automatic appeals.

And, the result of this decision from the US District Court of Northern Indiana doesn't sit well with Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

He said in a written statement:

"I stand by decisions made in Warrick County on the use of security precautions during the 1997 trial. Stephenson was cloaked with the presumption of innocence and his wearing an electric stun belt under his clothes did not strip him of that cloak."

"It wasn't anything that we raised a major issue about," Long said. "We were told it was mandatory, and it was going to be done not withstanding anything else. I didn't think during the whole trial that it was necessary. Mr. Stephenson at no time was any problem."

Long said the way courts see stun belts has changed during the past decade.

Courts are now more likely to believe they could potentially sway the jury's opinion of a defendant.

Attorney General Zoeller plans to appeal the decision.

His office said it has 20 days to ask the federal court to reconsider or 30 days to file its notice of an appeal to the US Court of Appeals in Chicago.

(source: WTVM)

**********************************

US judge vacates verdict in S. Indiana triple slayings

A federal judge has thrown out the guilty verdict and death sentence of John Stephenson in the 1996 shooting deaths of 3 people along a rural Warrick County road in southern Indiana.

U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann ruled Wednesday that Stephenson did not have effective counsel during his trial because his attorney did not object to the defendant having to wear a stun belt when he appeared before the jury that subsequently convicted him.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller says the state will appeal the ruling by asking Springmann to reconsider her ruling or by directly appealing to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

(source: Associated Press)

NEVADA:

NV high court to hear death row appeal

A man on death row for a Clark County murder will have his appeal heard by the Nevada Supreme Court.

James Chappell, 39, is scheduled for a hearing Monday. Chappell was convicted in the 1995 stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend, Deborah Panos, in her mobile home.

Chappell argues that the jury was not properly instructed and that the district attorney's office committed "extensive prosecutorial" mistakes. He wants the conviction and death sentenced overturned.

The Supreme Court has set aside 30 minutes to hear the oral arguments in the case.

(source: Associated Press)

CALIFORNIA:

California counties diverge on dealth penalty

Murderers are more likely to be sentenced to death in conservative California counties, particularly in the southern part of the state, according to a Bee analysis of recent data from the state attorney general's office.

From 1998 to 2007, prosecutors obtained about one death penalty conviction for every 100 murders statewide, the figures show. In Orange County, the rate was twice as high; in Riverside County, it was 3 times as high.

At the same time, San Francisco and San Mateo counties haven't sentenced anyone to death in 15 years (with the exception of the Scott Peterson case transferred to San Mateo from Modesto.)

Overall, the 5 large California counties with the highest rate of registered Republicans sentenced murderers to death almost 3 times as frequently as the 5 counties with the lowest rate of Republicans.

There are major exceptions. Largely Republican Placer County hasn't issued the death penalty in 20 years while largely Democratic Alameda County condemns murderers somewhat frequently.

An interactive map showing rates for all counties is viewable at sacbee.com.

Debate about the death penalty has been stirred up again by state hearings on new protocols for lethal injection, the state's method of executing condemned criminals.

Most murders can be charged as death penalty crimes, said UCLA law professor Stuart Banner, so it often comes down to the preference – and politics – of a district attorney.

"District attorneys are elected," said Banner, author of "The Death Penalty: An American History." "The death penalty is more popular in some counties than in others."

The expense of capital cases also can deter prosecutors in both very small and very large counties, Banner added.

Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco, a former Republican assemblyman, noted that many convictions in the state's figures came or started under his predecessor's watch. His office now spends more time listening to law enforcement, victim's families and even defense attorneys before making a decision about whether to seek the death penalty, he said.

Nonetheless, noted UC Berkeley law professor Elisabeth Semel, Pacheco seems to have continued prosecuting death penalty cases at the same rate as his predecessor.

Pacheco said he did not know whether his approach had shifted the numbers, but noted that his constituency generally is tough on crime, as is he.

"The people here have a very different view of public safety than the people in San Francisco," Pacheco said.

Semel, a death penalty opponent and director of Boalt Hall's Death Penalty Clinic, said prosecutors like Pacheco could reverse the pro-death stance of their counties if they wanted.

"In some places," she said, "it will take a small measure of courage."

(source: Sacramento Bee)

***************

S.C. Upholds Death Sentence in Mass Killing at Silicon Valley Firm

The California Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld the death sentence for a former Silicon Valley computer technician convicted of killing 7 people and attempting to kill 4 others in 1988 at the company from which he was fired for stalking a co-worker.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the court, said that Richard Wade Farley was properly convicted of all 7 murders. One employee of Electromagnetic Systems Laboratory was shot and killed in the Sunnyvale company’s parking lot, while other victims were shot inside the building.

Jurors voted to impose the death penalty in a penalty phase that was conducted after they found Farley guilty of 7 counts of 1st degree murder, 4 counts of attempted 1st degree murder, and 1 count each of assault with a firearm and burglary. As special circumstances, the jury found that Farley committed multiple murders and committed 6 of the murders during the course of a burglary.

The burglary charge was based on the theory that Farley entered the building with the intent to assault Laura Black and/or destroy ESL property. Black and others testified that Farley had been pursuing Black for years, despite her constant demands that she be left alone, and that her only social interaction with Farley had been going to lunch with him and one of his friends.

At Farley's 1991 trial, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Joseph Biafore instructed jurors, over defense objection, that under the felony murder rule, if Biafore burglarized the building, he could be convicted of 1st degree murder for each of the killings committed inside. Farley did not dispute having shot the victims, but denied that he intended to hurt Black or destroy property.

Witnesses said Farley became obsessed with Black in 1984, stalking and harassing her, sending her hundreds of letters and even secretly obtaining a key to her home, despite her repeated complaints. When the company tried to stop the harassment, Farley threatened to harm other employees.

He was fired in 1986 but continued to pursue Black, with whom he claimed to have a relationship, according to the testimony. Black obtained a temporary restraining order against Farley in 1988, but on the day before a court hearing to make the order permanent, he arrived at ESL with shotguns, a rifle with a scope, revolvers, pistols, a smoke bomb, a foot-long buck knife and sheath, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, as well as wooden matches.

He surrendered to police hours later, after officers promised to give him a sandwich and a soft drink. Tests showed that he had not been drinking or using drugs.

He wrote to Black from jail:

"When I go to the gas chamber, I'll smile for the cameras and you’ll know that you'll have won in the end."

He also wrote a friend that he was "glad Laura's ok" and that he hoped "she understands if I'd really wanted to hurt her — she wouldn't be here today."

On appeal, the defense challenged the felony-murder instructions, but George said the trial judge was correct.

He rejected the argument that the 1st degree felony-murder rule does not apply to a burglary with intent to damage or destroy property, because at the time of the crime, that was a wobbler rather than a straight felony. George said that the felony-murder rule applies when the underlying crime is a wobbler that has been charged as a felony.

The chief justice also rejected the argument that 1st degree felony murder convictions could not be based on burglary with the intent to commit assault as the target offense, because if the entry was with the intent to shoot Black, it merged with the 6 homicides committed inside ESL's facility.

George distinguished People v. Wilson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 431, which applied the merger doctrine to a killing in the course of a burglary, where the defendant entered with the intent to assault the homicide victim.

Wilson is bad law and will not be followed in the future, the chief justice said. The decision is inconsistent with Penal Code Sec. 189, under which any murder committed during the commission of a burglary, or the attempt to commit a burglary, is murder in the 1st degree, George wrote.

George acknowledged that the court cannot overrule Wilson retroactively. But the court has never applied Wilson to cases where the defendant entered with the intent to assault one victim and killed another, the chief justice wrote, so the jury instructions in Farley's case were correct.

The case is People v. Farley, 09 S.O.S. 4081.

(source: Metropolitan News Company)

*************************

ESCONDIDO: Jury signals split over execution for killer----Deliberations set to resume Monday in Escondido slaying case

The jury deciding whether a man convicted of torturing and killing an Escondido toddler should now die himself signaled late Thursday that they may not be able to reach a decision.

After fewer than 3 hours of deliberations, Superior Court Judge Joan Weber sent the panel home for the long holiday weekend after they sent out a note saying they were deadlocked.

She ordered the jury to resume deliberations Monday morning to decide whether Jose Maurice Castaneda should be executed or sentenced to life in prison for what prosecutors said was repeated brutality of a little boy barely old enough to talk.

Earlier this week, the same panel of 4 men and 8 women convicted Castaneda, 24, of 1st-degree murder, torture and child abuse in the beating death of 2-year-old Cesar Razo on June 25, 2005.

Prosecutors say Castaneda, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, beat his girlfriend's toddler so badly the Escondido child lost 1/3 of his blood to internal bleeding.

Castaneda, who has no criminal record of violence nor a history of abuse, maintains he never hit the child. His attorney, Allen Bloom, placed the blame on Cesar's mother.

The Castaneda case marks the 1st time in nearly 4 years that a North County jury has been asked to recommend execution for a killer. The last time a jury based in Vista did so was fall 2005, when a panel agreed that Adrian Camacho should die for gunning down Oceanside police Officer Tony Zeppetella during a traffic stop.

In order for a jury to recommend a death sentence, the vote must be unanimous among the 12 jurors.

The split in Castaneda's jury is unknown. If they should fail to agree, Weber must declare a mistrial.

It would be up to prosecutors to decide whether they want to retry the case in front of a new jury. But they would have to mount the entire case again ---- in Castaneda's case, the trial lasted 6 weeks ---- because the new jury must hear all of the evidence to determine whether execution is the warranted punishment.

If prosecutors choose not to pursue the death penalty; Castaneda would receive a sentence of life in prison without parole.

During the trial, Deputy District Attorneys Lucy Weismantel and Keith Watanabe showed the jury a videotape Castaneda made of the child, in which he had forced the naked 23-pound toddler to point out his bruises for the camera about a week before he died.

And even though Castaneda was behind the camera, the video looked into Castaneda's soul, Weismantel told the jury Thursday morning before deliberations began. The video was proof of Castaneda's sadism, she said.

"We cannot imagine the suffering this child went through every day," Weismantel said. "This man took away his dignity; he took away his spirit long before he took his life."

An autopsy showed Cesar's thymus gland, which the jury was told regulates stress in the body, had shrunk, possibly from the stress he was under. "He was literally being scared to death by this man," Weismantel argued.

Cesar's 32-inch-long body bore 354 bruises, marks or lacerations. His liver was lacerated. His skull was fractured. His brain had bled. Even his penis had welts. He had been choked on several occasions, according to testimony.

"Cesar should not be forgotten," Weismantel argued. "And this man should not be forgiven."

Castaneda's attorney, Allen Bloom, asked the panel of 4 men and 8 women to spare his client from execution, telling them, "There is value in that man."

Before Castaneda moved in with Maria Razo and her kids, he was living with another woman and her young children ---- who testified that Castaneda had not been violent, and had been a father to them.

Bloom read to the jury from a Valentine's Day letter by one of the children, a 10-year-old girl who wrote to Castaneda in jail.

In the letter, decorated with hand-drawn red hearts, the child told Castaneda that he was "the best father" and "I love you very much."

"This is a man who gives and receives love," Bloom told the panel." There is value to him and his life."

Bloom also asked the jury to consider any "lingering doubt" they might have about who killed Cesar, a reference to Maria Razo.

2 years ago, Razo pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and child abuse for her role in her son's death. She was sentenced to nearly 17 years in prison.

The little boy was, by many accounts, probably dead when his mother and her boyfriend wrapped him in a green blanket and drove him to the emergency room at Palomar Medical Center.

The final beating, the one that killed Cesar, lasted 20, maybe 30 minutes. He was choked, slammed into walls and hit so hard in the stomach he threw up, prosecutors argued.

Near the start of the attack, according to testimony, Cesar cried out "Mommy." But his mother, an abused woman herself, told the jury she did not respond and instead remained seated on the floor, fixing her 5-year-old daughter's long hair.

Maria Razo told the jury she heard Cesar moan. And then he stopped.

(source: North County Times)

****************************

Thousands Speak Out Against CA's Costly and Broken Death Penalty

Last week, Californians had their 1st opportunity to speak out about the state's execution procedures at an official state hearing. Thousands made their voices heard and their message was clear: it is time for California to replace its costly and broken death penalty and save the state $1 billion in the next 5 years.

As a result of legal challenges, the State of California was required to revamp its method of execution and to releases its new procedures for concerned members of the public to comment on. On May 1, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) released the new execution procedures, beginning a 60 day comment process that culminated in a day long hearing in Sacramento on June 30th. The hearing came after more than 3 years without executions in California, and amidst the worst budget crisis in the state since the Great Depression.

By the end of the 60 days, more than 7,000 people had submitted comments to CDCR. Nearly all objected to implementing the regulations. Many called on the CDCR to disclose the costs of carrying out executions, something the CDCR has refused to do even though disclosing the costs is required by law.

Over 250 people packed the June 30th hearing, turning a dry administrative proceeding into a sincere public debate on all of the costs of the death penalty. Traveling from as far away as Ukiah and San Diego, speaker after speaker rose to object to the execution procedures and to the state’s death penalty generally. The public outpouring was so great that the CDCR had to extend the hearing to accommodate all the speakers. Over 100 people spoke, with only 2 expressing support for the death penalty.

Dozens of speakers gave eloquent and personal testimony to the failures of the death penalty, including:

• Greg Wilhoit, wrongfully convicted of murder and later proven to be factually innocent, who spoke of the terror of living under a death sentence for a crime he did not commit.

• Judy Kerr, of California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, who related her immense sense of loss and anger at the murder of her brother, but emphasized that the death penalty will not restore her sense of security or justice.

• George Husaruk, one of many teachers at the hearing, who called on the state to spend money on education and other vital services now being cut, not costly executions.

• Barbara Becnel, an advocate and friend of Stanley Tookie Williams, who vividly and emotionally described the horror of watching his botched execution in 2006.

• Bill Babbitt, who told of the pain he endured as he watched the state execute his brother Manny Babbitt, a Vietnam Veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, after Bill had turned his brother in to police for the crime.

Hundreds then marched to the Capitol to deliver their message to the Governor. Carrying signs calling for "Money for Education, Not Executions," the group congregated on the steps of the Capitol and listened as Mike Farrell, President of Death Penalty Focus, called on the Governor to immediately convert all death sentences to save the state $1 billion over the next 5 years.

A small contingent went in to the Capitol building to deliver to the Governor a symbolic check for $1 billion, but the Governor's staff declined to accept it.

This aptly demonstrated the Governor's attitude: Even as he calls on the Legislature for more and more spending cuts to critical services like health care and public safety, the Governor continues to ignore the fact that he alone has the ability to save the state $1 billion over the next 5 years by immediately cutting spending on the death penalty.

Where do those saving come from? The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, a bi-partisan panel that conducted a comprehensive analysis of the problems with the state’s death penalty, found the following:

• It currently costs $137 million every year to administer the death penalty in California.

• If everyone on death row were instead sentenced to permanent imprisonment, the costs would be only $11 million, for a net savings of $125 million every year.

• In addition, sentencing everyone on death row to permanent imprisonment would obviate the need to build a new death row housing facility, a project that will cost $400 million.

The Commission also found that we can't simply "kill them faster and cheaper," as some people like to say. The Commission tried to identify reforms that would make the appellate process move more quickly. But it found that the only way to both protect the innocent from execution and increase the speed of the appeals process is to pay millions of dollars for more attorneys and court staff to process the cases. The Commission concluded that reducing the amount of time between imposing a death sentence and actual execution would cost an additional $95 million per year beyond what we currently pay, for a grand total of $232 million every year.

Californians agree: the death penalty is broken and too costly; something must be done. The only reform that will work and save the state needed cash is to replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment—life with absolutely no possibility of parole. Permanent imprisonment keeps murderers off the streets forever and provides swift justice and peace of mind to victims. It also costs much, much less and reduces the risk of executing an innocent person to zero.

If the Governor converts all death sentences to permanent imprisonment, he could then use that $1 billion check to actually make California safer by keeping more police on the streets and more crime labs open. Shouldn’t this be an easy choice?

(source: California Progressive Report----Natasha Minsker is the death penalty policy director for the ACLU of Northern California)

NEW YORK:

Is 150 Years Appropriate, or Just Silly?

Sholam Weiss, a son of Brooklyn, was a crook. By all accounts, he was also a rather unpleasant man, hardly the sort to inspire compassion. A federal judge in Florida certainly had no sympathy for him after he was found guilty of a fraud that drained hundreds of millions of dollars from an insurance company and caused its collapse.

In February 2000, the judge piled up dozens of criminal counts against Mr. Weiss, one on top of another. Thus did she create what is thought to be the longest federal prison sentence ever imposed: 845 years. Mr. Weiss’s projected release date is Nov. 23, 2754. This is only a guess, but he is not likely to make it.

So did the judge, Patricia C. Fawsett, show admirable toughness with a notorious offender? Or was an 845-year sentence simply silly, inviting disrespect for the legal system?

For that matter, what about a sentence of 150 years? It, too, can never be fully served. The reference, of course, is to the century and a half in prison to which Bernard L. Madoff was condemned this week by a federal judge in Manhattan, Denny Chin.

James A. Cohen, a Fordham University law professor, is among those who have a problem with sentences that are on their face impossible. "It prompts in some people a lack of respect for the system," Professor Cohen said. "Somebody has to be asking, 'What is that about? What are we really thinking?'"

"It's putting out something that is obviously false and fake to everybody," he added, "and why are we doing that?"

Obviously, his is not a universally shared opinion. A more popular view is probably that 150 years in prison is too good for the likes of Mr. Madoff. That is reflected in victims' comments and in the "boil him in oil" tone of much of the news coverage.

But at some point the Madoff case may be examined with more dispassion. Any analysis would have to include the reasonableness of the sentence ordered by Judge Chin, a widely admired jurist. Acknowledging the symbolic nature of those 150 years, the judge cited a need for deterrence, retribution and justice for the victims.

Deterrence, however, is often an elusive goal. It is mentioned by some as a reason, for example, to preserve capital punishment. Yet the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, analyzing federal crime statistics, has found that the 10 states with the highest murder rates all have capital punishment on their books. Among the 10 states with the lowest murder rates, 6 get by without the death penalty.

With financial crime, are we to take as a given that a grifter will be deterred by sentences that, besides being unrealistic, seem to wander all over the lot? Mr. Weiss got 845 years for ripping off a few hundred million dollars. Mr. Madoff got a mere 150 years for a swindle put at $65 billion. What gives?

The dollar value is "a dangerous factor to focus on in many cases," said Dan Markel, a law professor at Florida State University. "It introduces a variable that is highly contingent on luck and fortuity to drive sentences," he said, and it may steer the courts away from "considered assessments" of blame and punishment.

RETRIBUTION? Mr. Madoff is 71. The odds are against his making it to 100. A 30-year sentence would have provided the same degree of retribution as one of 150 years.

As for the victims' desires, there can be a fine line between justice and pandering. Douglas A. Berman, an expert on sentencing law at Ohio State University, expressed concern about "a tone and culture that says, 'Hey, if the victims are really ticked, let's give them their due.'"

That said, Professor Berman saw good reason to throw not just the book at Mr. Madoff but the entire library. "This is a blood lust," he said, "but it's a setting in which if ever a blood lust was justified, this was it." He added, "This truly is, for lack of a better term, the Adolf Hitler of white-collar crime."

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, also puts Mr. Madoff in a criminal class of his own, one that justifies a maximum sentence. With those 150 years, Mr. Madoff is not merely being punished, Professor Gillers said. He is being banished, even in death.

To Professor Gillers, it's no longer about Bernard Madoff, or even concepts like retribution and deterrence. "We're making a statement to ourselves about the kind of people we are," he said, "and what we will not accept."

(source: Clyde Haberman, New York Times)

USA:

1st trial of Guantanamo Bay detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, set for September, 2010

A September 2010 trial has been set for the Al Qaeda henchman accused in a pair of deadly bombings at U.S. embassies overseas in 1998.

During a hearing Thursday, Manhattan Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan set a date of Sept. 13, 2010, for Ahmed Ghailani, the 1st detainee taken from the Guantanamo Bay prison to face a jury in the U.S.

The feds say Ghailani was a trusted bomb-maker and document forger for Osama Bin Laden. The attacks in Tanzania and Kenya killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

Manhattan federal prosecutors told Kaplan Thursday that top-ranking Justice Department officials have not determined whether to seek the death penalty for Ghailani.

The Tanzanian was seized by Pakistan and turned over to American custody in 2004. He was brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.

(source: New York Daily News)

*********************************

Supreme Court denies prisoners' right to DNA evidence

Marches and rallies were held in state capitals and other cities June 27 to mark the National Day of Action for the Wrongly Convicted. Organizers of the actions, including families whose loved ones were put to death or died in prison, said that up to 10 % of the 2.3 million-strong U.S. prison population may be wrongfully convicted.

"It can happen to anybody," Walter Swift told protesters outside the Michigan capitol in Lansing. Swift, a Black man from Detroit, was convicted of rape in 1982 and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He was exonerated and released last year after DNA testing proved his innocence.

The protests came just 9 days after a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned a lower court ruling in the case of William Osborne, an Alaska prisoner who had argued for and won his right to DNA testing in a 1994 sexual assault case. Osborne had offered to pay for the test himself.

In denying prisoners’ rights to DNA testing, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority, led by George W. Bush-appointee Chief Justice John Roberts, claimed that "to suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response" by the individual states.

Alaska is 1 of 3 states that still have no laws on the books giving prisoners access to genetic evidence. However, many states that have such laws also severely limit prisoners’ rights to testing, including time limits and no access for those who admitted guilt under coercion or for plea bargains.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, noted, "The DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise. Yet for reasons the State has been unable or unwilling to articulate, it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all."

Osborne was represented by attorney Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, the group that helped Swift win his freedom. Since 1989, some 240 prisoners have been exonerated because of DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project.

17 people sentenced to death row have been freed so far because DNA testing proved their innocence. Since the resumption of the death penalty in 1976, 133 prisoners facing execution have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Daniel Wade Moore of Alabama was the most recent in May. About 1/2 of exonerated death-row prisoners had made confessions under police coercion.

DNA testing is no gift from on-high provided by the government, courts or police. Kirk Bloodsworth, the 1st death-row prisoner exonerated by modern DNA evidence, learned about the process accidentally while reading a book in a prison library.

The Supreme Court’s attack on DNA testing was the latest indication that the capitalist state is continuing its relentless attack on the hard-won rights of working class and oppressed people despite the shift in power from Republicans to Democrats.

It appears, in fact, that the court is grinding ahead with a right-wing urgency driven by the sea-change in mass political consciousness indicated by last year's election of 1st African-American President Barack Obama and by the deepening economic crisis of the profit system, which may point to stormy class struggles ahead.

On May 27 the Supreme Court made it easier for cops and prosecutors to interrogate suspects who have not received proper legal counsel. Again by a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 1986 ruling that forbid police from questioning a suspect without an attorney present if the person requested one. This is a basic right that every person in the country is acquainted with, thanks to innumerable TV police shows and movies.

On April 6 the court refused to consider the appeal of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a world-renowned political prisoner on death row in Pennsylvania. And on June 15 the court indicated it would not consider the appeal of the Cuban 5 political prisoners during its next session.

Supporters of wrongfully convicted Troy Davis, a prisoner on Georgia's death row, were awaiting word if the court would take up Davis’ appeal on June 29 or 30–the last 2 days of this term.

The U.S. Supreme Court, with its unelected, appointed-for-life status, is the wing of the capitalist state charged with regulating the degree of repression according to the needs of the ruling class. The good news is that even a reactionary court can be forced to grant concessions when confronted with a militant people’s movement. Building this kind of fightback movement is the most urgent need of poor and working people today.

(source: Workers World)

OKLAHOMA:

Appeals court halts Terry Nichols interview

An appeals court refused Thursday to let a Utah attorney conduct videotaped interviews with Terry Nichols and death row inmate David Paul Hammer.

Jesse Trentadue is investigating the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing on his own and sued the FBI for certain records.

A federal judge in Utah ruled he could question Nichols and Hammer to determine if other documents might exist.

A 3-judge panel on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball abused his discretion. The Denver-based appeals court ruled the FBI conducted very thorough searches for records.

The appeals court wrote Trentadue "has failed to show any possibility that the depositions of Nichols and Hammer would produce relevant evidence in this case."

Nichols, a convicted murderer, is serving life sentences at the maximum-security federal penitentiary in Colorado for the bombing. After his trials, Nichols admitted helping bomber Timothy McVeigh but Nichols claims others were involved, too.

Nichols also claims McVeigh once revealed he had been recruited to carry out undercover missions. Nichols also claims a high-ranking FBI official was "apparently" directing McVeigh in the bomb plot.

Hammer claims McVeigh revealed to him the identities of accomplices including a gang of bank robbers.

He and McVeigh were on federal death row at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind.

McVeigh was executed in 2001. McVeigh told biographers and his attorneys only Nichols helped.

Trentadue has investigated the bombing to support his theory about why his younger brother died at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995. He contends guards mistook his brother for a bombing suspect and murdered his brother during an interrogation. Federal and local officials concluded the brother, Kenneth Trentadue, committed suicide in his cell.

The attorney also contends the government had prior knowledge of the attack from informants. He contends the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a private organization, had a sting operation under way that targeted Elohim City in eastern Oklahoma. Trentadue contends McVeigh was a frequent visitor there.

FBI agents determined McVeigh called Elohim City weeks before the bombing but agents never established he ever visited.

 (source: The Oklahoman)

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Inmate pleads not guilty in 2nd slaying----Death penalty trial for Raymondeze Rivera to begin Nov. 9

A Tampa man serving a life sentence for strangling an Anderson County mother and facing a death penalty trial in the death of a 2nd mother pleaded not guilty in an arraignment Thursday.

Raymondeze Rivera told Circuit Judge Buddy Nicholson that he isn't guilty of killing Kwana Burns and objected to a delay of the trial that had been scheduled to start Monday but has been delayed until Nov. 9.

"I would like to have done it sooner, but there is no way with everybody's schedule," the judge told Rivera.

After the hearing, Rivera's court-appointed attorneys, John Delgado and Bill McGuire, said the trial was delayed due to an expert witness they have called regarding what they called Rivera's mental illness.

In February, Rivera was convicted of strangling Asha Wiley inside her home in December 2006, 2 days before Burns was found dead inside her home.

(source: Greenvilleonline.com)

NIGERIA:

The Difference Between Togo, Nigeria

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero visited Nigeria and Togo a fortnight ago. His visit to Nigeria was marked by the usually drab diplomatic talks and official declarations.

Outside Nigeria and possibly Spain, I don't think it made news. But his visit to Togo caught world headlines. Zapatero, a known humanist, has been campaigning for a global moratorium on the death penalty as a step towards its total abolition. The Togolese Parliament used the occasion to pass a bill abolishing death penalty in the country.

This vote for human dignity reverberated across the globe. Although Togo was the 15th African country to abolish the death penalty, and the 94th in the world, its action still made universal headlines because those who truly appreciate the worth of human life and dignity are bound to celebrate each time, the ranks of countries that abolish the death penalty increase.

Yet Nigeria is supposed to be more intellectually, if not religiously endowed than Togo. The Togolese example showed that it is not the number of churches or mosques a country has, or a huge export of evangelists like Nigeria does that matters, but the premium placed on life; the level of prevailing culture.

It is not enough for human beings to take shelter behind the claim that it is the state and not they who murder people in the name of carrying out a judicial death sentence.

We are all collectively responsible, if not guilty, because such death sentences are carried out in our name. Life is the most fundamental of all human rights; no country can claim to be a defender or proponent of human rights if it takes life.

Even from the spiritual perspective, if you cannot give life, you should not take it. No matter how decent we are, we cannot take another human being's life without debasing ours.

Even if we claim that religion sanctions taking lives, why don't we allow God to do that; is it not said that vengeance is of the Lord?

In the particular case of Nigeria, due to the retention of the death penalty, hundreds of lives have been wasted in repeated orgies of mass execution of alleged coup plotters.

Ironically, those who try, sentence and execute such people are themselves successful coup plotters.

There are those who argue that people who take life do not deserve to live; a sort of an-eye-for-an-eye. But if we take a man's life because he had taken another's life, does that make us feel better? Is there a purgation of emotions if we kill a man for an alleged capital offence? Is it a matter of collective vengeance?

Those who used to argue that death penalty is a deterrent for serious crimes like armed robbery have stopped waxing such tuneless music; this type of crime has not only been completely deregulated, but its perpetrators now operate in broad daylight.

One of my main reasons for opposing the death penalty is its finality, its irreversibility. But for the death penalty, Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni 8 might still be alive.

It is a universal knowledge that law enforcement agents in many cases torture or put pressure on people to confess to alleged crimes they know nothing about. There are also possible human errors in convicting people.

Thanks to the abolition of the death penalty, there are many in Europe and America whose conviction have been upturned in the light of new evidence or the advance of science such as the DNA. Unfortunately, some innocent persons have been executed.

In the United Kingdom, the review of those sentenced over 3 years from 1950 showed that at least 4 of them were innocent. There was the case of Timothy Evans who was executed in 1950 for allegedly killing his baby daughter, Geraldine.

Evidence later showed that a lodger in the same house, John Christie was actually a serial killer but the police bungled the Evans investigations. Evans was granted a posthumous free pardon 16 years after his execution.

There was the case of Derek Bentley who was executed in 1953 for allegedly killing a policeman during an attempted robbery. It turned out that at the time of the murder, Bentley, a mentally retarded person was actually under arrest, so he could not have shot the officer.

Mr. George Kelly was executed in Liverpool in 1950. 53 years later, the Court of Appeal found he was an innocent man sent to the gallows. In 1953, Mahmud Hussein Mattani was hanged in Cardiff. 45 years later, the courts found him innocent.

It is the United States, where death penalty still holds sway in many states, that many innocent people have been executed. Reuben Cantu was executed in 1993 for killing a man during an attempted robbery when he was 17.

A principal state witness, Juan Moreno had claimed in court that it was Cantu who shot him. Moreno later confessed that the police forced him to finger Cantu because he had in an unrelated incident injured a policeman.

David Spence was executed in 1997 in Texas for allegedly killing 3 teenagers. There was no physical evidence connecting Spence with the crime. The court relied on the testimony of prison inmates. It was later discovered that a narcotics cop who wanted Spence dead, gave favours to the prison inmates in return for their testimony. So an innocent man was judicially murdered.

Apart from these, there is also the manner of execution. The firing squad is usually a very bloody method. Even an animal slaughtered still kicks; no matter the method used, death cannot be instantaneous.

To me, the quality of justice cannot be weakened or diluted by a convict being sent to prison for his crimes rather than being sent to a firing squad or the hangman.

Small Togo has shown big Nigeria the way to more qualitative life by abolishing the death penalty. The least the "Giant of Africa" should do is repent its ways by abolishing the death penalty.

(source: Owei Lakemfa, Vanguard)

ENGLAND:

Face-to-face with death row inmates at London show

Death row inmates depicted in oil paintings by British artist Claire Phillips, on view in London's South Bank gallery@oxo, have one thing in common.

"All are demonstrably innocent, or very probably innocent," according to Clive Stafford Smith, director of prisoners' rights organization Reprieve, which sponsors the touring 5-day "Human Face of Death Row" exhibit on show at Oxo until July 5.

"They are very powerless people who face an incredible distillation of hatred resulting in society wanting them dead."

Among the paintings of 3 current inmates is Briton Linda Carty, who has been on death row in Texas for 8 years for murdering a neighbor. Her case is in the final stage of the appeals process.

The prosecution's case was based on testimony from 3 people accused of the same murder who, in exchange for statements against Carty, avoided the death penalty, according to Reprieve.

The 4-hour visit Phillips had with Carty was held under armed guard.

"They will be executing her soon," Phillips said of the experience.

"It's very different in each visit -- Linda just chatted away and ate the 5 rice krispie bars and a cherry coke I took her."

Phillips, originally from Hammersmith in London, was not permitted to take any painting tools with her when she visited the inmates, so created the portraits from memory and other sources.

The exhibition also includes images of 3 former death row inmates who were freed after serving prison terms, along with an executioner; a legislator who introduced lethal injection and a foreperson on a jury that convicted and sentenced a man to death who was later found to be innocent.

"All the black people are on death row and all the white people are in positions of authority," Phillips said of her portraits.

"I didn't intend to become a campaigner," she added. "As an artist I wanted to communicate their stories.

"I've achieved putting the stories together. Make your mind up -- is this system the way to go?"

Reprieve founder and lawyer Stafford Smith is also featured in one of the paintings.

Phillips selected him as a subject because she was intrigued by him as someone "who had all the advantages of a public school education and yet had chosen to ignore the attractions of wealth and materialism in order to defend the powerless and vulnerable."

Originally from the U.S., Stafford Smith has worked on getting due process for Guantanamo inmates since 2004, as well as death penalty cases.

"As much as in the old days we would sacrifice an animal to God to solve our problems, today we take the life of a human being," Stafford Smith said, adding that politics of fear and hatred fuel the urge to invoke the death penalty.

(Reuters)

IRAN:

6 people were executed in Qom. 29 people scheduled to be executed in Tehran.

6 men were hanged in the prison of Qom, south of Tehran, on Thursday July 2, reported the state run Iranian news agency Fars.

The men were identified as Ahmad T., Abolfazl B., Reza A., Mostafa F., Esmaeil R. and Mohammad Kh. and were all convicted of drug trafficking according to the report.

One day earlier, on Juy 1., 6 others were hanged in Tehran's Evin prison.

According to the human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, 29 people are scheduled to be executed in Tehran on Saturday July 4.

Iran Human Rights had earlier warned about upcoming mass executions following the past weeks' pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of Iran Human Rights, said: "Once again we ask the UN and the international community to do whatever they can to stop the executions and human rights violations in Iran".

(source: Iranhr.net)

JULY 2, 2009:

MISSOURI:

Missouri's Supreme Court is intervening on behalf of a death row inmate.

It was confirmed on Wednesday that the court took the highly uncommon step of appointing a special judge to the case of Reggie Clemons. The judge, referred to as a special master, will review all old evidence and new evidence to determine if there is reasonable doubt in the death sentence case.

Clemons was sentenced to die for the murders of Julie and Robin Kerry in 1991. The sisters were raped and thrown to their deaths from the Chain of Rocks Bridge.

(source: Ozarks First)

CALIFORNIA:

Did Santa Clara County DA wrongly send convict to death row?

In a stinging rebuke, an investigator for the California Supreme Court has found that a Santa Clara County prosecutor who is now a judge withheld key evidence that may have spared a man from death row.

Judge Joyce Allegro apparently knew there was evidence that a drug lord had ordered Miguel Angel Bacigalupo to kill two brothers in 1983, according to the 39-page report released Wednesday.

The defense had made such a claim during the trial, contending that the Colombian drug lord threatened to have Bacigalupo's family killed, but had nothing to back up the story. Allegro and her chief investigator not only failed to give the defense the evidence — as required by law — but also successfully portrayed the suspect as a coldblooded, lying killer, according to the report. Bacigalupo was sentenced to death for gunning down brothers Jose Luis Guerrero and Orestes Guerrero in their store, Orestes Jewelry, on The Alameda.

But about three years ago, the state Supreme Court took the rare step of appointing a retired judge to investigate complaints that the prosecution had covered up the evidence. Now, it's up to the justices to decide if the death penalty should be reconsidered or the case should be retried.

Bacigalupo, 47, is on death row in San Quentin State Prison. His lawyer, Robert R. Bryan, said Wednesday that his client had not yet heard about the decision, but that the report upheld their contention that the prosecution had covered up evidence.

"This should be a lesson to prosecutors everywhere, not just in San Jose, that depriving anyone accused of a crime by withholding evidence, deprives the accused of any trial whatsoever," Bryan said. "This was trial by fraud, trial by ambush."

While the case dates back more than 2 decades, Allegro's conduct since then also has come under scrutiny. Appellate attorneys have filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance citing her conduct as a judge. In 2003, a panel of her judicial colleagues overturned a conviction in a manslaughter trial that she handled, concluding that several of her rulings "seriously prejudiced" the defendant. Among other faulty decisions, the panel wrote, Allegro blocked a defense expert from testifying.

Last year, a state appeals court rejected Allegro's handling of a 2006 case marked by bitter court exchanges in which the judge threatened to physically gag a defendant before finally ordering her taken into custody. Allegro could not be reached Wednesday for comment. She'll have another chance to present her side before any Supreme Court decision on the Bacigalupo case.

However, the state Commission on Judicial Performance could independently discipline Allegro, even though the behavior preceded her becoming a judge. The commission cannot suspend her, but has a wide range of other penalties it can levy, ranging from a private advisory letter to removal from office.

The Bacigalupo case is only the latest in a string of allegations claiming that the district attorney's office has withheld evidence that could help defendants fight the charges against them. Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins declined to comment on the Bacigalupo case.

The report said there was credible information that a drug lord ordered Bacigalupo to kill the brothers because of a dispute over a large amount of cocaine.

In investigating claims that the district attorney's office withheld that evidence, retired Judge Richard E. Amason called Allegro, her chief investigator Sandra Williams and others to testify.

Amason wrote that Allegro "gave what appears to be contradictory testimony" about a key piece of undisclosed evidence involving a confidential informant.

"It is likely that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity to the defense would have led to evidence not otherwise known or available to the defense at the time of trial," Amason wrote. "This evidence would have supported (Bacigalupo's) claim to have acted on death threats from the Colombian mafia."

Amason found that Allegro and Williams, her investigator, had ample information about the drug cartel's connection to the killings. But he found that the prosecution didn't turn over a host of items, including tape-recorded interviews with a key informant and other witnesses, notes and a taped interview by Williams with the alleged drug lord himself.

The report said Williams "repeatedly exaggerated and gave evasive and misleading testimony."

Williams, who retired from the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office in 1995 and worked for 3 years at the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office, could not be reached for comment.

(source: Mercury News)

****************

Death penalty criteria must be transparent

A crisis of accountability in death penalty litigation raises new concerns for potential abuse by prosecutors in deciding which alleged murderers will be entered into the death penalty lottery.

Without taking a position on whether the death penalty must end, our recent research to determine how the death penalty is administered in California has led us to conclude that the process for selecting which defendants will face the death penalty is flawed.

In August 2006, at the request of the California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, we attempted to survey each of California's 58 counties to determine how the various district attorneys' offices decide whether to file a death-eligible case as a capital case.

While our task may have seemed straightforward, the result of our study was anything but. Despite repeated contacts with the district attorneys' offices, 20 counties never responded. Of those that did respond, 14 expressly refused to answer any of the survey questions. 5 indicated that they had not filed any death penalty cases in the relevant period and either were silent as to their procedure to determine whether to file a case as a death penalty case or admitted that they had no procedure or criteria in place.

When all was said and done, only 18 of 58 counties made any serious effort to respond to our survey, and only 14 of those substantially completed the survey.

What we learned from the limited responses we did receive was twofold: There is no uniformity of process or standards by which California's prosecutors exercise their discretion in determining whether to seek the death penalty, and very few counties maintain the type of statistical data (including the particular characteristics of the crime) that would reveal whether particular circumstances (including the the criminal history of the defendant, or even the ethnicity of the defendant or victim) seem to result more frequently in a decision to seek the death penalty.

What we must conclude from the fact that the responses were so limited is even more sobering: The majority of those in a position to decide whether to seek the death penalty for a particular defendant declined to disclose the basis for their decisions.

This lack of transparency at the beginning stage of the life-or-death decision making process employed under the name of "prosecutorial discretion" carries with it a grave risk that these decisions can be made in an arbitrary at best, and discriminatory at worst, fashion. The failure to keep statistical data makes it highly unlikely that any unequal application of justice can be verified or exposed. When the stakes are this high, this barrier to information is simply unacceptable.

How can this be addressed?

• Narrow the statutory categories of death-eligible crimes.

• Follow publicly disclosed charging criteria and procedures similar to those used by U.S. attorneys.

• Provide more centralized review or perhaps remove the decision from elected officials to a statewide committee.

• Provide a mechanism for judicial review of death penalty charging decisions.

• Mandate detailed record- keeping of data about all first-degree murder prosecutions.

That data should include whether the facts would have supported a special circumstance allegation, whether the death penalty was sought, whether the jury found that the special circumstance was proved, whether the jury recommended the death penalty and whether the death penalty was imposed. The data also should include which special circumstances are alleged in every death penalty case as well as the disposition of such cases by dismissal, plea or verdict in the trial courts.

Data on the age, gender and race of the defendant and victims should be collected and maintained. In order to determine whether there are unfair geographic differences in the application of the death penalty, data should be organized by county – as well as by elected district attorney – for later analysis.

Based on the responses, and lack of responses, to our survey, we believe that many or most of the district attorneys' offices will not maintain or report this data unless there is a mandate requiring them to do so. Without a systematic collection of data concerning the death penalty, it is impossible to examine the efficacy of the death penalty in California.

The public and policymakers must obtain this information to determine whether the current legislative scheme and the system of administering the death penalty yield efficient and fair results. After Tuesday's public hearing in Sacramento on lethal injection, we call upon the Legislature, the governor and the attorney general to step forward and provide the mandate to obtain the information that will promote a more fair allocation of justice in prosecutorial decisions in death penalty prosecutions.

(source: Opinion; Carol Chase and Chris Chambers Goodman are professors of law at Pepperdine Law School----The Sacramento Bee)

IDAHO:

Prosecutor won't seek death penalty against murder suspect

The Canyon County prosecutor says he won't seek the death penalty from a recent Caldwell murder case.

John Bujak says he won't seek the death penalty against Sherryl Sasenbery, who's been charged with stabbing to death Walter Lisenbee.

According to police documents, 45-year-old Sasenbery admitted to stabbing Lisenbee in the neck until he stopped moving. He suffered numerous stab wounds in the head, left knee, right shoulder and arm and a large cut across his entire neck, which severed his esophagus.

At one point the knife became stuck in his neck, authorities say. Some of his wounds appeared to be defensive, police said in their report.

Sasenbery had told investigators that Lisenbee attacked her by hitting her in the head with a hammer and then stabbed her in the stomach. After she was taken to the hospital, however, investigators said she did not suffer any injuries except a small cut on a finger.

Bujak says he won't see the death penalty, even though it's a first degree murder case, because he doesn't believe there's enough evidence of the aggravated circumstances required for a jury to sentence her to death.

(source: CBS News)

VIRGINIA----impending execution

Va. Death Row Inmate Chooses Electrocution

A Virginia man set to die later this month for killing a 16-year-old girl and bragging about it in a letter to prosecutors wants to die by electrocution.

Paul Warner Powell is scheduled to be executed July 14 for killing and attempting to rape Stacie Lynn Reed in 1999.

Powell was convicted of Reed's murder, but the Virginia Supreme Court overturned that verdict. Powell then wrote a taunting letter to prosecutors detailing the crime because he thought he no longer could be charged . He was convicted again in 2003.

Virginia gives condemned inmates the choice between lethal injection and electrocution. Since 1995 when the state began offering the choice, only 4 of the 79 inmates executed have chosen electrocution, including 1 in 2006.

(source: Washington Post)

NEBRASKA:

Attorney argues against death penalty in girl's slaying

An attorney for a Sioux City man charged with sexually assaulting and killing a 3-year-old girl is trying to keep his client from facing the death penalty.

According to a motion filed by attorney Kelly Breen, Dakota County prosecutors should not be able to charge Melecio Camacho-De Jesus with a capital offense because the alleged crime occurred 5 days before Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed a bill outlawing death by electrocution.

The new law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, replaces electrocution with lethal injection as the Nebraska's sole form of executing death row inmates.

Camacho-De Jesus, 29, also known as Gregorio Velasquez-Martinez, is charged with first-degree murder, a capital offense, and burglary. He is accused of killing Evelyn Verdugo Paniagua on May 23 in her South Sioux City mobile home.

In a motion filed Monday, Breen says prosecutors' attempts to seek Camacho's execution by lethal injection before the law has taken effect violates the state and federal constitutions.

Therefore, Breen says the harshest punishment Camacho-De Jesus could face is life in prison.

Breen, of the Commission on Public Advocacy, also claims Nebraska's new law does not provide the state's Department of Corrections with guidelines, procedures, standards or policies officials should use to carry out the death penalty.

District Court Judge William Binkard postponed Camacho-De Jesus' arraignment, which had been set for Monday, until July 28 in order to review Breen's request.

Prosecutors allege in court documents that Camacho-De Jesus should face the death penalty for two reasons: he allegedly killed the toddler to conceal a crime or conceal his identity as the alleged perpetrator and that the alleged offense was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel or showed exceptional depravity.

Camacho-De Jesus, a friend of Evelyn's family who had previously lived at their residence, allegedly climbed into their home in the early morning hours and assaulted the child while her family was asleep.

(source: Sioux City Journal)

MARYLAND----federal death penalty trial

Jury fails to impose death penalty in 'Special' case

A federal jury on Wednesday failed to agree on a death sentence, sparing the lives of two convicted killers and showing them the mercy that they denied their victims.

Melvin Gilbert, 34, and James Dinkins, 36, were each sentenced to multiple life terms. They were convicted last month of running a vast drug operation known as "Special" in Northeast Baltimore and murdering 3 men, including 2 people they thought were law enforcement cooperators - "rats," according to Gilbert.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz promised that the co-defendants and "the poison that they brought" would never again "be anywhere close to Baltimore."

The case was the 3rd in the span of a few months to draw convictions for witness intimidation in Baltimore's federal court, highlighting the size of the city's problem. A 61-year-old woman was found guilty of murdering an elderly man to keep him from disclosing her financial schemes, and a 24-year-old incarcerated man was convicted of ordering a witness killing from jail using a contraband cell phone.

Dinkins and Gilbert, along with a 3rd defendant not facing the death penalty, were convicted of killing one man, Shannon Jemmison, whom they wrongly thought was a cooperator, and another, John Dowery, because he had testified against their friends.

The men fought with another witness while the trial was going on, when U.S. marshals mistakenly put them all in the same holding cell.

In an interview, Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said witness intimidation cases are among "the most serious" his office prosecutes, and that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment.

About 4 p.m. Wednesday, jurors sent out a note from their deliberation room, saying that they could not reach a verdict. All 12 jurors would have had to agree on a death sentence. They reassembled in the courtroom, looking weary and cautious. Tears ran down the faces of some; others showed a steely façade.

"These issues are so profound and so deep, there is no right answer," Motz said to them, trying to sum up a case that has gone on for weeks.

He told them of the "outrageous" insults prosecutor Kwame Manley endured from Dinkins when jurors weren't present and highlighted yet another tragic fact of life in the city: Some neighborhoods are cancerous.

Dinkins and Gilbert grew up with the same violence they doled out, products of Bartlett Avenue, a short street just east of Greenmount Avenue.

"Every child who grew up in that neighborhood is a victim," Motz said. "The last three generations are victims."

The judge dismissed the jury and asked the defendants whether they had anything to say. Gilbert declined to speak. But Dinkins, who yelled out several times during the trial, again professed his innocence.

"I'm being convicted because I refused to be an informant," he said. "It's nothing more than a modern-day lynching."

He claimed he'd been offered a deal in exchange for information against Gilbert, though Rosenstein said no offer was ever extended.

Dinkins also claimed he never killed anyone, though the mothers of the dead didn't believe him.

Cathy Hines' son was Michael Bryant, whom Dinkins killed after growing frustrated with him. She sat in the third row, her face blank. There was no closure for her; she wanted death. "I can't see my son," she said. "His child can't see him."

As people filed from the courtroom, Gilbert's attorney Archangelo Tuminelli said he, like the judge, didn't have any answers.

Until somebody comes up with some way to help those in the city's worst areas, he said, "these kinds of cases will not stop."

(source: Baltimore Sun)

MISSOURI:

Russo could face death penalty----Man accused of killing mother sees charge upgraded.

After his mother's body was discovered in early June -- arms spread out like a cross, the word "death" scrawled on her right forearm --Skyler Russo allegedly described to a detective how he'd killed her.

Russo, 23, told Springfield Police Det. Kevin Shipley he'd knocked down Judith Ann Roth during an argument, then rendered her unconscious with 20 to 30 blows, Shipley testified at the man's probable cause hearing Wednesday.

It was, however, the shirt shoved into Roth's mouth, obstructing her airway, that killed the woman, an autopsy found.

In using the piece of clothing, Russo "told me he was finishing the job," Shipley testified.

Now, prosecutors say the man's alleged statement indicates Russo reflected on killing his mother. On Wednesday, Chief Assistant Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson upped the charge against the defendant from 2nd- to 1st-degree murder.

Russo now faces life without parole or a possible death sentence if convicted.

After the testimony of three witnesses Wednesday, Greene County Associate Circuit Judge Jason Brown found probable cause Russo committed the crime, and sent the case to circuit court, where it can be tried.

Roth's body was found June 2, in her rented duplex in the 700 block of South Nettleton Avenue.

Aside from the odd placement of her body, officers also found candles, cups of liquid and a Bible placed on either side of the woman, according to search warrant documents. Investigators found a host of masking- tape crosses in and around the home.

According to court documents, Roth tried to have her son temporarily committed just four days before her death.

She had called police at least twice this year after being attacked by Russo, who reportedly believed himself to be Jesus Christ when he wasn't taking his medication.

Following his arrest, Russo claimed he'd been abused.

"He said he was emotionally abused by his mother his entire life," Shipley testified.

"He said at times he was physically abused."

Russo is scheduled to be arraigned in circuit court July 10.

(source: News-Leader)

*****************

Son faces death penalty in death of mother

Greene County prosecutors have upgraded charges against a Springfield man to 1st-degree murder in the death of his mother.

23-year-old Skyler Russo was originally charged with 2nd-degree murder in the June 2 death of 54-year-old Judith Roth.

But during a hearing Wednesday, Dan Patterson, chief assistant Greene County prosecutor, said Russo's statements since his arrest show that Roth's death was premeditated, prompting the upgraded charges.

Court documents indicate that Roth tried to have her son temporarily committed 4 days before her death. She had called police at least twice this year after being attacked by Russo.

(source: Associated Press)

CALIFORNIA:

Jesse James Hollywood case goes to the jury----Attorneys finish their arguments in the trial over the 2000 murder of Nicholas Markowitz, 15.

9 years after the kidnapping and murder of a 15-year-old West Hills boy, a jury on Wednesday was given the case against Jesse James Hollywood, the alleged mastermind behind the slaying.

The crime was the model for the 2007 movie "Alpha Dog." Defense attorneys have argued that the crime's notoriety tainted the testimony of witnesses and prejudiced the public against their client. Hollywood could receive the death penalty if convicted.

"The movie is about an animal," said attorney James Blatt, referring to the metaphorical use of the term for a wild dog who leads the pack. "Don't you think that, from a defense point of view, that dehumanizes your client?"

In the defense's final argument Wednesday, lawyers made liberal use of less flattering metaphors. One witness whose testimony was unfavorable to Hollywood was described as "a human bong" for his drug use. Another -- Graham Pressley, 1 of 4 men already convicted in the death of Nicholas Markowitz -- was called "a little weasel."

The teenager was beaten up, forced into a van near his home and driven to Santa Barbara by Hollywood and a couple of his friends. Prosecutors contend that the aim was to hold Nicholas until his older half brother Ben made good on a $1,200 drug debt to Hollywood, an admitted marijuana dealer.

Defense attorneys say that Nicholas was free to go shortly after the group arrived in Santa Barbara and that a Hollywood friend named Ryan Hoyt opted to kill the boy to win the defendant's approval.

On Wednesday, prosecutor Joshua Lynn repeated his description of Hoyt as a lackey who would do anything -- including commit murder -- for the more popular Hollywood. "What would not elevate his status would be to do it against Hollywood's orders," he said.

Hoyt has been sentenced to death. Pressley, who dug Nicholas' grave in the Santa Barbara foothills, was sentenced as a juvenile and has been released.

In his testimony, Pressley said another accomplice, Jesse Rugge, contended that Hollywood had offered him $2,000 to kill the boy, which he refused. Rugge was acquitted of murder but given a life sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

Alex Kessel, Blatt's co-counsel, contended that Pressley fabricated the conversation to earn an early parole. "He's the kind of weasel who will say or do anything to look out for No. 1," Kessel said.

After a 6-week trial, the jury starts deliberating today.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

*********************

Hollywood murder case in hands of California jury

A jury on Thursday was set to consider the case of Jesse James Hollywood, who is accused of kidnapping a 15-year-old boy over a drug debt then ordering his death and going on the run for years, a string of events that inspired the 2007 movie "Alpha Dog."

Closing arguments concluded Wednesday after jurors heard more than a month of testimony, with prosecutors arguing that Hollywood has escaped conviction for too long, and the defense accusing the prosecution of screening autopsy photos to emotionally influence the jury.

Hollywood could face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping Nicholas Markowitz because the boy's half brother owed him money for marijuana. Hollywood has acknowledged taking the boy but denied having any role in the teen's death.

"Justice has waited 9 years," prosecutor Joshua Lynn told the jurors during his closing argument. "The time has come.

Defense attorney Alex Kessel said Lynn was trying to manipulate the jury.

"You can't fill the void in the prosecution's case with pictures of Nick Markowitz in the grave," Kessel said.

Hollywood, 29, testified last week that he took Markowitz in Los Angeles impulsively because of a dispute with the teen's half brother, Ben Markowitz. Hollywood testified that he was afraid after Ben Markowitz left threatening messages, poisoned his dog and broke a window at his home hours before the abduction.

Prosecutors contend the kidnapping was aimed at getting Ben Markowitz to pay a drug debt.

The boy was driven to Santa Barbara, where he spent a couple of days drinking, smoking marijuana and playing video games with his abductors.

The prosecution contends that Hollywood then ordered the boy's death because an attorney had informed him that he could face a life sentence for kidnapping. Hollywood testified that the gunman, Ryan Hoyt, acted on his own.

Hollywood said he thought that Markowitz was being driven home when Hoyt drove him away 3 days after the abduction.

In his closing arguments, the prosecutor claimed that Hollywood was the mastermind and provided the murder weapon to Hoyt.

"His method was to have other people do his dirty work for him," Lynn said.

Markowitz's body was later found in a grave in a hiking area in the Santa Barbara foothills. He had been shot 9 times.

Hollywood fled after the killing and was arrested in 2005 in Brazil.

Hoyt was sentenced to death and 3 other men got lesser sentences.

(source: Boston Globe)

FLORIDA:

Fla. justices hears appeal of death row killer

A lawyer for a convicted murderer Wednesday told the Florida Supreme Court that his client should be spared from execution because new evidence points to a co-defendant as the killer.

The justices previously stayed the scheduled May 13 execution of John Richard Marek so a new trial judge could hear his appeal, which includes the argument he should get life in prison — the same sentence as co-defendant Raymond Wigley.

Marek, 47, was convicted of the June 1983 kidnapping, rape and strangulation of Adella Marie Simmons, whose body was found in a lifeguard stand on a Broward County beach.

Wigley, who was killed in prison by another inmate in 2000, had driven from Texas to Florida with Marek. They picked up the victim, a 45-year-old administrator at Barry University, on Florida's Turnpike where her car had broken down.

Each claimed the other had killed the woman. Both were separately convicted of first-degree murder but received different sentences.

Marek's appeal is based on new testimony from 6 witnesses who had been in prison with Wigley.

They said Wigley had confessed in conversations they either had with him or overheard. One witness said Wigley told him he strangled Simmons so she couldn't identify him after he had raped her.

Marek's lawyer, Martin McClain, told the justices the testimony raised enough doubt to require a reduced sentence even if insufficient to prove which man was the killer.

"If it's 50-50 they should get the same sentence," McClain said. "It should be a life sentence for both of them."

The new trial judge rejected that argument June 19.

Assistant Attorney General Carolyn Snurkowski told the justices that other evidence showed Marek was the killer. She got some help from Justice Charles Canady, who reminded her about psychological evidence that portrayed Wigley as a follower rather than a leader and Marek as a dominant personality.

Snurkowski agreed, saying a mental health expert concluded "Wigley was a wimp."

Some of the other justices appeared to have a harder time with the issue.

Justice R. Fred Lewis told Snurkowksi he found McClain's argument compelling. She replied that Wigley's statements in prison were just bragging to make himself look tough.

Snurkowski also argued Marek deserved death no matter who killed Simmons because he was the mastermind.

"It was Marek who did all the talking" when police questioned them, she said.

McClain, though, told the justices there was no evidence either man had planned to kill Simmons when they had picked her up.

The justices did not immediately rule.

McClain also asked for a new trial but later acknowledged he had little hope the high court would overturn Marek's conviction.

(source: Associated Press)

**************

Court denies Doorbal death-sentence appeal

In Atlanta, a federal appeals court has denied a bid for a new hearing by a member of an extortion gang convicted of killing and dismembering a Hungarian couple 14 years ago in South Florida. Noel Doorbal received 2 death sentences in the 1995 killings of Frank Griga and his girlfriend, Krisztina Furton, whose body parts were put in 55-gallon drums and buckets left at roadsides.

Doorbal's gang kidnapped wealthy men and forced them to turn over their assets. An earlier victim survived a staged auto accident in which he was set on fire.

Doorbal claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in his 1998 trial. A federal judge denied his habeas corpus petition, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling on Monday.

(source: Macon Telegraph)

GEORGIA:

Saving Troy Davis From Death Row

In late May I went to Georgia, where I met with Troy Anthony Davis on death row. He has been there for 18 years, and I wanted to speak with him. I came away convinced that he represents the most compelling case of innocence in decades.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether to hear the request for a writ of habeas corpus in Davis's case in September hopefully signaling a more careful review of his motion. The reality, though, is that the last time the Justices granted such a motion was 1925 and should the Supreme Court decline the request, the countdown to Davis's execution will begin. It is even more imperative that the Chatham County District Attorney, Larry Chisolm, act now to do the right thing, and move to reopen the case.

The case must be reopened for several reasons: Davis's conviction was based on the word of eyewitnesses. However, since 2001, 7 of the 9 witnesses recanted or contradicted their original testimony. Several said they were coerced by the police. No physical evidence was ever produced that tied Davis to the murder of Mark Allen MacPhail, a white off-duty Savannah police officer who was killed as he tried to break up a street fight. The gun used in the shooting was never found.

Second, there is abundant evidence supporting Davis's likely innocence but it has not been aired in court. Our legal system does not allow defendants the opportunity to present new evidence of their innocence after conviction. This intransigence on legal procedural matters is unconscionable when a life is on the line.

The new evidence of his innocence means Davis deserves another day in court, not execution: The prospect that an innocent man might be put to death based on faulty witness testimony, and because the court won't agree to hear evidence of his innocence, represents a tragedy of epic proportions. A wrongful execution cannot be rectified.

More than thirty years' worth of social science and criminal justice research shows that eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, according to The Innocence Project. Since 1973, a total of 133 men and women have been exonerated or had their death sentences commuted based on post-conviction findings that demonstrated their likely innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Adding to the sense of urgency around the Davis case, too, is the long, sour history of wrongly-accused black men receiving "rough justice" in the Deep South. Davis was convicted in Chatham County, a place where genteel traditions and picturesque antebellum mansions mask the harsher truths about the history of slavery, racism, and the Jim Crow era that is still imprinted on the region. Chatham County is home to about 250,000 of Georgia's 9.7 million residents but it has produced 40 % of all death row exonerations in the state.

The department of corrections in Georgia has blocked television media from visiting Davis. But when I met with him on May 29, I was overwhelmed by his quiet confidence, and by the high regard with which he is held by inmates and personnel alike.

It is evident that Davis's jailers—prison guards whose faces are usually stony or a blank slate of indifference—are moved by his plight. While we talked, I saw guards who clearly had come to believe as I do—that Troy Davis has spent nearly 1/2 his life on death row for a crime he did not commit. Outside, as I crossed the parking-lot under a merciless sun, I chatted with a woman who said she knew of a former guard who quit his duty at that facility, rather than have to take part in marching Troy Davis to the death chamber. I share that man's sense of outrage. I've also met with Davis's sister, Marita, and her son. He is nearing adulthood, and has only known his uncle as a death row inmate. But Davis, a former athletic coach, has nonetheless been an effective, compassionate mentor to his only nephew.

Yet it is not only the many details of Davis's humanity that has led to a groundswell of grassroots support for a campaign to reopen the case: It is the undeniable fact that, as a nation of laws, we have an obligation to reconsider death penalty convictions when new evidence of innocence is revealed.

This is why a "strange bedfellows" group of individuals have been drawn together to fight for the reopening of his case, including former FBI Director William Sessions, Pope Benedict XVI; former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Sessions, in fact, has been quite fired up about the need for reforms in a court and criminal justice system that refuses to re-examine a death penalty case despite new evidence that may prove a defendant's innocence.

"Only a full hearing, with all witnesses subject to rigorous cross-examination and a full exploration of the circumstances of their testimony, will provide a means to determine the reliability of the conviction," Sessions wrote in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed last year. "This never happened at [Troy Davis] trial. It must happen now."

The idea that any American might be sentenced to death without being allowed a full airing of all the evidence is an outrage, and represents a blatant flouting of our nation's founding principles. The NAACP has joined with Sessions, former president Jimmy Carter; Amnesty International, and a coalition of other human and civil rights groups to raise awareness of not only just the Troy Davis case, but of the urgent need to push for reforms to the criminal justice system. At www.iamtroy.com, information is available showing why innocence matters, and how all Americans can become a part of the movement to find solutions.

I believe that Troy Davis is innocent—and that the family of the slain Savannah police officer, Mark MacPhail, deserve to see the real killer brought to justice. These 2 things are not mutually exclusive, and our Constitution should be strong enough to ensure that both parts of that equation are realized.

(source: Ben Jealous, on National Public Radio)

ALABAMA:

Christie Scott takes the stand

There are new developments in a Franklin County capital murder trial.

Christie Scott, a mother accused of killing her young son, took the stand Wednesday.

Scott could barely be heard through her tears as she told jurors her version of what happened.

6-year-old mason scott was killed in a fire at his Russellville home in August of last year.

Prosecutors say Christie Scott intentionally set the fire that killed her son, but defense attorneys say an electrical problem sparked the fire.

Christie Scott spent about 2 1/2 hours on the stand.

Prosecutors will get their chance to cross examine Christie Scott when court reconvenes Thursday morning.

(source: WAFF)

ARIZONA:

Execution method of lethal injection approved----Case changed lethal-injection process

A federal judge Wednesday removed a major obstacle to executions in Arizona, ruling that the state's lethal-injection procedure is similar to one approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Executions have been on hold in Arizona since November 2007, when the Arizona Supreme Court postponed the death of convicted murderer Jeffrey Landrigan pending the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis of how inmates were put to death in Kentucky.

The high court's ruling approved the Kentucky protocol, but left the door open for other death-row defendants to question how it was done in their states.

Federal public defenders in Phoenix quickly filed such an appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court on Landrigan's behalf. And they filed a nearly identical suit in federal court on behalf of nine Arizona death-row prisoners who have not yet exhausted their appeals.

The two cases have been simultaneously working their way through the courts with similar arguments and nuances tailored to state and federal law. But the federal case was decided first.

U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Arizona protocol.

The Superior Court case has yet to be decided, but its outcome likely will be influenced by the federal court decision.

Assistant federal public defender Dale Baich, who oversees both cases, said he will appeal Wake's decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Assistant Arizona Attorney General Kent Cattani said he doubted the Appeals Court would overturn the decision, given the state's similarities to the Kentucky protocol.

"The intent is to have the process be as humane as possible," he said.

The Arizona protocol has changed considerably since the state's last execution because of arguments from Baich's office.

As in most states, Arizona's execution process depends on three drugs: a barbiturate to render the inmate unconscious and deaden the pain the other drugs cause; a paralytic to stop breathing and prevent witnesses from seeing involuntary spasms; and a chemical to stop the heart.

But the defense team assembled by the federal public defender objected to a technique that used an extra, false IV line that in fact emptied into a bucket so that the executioners could not be sure which of them administered a fatal dose.

They also argued against using an IV line into a groin artery that required a surgical insertion.

And after interviewing members of the execution medical team, the defense attorneys discovered that one of the nurses on the team had several DUI convictions, license suspensions and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

In its last execution, in May 2007, the state had used a Missouri doctor who had been forbidden from carrying out executions in his home state by a federal judge after he admitted that he improvised doses, was dyslexic and kept no records.

However, the defense attorneys got most of what they asked for as the state moved its protocol closer and closer to one they felt would match or exceed the Kentucky model. The new protocol uses an IV catheter into an arm, and the state has agreed to do thorough background checks on its executioners. Furthermore, in future executions, a prison warden will remain in the execution chamber during the procedure, and a member of the medical team will examine the condemned person after the barbiturate is administered to make sure he or she is unconscious before the potentially painful drugs are given.

"We think the protocol from (the last execution) would have passed constitutional challenge," Cattani said. "If there's a better way out there, we'll adopt that procedure."

Baich countered, "If there weren't 'problems' with the old protocol, at least they had some concerns."

(source: Arizona Republic)

USA----federal death row inmate

Judge upholds Jackson death sentence in 1994 Buncombe murder

A federal judge upheld the death sentence handed to one of Buncombe County's most notorious killers, ruling that Richard Allen Jackson's trial attorneys did a competent job representing him.

In a 251-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg detailed his reasons for rejecting arguments by Jackson's appellate lawyers that he deserves life in prison for the 1994 kidnapping, rape and murder of Karen Styles.

Styles, 22, disappeared while on a run in the Bent Creek Recreation Area of Pisgah National Forest. Her body was found about a month later duct-taped to a tree following one of the largest search-and-rescue operations ever in the county.

Mistakes made during the former Candler dishwasher's trial and sentencing included a lack of evidence presented to the jury about his troubled childhood and mental illness, Jackson said in a 2004 petition to vacate the death sentence.

But Thornburg ruled attorneys Stephen Lindsay and David Belser "performed far in excess of reasonableness or competency" in defending Jackson during his 2001 federal trial in Asheville.

Lindsay said Wednesday that it's not surprising the attorneys in Jackson's appeal argued that defense counsel was incompetent.

"I think that under the circumstances we did about as good a job as we could do," he said. "I think my biggest regret is we didn't have enough time to prepare for a very difficult case with very horrible facts."

The next step in the legal process is an appeal of Thornburg's ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jackson confessed to investigators that he abducted the woman at gunpoint, tortured her with a stun gun and raped her before ending her life with a single bullet to the head.

Styles' death incited anger and disbelief for more than the viciousness of the random crime. She was a Western Carolina University graduate who had just accepted a job as a wilderness counselor when she vanished in an area frequented by hikers, runners and mountain bikers who had never considered safety an issue on the trails.

Jackson was 1st sentenced to death following a trial in state court in 1995, but the conviction was overturned when the N.C. Supreme Court ruled that jurors shouldn't have heard his confession because he had invoked his right to counsel.

Just before a new death penalty trial was to begin in 2000, Jackson pleaded guilty to a state charge of 2nd-degree murder and was sentenced to at least 25 years in prison.

A federal jury in 2001 convicted Jackson on a charge of using a firearm on federal land in the killing of Styles. A federal appeals court later upheld the conviction. He is awaiting execution on death row at a penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind.

(source: Associated Press)

BAHAMAS:

Death sentence for Keith Carey's murderer

A judge yesterday imposed the death penalty on the man found guilty of shooting and killing businessman Keith Carey during an armed robbery.

Justice Jon Isaacs told Jamal Glinton that the court must send a message that it is "impermissible to murder defenseless, innocent victims." He said, "The object of punishment would not be achieved by any other sentence but the sentence of death." Glinton was sentenced to 30 years on the charge of armed robbery and 10 years for conspiracy to commit robbery. Those sentences will run concurrently.

Glinton, who is nicknamed "Bumper", was the trigger-man in the plot to rob Carey outside the Bank of The Bahamas on the Tonique Williams-Darling Highway on February 27, 2006.

According to the evidence, Glinton shot Carey at close range on the steps of the bank. Glinton already had the deposit bag that contained $40,000 when he shot Carey again while he was on the ground.

Justice Isaacs said Glinton's sharing of the proceeds with his co-conspirators, Sean Brown and Dwight Knowles, showed that he did not care about his victim. This, according to Justice Isaacs, was "the true barbaric act."

He said that Glinton did not act on greed alone, but his actions entered the "realm of brutality."

Justice Isaacs noted that Glinton carried out the crime in the presence of witnesses and had not demonstrated any remorse for Carey's death.

Cheryl Grant-Bethel, the deputy director of public prosecutions, had argued in favor of the death penalty on the grounds that the crime was "senseless, brutal and heinous to an unbelievable degree." Stephanie Pintard and Lennox Coleby also made up the prosecution team.

But defense lawyer Craig Butler, who appeared with Devard Francis, argued that the death penalty was "barbaric and archaic." Butler also said that no one was beyond rehabilitation.

Knowles was sentenced to 11 years for robbery and Brown was sentenced to 10 years on the same count on the date when they were convicted on April 9.

(source: Nassau Guardian)

BELARUS:

Belarus defies Council of Europe call for a moratorium

The authorities in Belarus continue to ignore international pressure on them to declare a moratorium on the death penalty, Amnesty International and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, said today. The two organizations have just learnt that the Brest regional court sentenced a 30-year-old man to death on 29 June.

The sentence was pronounced less than a week after the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly voted on 23 June in favour of restoring the Special Guest status to the Parliament of Belarus on the condition that Belarus declares a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty.

"The death sentence is clear evidence that there is no "de-facto moratorium" in Belarus as has been claimed by the government, and that we need to remain alert to the possibility that they continue to carry out death sentences," said Nicola Duckworth, Director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme.

"It is high time Belarus joins the rest of Europe and Central Asia in turning its back on the death penalty by declaring an official moratorium as a first step towards abolishing it."

According to press reports 2 men (whose names were not given) were convicted of a series of murders of elderly single women committed between November 2007 and January 2008 in Drahichin district near Brest in the south-west of the country. The man sentenced to death reportedly carried out odd jobs for the elderly women using the opportunity to find out where their valuables were hidden, and then returned later and strangled them while his accomplice held them down. He was also convicted of having committed 2 further murders on his own. His accomplice has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Both men had been in detention since January 2009. The sentence has not yet taken effect and an appeal can now be made to the Supreme Court.

Amnesty International and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee oppose the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

On 21 January, the Prosecutor General, Gregory Vasilevich, announced to the press that there had been one death sentence in 2008, while on 25 June, the Chair of the Supreme Court, Valentin Sukala, announced that there had been two death sentences in 2008.

"There are no other sources of information available to the public, and such contradictions bear witness to the total absence of open and reliable data on the death penalty in Belarus," says Aleh Hulak, Chairperson of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee.

Amnesty International and Belarusian Helsinki Committee once again call on the Belarusian authorities to put an end to the death penalty.

(source: Amnesty International, June 30)

PHILIPPINES:

After Vecina, 57 more OFWs still on death row

The 2 were sentenced to death for the alleged murder of the female Egyptian employer of Tejano in May 2001. The death sentence imposed by the Lower Court of Saudi Arabia was recently affirmed by the Saudi Arabia High Royal Court.

****

Rodelio Lanuza: He was accused of killing a Saudi man whom he claimed had tried to rape him. Lanuza has been languishing inside a high security prison in the eastern Saudi Arabian city of Dammam since 2000. A Facebook account was set up for his appeal.

Edison Gonzales, Eduardo Arcilla, and Rolando Gonzales: They were sentenced to death for the grisly murder of 3 fellow Filipinos, said to be their rivals in an illegal gambling business, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 2006. Court records show that they chopped the bodies of the victims and scattered the pieces around the city to cover up for the crime. Their cases are under review by a higher court.

Nelson Diana: Sentenced by a Malaysian lower court to death by hanging on Jan. 26, 2005 for trafficking 508.6 grams of cocaine. His appeal is being heard by the Malaysian High Court.

****

Overseas Filipino worker (OFW) May Vecina's reunion with her family on Tuesday after a year on Kuwait’s death row is definitely another feather in the cap for the Arroyo administration.

But the current number of OFWs facing the death penalty abroad means the government still has a lot of work to do.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on Wednesday said the number of overseas Filipinos on death row stands at 57, down from 59 after the commutation of the death sentence of an OFW in Taiwan and the reversal of another in Malaysia.

Last May 2, Taiwan's Court of Appeals gave Cecilia Alcaraz a reprieve when it commuted her death sentence to life imprisonment. Alcaraz, a tutor, was sentenced to die by firing squad for killing a Taiwanese national.

The 2nd to be removed from death row was Armah Candelario, who was convicted by a lower court in Malaysia of trafficking drugs in August 2008, but was acquitted on June 25 by the Malaysian High Court.

Candelario was apparently used as a “drug mule" by a drug syndicate, but the court found "reasonable doubt" that she knew the contents of a leather travel bag a friend had asked her to deliver to another individual.

Advocacy groups such as Migrante say the Vecina, Alcaraz and Candelario cases show that with vigorous assistance from the Philippine government, the execution of OFWs could be avoided.

In the case of Alcaraz, the commutation of her sentence elicited criticism from some Taiwanese groups against the alleged interference of the Manila Economic Cooperation Office (MECO), the Philippines’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, in court proceedings.

In Malaysia, the Philippine Embassy was known to have extended legal and psychological support for Candelario.

Vecina, a mother of 2 from North Cotabato province, was found guilty of killing her employer’s seven-year-old son Salem Sulaiman al-Otaib on Jan. 6, 2007.

But her death sentence was commuted by Kuwaiti Emir Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah early last year after a succession of representations by Vice President Noli De Castro and later, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Last June 24, the 30-year-old OFW received a pardon from the Kuwaiti ruler for good behavior during her stay at the Kuwaiti Central Jail.

Executions

DFA records show that a total of 87 Filipinos were placed on death row since January 2006.

One has been acquitted, 29 have had their sentences commuted, and 13 have returned home after serving their prison sentences.

DFA officials would not provide any figures on the number of Filipinos executed abroad. Migrante International said its tally under the Arroyo administration was 6, the latest of whom was Jenifer Bidoya a.k.a. Venancio Ladion, a native of Zamboanga Del Norte province, who was executed in Jeddah last October for killing a Saudi man.

Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Esteban Conejos Jr. says most of the 57 remaining cases involve offenses such as rape, drug smuggling, and homicide in China, Malaysia, Kuwait, Brunei, United States and Saudi Arabia.

Of the total, 48 are facing death for drug-related charges, mostly in Chinese jails. China gives a 2-year reprieve for foreign nationals with death sentences, giving them a chance at commutation for good behavior.

Other OFWs in jail

The DFA could not give a specific number of Filipinos languishing in jails abroad, but data previously released by Migrante International placed the total at almost 5,000 Filipinos all over the world, particularly in several Middle Eastern countries.

According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), a total of 174 Filipinos are currently detained on drug-related charges abroad.

PDEA Director General Dionisio Santiago said 158 of the Filipinos involved in drug cases are detained in different parts of China.

DFA and Migrante have reported that most of the cases are minor ones. These include alcohol-related offenses, gambling and illicit affairs, which are considered crimes in most Mideastern countries, particularly in Saudi Arabia, home to some 1.2 million Filipinos.

Action taken

"We don't spare any effort to help our Filipinos abroad which is why the DFA does whatever it can to assist them, with the help of the Department of Labor and the Office of the Vice President. We go the full gamut," Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo said in a statement on Tuesday.

The DFA has also actively campaigned for the abolition or at least a moratorium of the death penalty in countries with jailed Filipinos.

In a separate statement, Vice President De Castro said Tuesday that the DFA and Philippine Ambassador to Kuwait Ricardo Endaya are now securing tanazuls or affidavits of forgiveness from the families of the victims of Jakatia Pawa and Bienvenido Espino, 2 OFWs who are currently on death row in Kuwait.

“In Kuwait, the tanazul will allow the offender to be freed from his private obligation to the victim. Only the Amir (King) of Kuwait can grant a pardon which will free a convicted offender from his public obligation," the DFA said in a previous statement. [See="http://www.gmanews.tv/story/162122/Pinoy-on-death-row-in-Kuwait-gets-pardon-from-murder-victims-family" target="_blank"> Pinoy on death row in Kuwait gets pardon from murder victim's family]

Kuwait’s Shariah court hears the case on 2 aspects – private and public – in case of death or injury to a victim.

The private aspect of a case can be addressed with the signing of a tanazul by the heirs of the victim or the victim himself.

The signing of a tanazul may or may not influence the court’s decision on the public aspect of a case. There are cases, for instance, when the family of a murder victim forgives the killer but the court may still call for the execution of the offender when the crime was attended by extraordinary circumstances, such as mutilation or rape.

Espino was convicted for killing fellow OFW Jhiyas Gumapac in Kuwait in October 2007. He allegedly stabbed Gumapac 33 times over a laptop serving as collateral for his loan.

On the other hand, Pawa of Zamboanga Del Norte was sentenced to death on April 13, 2008 for allegedly killing her employer’s 22-year-old daughter.

Pawa has denied the allegation and said one of the family members might have committed the crime. The Kuwaiti Court of Appeals, however, still upheld her death sentence last month.

(source: GMA News)

THAILAND:

2 acquitted of drug charges escape death -- Appeal Court declares evidence 'insufficient'

The Appeal Court has acquitted two men sentenced to death by a lower court for drug trafficking.

The men were charged in 2005 with being in possession of nearly 200,000 methamphetamine pills.

Songsak Noisang and Kittisak Rodo-eng were arrested after being named by 1 of 2 drug traffickers they allegedly hired to smuggle 198,000 pills of yaba from Chiang Rai to Narathiwat for 4 million baht.

Mr Kittisak was also found to be the owner of a factory in Sungai Padi district in Narathiwat where police found 30 million baht in cash stuffed in PVC pipes.

Mr Songsak was alleged to have received money from Mr Kittisak and hired Chainarong Kaewprasit and Suthas Ahsae as drug traffickers.

The lower court also sentenced Suthas to death. Chainarong was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Appeal Court yesterday found the police evidence demonstrating a link between Mr Songsak and Mr Kittisak and the two traffickers insufficient to reach a guilty verdict on the drug offences.

Mr Songsak and Mr Kittisak have persistently denied the allegations.

Police evidence included records of mobile phone calls between the traffickers and Mr Songsak and Mr Kittisak.

The court also found Suthas's confession that Mr Songsak and Mr Kittisak had hired him and Chainarong to smuggle the drugs was not to be believed because Suthas had reversed his confession during the lower court hearing.

At the time, Suthas said he had been beaten by police investigators to force a confession.

The Appeal Court yesterday resolved to reduce the death sentence of Suthas to life imprisonment. Chainarong will be sent to Songkhla provincial court, the province where he was detained, and have his sentence read.

Upon hearing the the news of their acquittal, Mr Songsak and Mr Kittisak showed no emotion in court.

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga has ordered the Anti-Money Laundering Office to work with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and the Office of the Narcotics Control Board to find the origin of nearly 10 million baht found in a seized car.

The DSI said several other vehicles seized from alleged drug dealer Usman Salaemaeng and others in the same drug ring would be searched again thoroughly after the discovery of the money in one of Mr Usman's cars seized fours ago.

Udon Thani police yesterday revealed they had arrested Hasan Binyunu, 31, and Sora-at Oncharoen, 52, suspected key dealers in the drug ring controlled by Mr Usman, who is still at large.

Police seized 102,000 pills of yaba, 20 baht weight in ornamental gold, 3 luxury cars and 4 land deeds from the suspects.

Mr Sora-at was arrested after he dropped off 3 other drug suspects at Udon Thani airport and then headed to Bangkok in his car.

The 3 men were arrested later when they arrived at Suvarnabhumi airport. They were identified as Masaree Mayeng, Mayakee Mayeng, and Ahyu Yoso.

Police searched and found drugs hidden below the front left door of Mr Sora-at's car.

(source: Bangkok Post)

JULY 1, 2009:

TEXAS:

Condemned inmate Rodney Reed loses appeal again

Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed lost another appeal before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which on Wednesdsay rejected his claims that new evidence pointed to another man as the killer of a 19-year-old woman in Bastrop County 13 years ago.

In a 6th petition to the state's highest criminal appeals court, Reed's lawyers argued they had evidence suggesting the boyfriend of Stacey Stites as the person who abducted, raped and murdered her.

Stites' fiance, Jimmy Fennell, is a former police officer who later was jailed for abducting and having improper sexual activity with a woman in his custody.

The court, however, said the information submitted by Reed failed to show innocence and failed to show that prosecutors withheld it.

"The allegations of Fennell's misconduct and domestic violence do not exonerate (Reed)," the court said in a brief decision. "The totality of the evidence before us still supports a guilty verdict."

The latest challenge cited Fennell's misconduct as he worked as a police officer in Georgetown and earlier in Giddings. It also pointed to a report of domestic violence from Fennell's ex-wife and an affidavit of a "possible sighting of the victim and (Reed) together," according to the court.

Reed, 41, has insisted he and Stites had a continuing secret affair even though Stites was engaged to soon marry Fennell when her body was found along a rural road after she failed to show up for work at a supermarket in Bastrop, southeast of Austin.

Reed is black and Stites was white and Reed's lawyers have described the racial aspects of the case as explosive. The also accused prosecutors of improperly withholding evidence. Prosecutors denied any wrongdoing and disputed the claims of a secret relationship between the victim and Reed.

Reed was arrested almost a year after the April 1996 slaying of Stites after his DNA surfaced in the investigation of an unrelated sexual assault case.

The court also turned down appeals in three other Texas death row cases, including a man whose death sentence for a murder in Smith County was thrown out by the court in 2005.

This time the court upheld the second death sentence for Gregory Russeau, 39, convicted of killing a 75-year-old auto mechanic during a robbery in Tyler. Attorneys for Russeau raised 17 claims of error from his 2nd punishment trial, including insufficient evidence, improper psychiatric evidence, constitutional challenges and improper jury instructions.

The murdered man, James Syvertson, was found at his shop by his wife, daughter and grandchildren. His wallet and car were stolen. Russeau was arrested in Syvertson's car in Longview the day after the May 2001 murder. His palm print and hair were found at the auto shop. Russeau had a previous conviction for burglary.

His 1st death sentence was overturned after attorneys contended reports of his misbehavior while in prison improperly were presented to jurors when they were considering punishment.

In another case, the court refused an appeal for Chuong Duong Tong, condemned for the 1997 slaying of Houston police officer Coung Huy "Tony" Trinh, who was working off-duty at his family's convenience store when he was shot during a robbery. Tong, 32, is a refugee from Vietnam. He raised 12 claims challenging his conviction and sentence.

The court also refused an appeal from Patrick Murphy Jr., the last of the infamous "Texas 7" fugitives to receive the death penalty for the shooting death of an Irving police officer on Christmas Eve 2000. In his appeal, Murphy, 48, raised 8 challenges to his conviction and sentence and all were rejected.

Murphy was serving 50 years for aggravated sexual assault when he and six other inmates broke out of the Connally Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. About two weeks later, Officer Aubrey Hawkins was killed when he interrupted the escapees' robbery of an Irving sporting goods store.

Murphy and 5 of his companions were captured the following month in Colorado. The 7th fugitive killed himself as police moved in.

One of them, Michael Rodriguez, was executed last year. Murphy and the 4 others remain on death row.

(source: Houston Chronicle)

USA:

Secret C.I.A. Jails an Issue in Terror Case

Lawyers for a former Guantánamo detainee who was ordered by President Obama to face trial in a civilian court have told a judge in Manhattan that they want to visit the "black sites" run overseas by the Central Intelligence Agency where their client was held for about 2 years after he was captured in 2004.

The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, has been charged with participating in a conspiracy that included the 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, attacks organized by Al Qaeda that killed 224 people and injured thousands.

Mr. Ghailani, a Tanzanian who is believed to be in his mid-30s, became a fugitive after the attacks, and later worked as a bodyguard and cook for Osama bin Laden, military authorities have said.

His lawyers also said they would ask the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, to order the government to preserve any sites where their client was held. They noted that the C.I.A. has said that it no longer operates detention facilities or black sites, and is planning to decommission them.

"The concern," the lawyers said in court papers filed this week, “is that by the time the defendant's team obtains the necessary security clearances, the C.I.A. black sites will have been 'decommissioned' or destroyed."

President Obama announced in May that Mr. Ghailani would be transferred into the civilian system from the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he had been since 2006. The president said his goal was to try terrorism suspects in federal courts "whenever feasible."

Mr. Ghailani's lawyers have indicated that they intend to dig deeply into what happened to their client during his years in detention and to determine how his treatment might affect the federal case against him.

"It appears undeniable," they wrote, that he "was subjected to harsh conditions and harsh interrogation techniques" while detained in the black sites.

One issue, they said, concerns the admissibility of any statements he might have made.

Another reason for their request, they wrote, involves the death penalty. If the government decides to seek it against Mr. Ghailani, the lawyers said, they want to be able to present "a detailed and accurate representation of the physical sites" where he was held and subjected to harsh treatment as mitigating evidence on his behalf.

Such a presentation would also seem likely to be used in arguments to the government against seeking capital punishment in the 1st place.

A spokeswoman for the United States attorney's office in Manhattan had no comment on the filing.

Mr. Ghailani, who has pleaded not guilty, is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday. The death penalty is one issue that may come up.

Last month, Judge Kaplan noted that the Defense Department decided not to seek the death penalty against Mr. Ghailani when he was in the military commission system. The judge suggested that the Justice Department should be able to "let us know very quickly if the death penalty is off the table."

(source: New York Times)

CALIFORNIA:

Death-penalty foes speak against California's proposed new protocol

One by one, a line of capital punishment opponents on Tuesday stepped up to a podium, making impassioned arguments against California’s newly proposed lethal injection procedure.

Each speaker was limited to three minutes. A woman talked of watching Stanley "Tookie" Williams writhe in a 2005 botched execution. Another speaker said his father-in-law was recently executed in China, giving him painful insight into state killings.

Elizabeth Zitrin, a spokeswoman representing Death Penalty Focus, said California’s pursuit to jumpstart capital punishment puts it in league with countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

"We're in the company of the world's worst human rights abusers," she said. “Today the world is watching California."

More than 100 seized the 1st open hearing California held to take public criticism of its execution procedure. Some 250 people filled the auditorium a short walk from the state Capitol.

Attorneys for Stockton's Michael Angelo Morales prompted the hearing, winning a ruling on appeal last year to make the state put its lethal injection procedure up for comment before adopting it. Morales is the next California prisoner in line for execution.

Morales was convicted of the murder and rape of 17-year-old Terri Lynn Winchell of Stockton.

(source: Stockton Record)

*****************

Public hearing turns into passionate debate on death penalty

It was supposed to be a dry public hearing on a "notice of proposed regulations," a meeting to let citizens speak about technical aspects of how lethal injection is administered to condemned inmates.

But anti-death penalty groups galvanized hundreds of their supporters to file into a Sacramento auditorium Tuesday for an emotional, day-long debate on whether capital punishment is justified or should be abolished.

It was clearly a 1-sided debate.

By the time the scheduled 3 p.m. close of the hearing arrived, nearly 100 people had spoken – only 2 in favor of the death penalty – and the hearing was extended 2 hours because so many more people wanted to talk.

"I have a commission from on high," Bill Babbitt, a 66-year-old Elk Grove man who travels the nation speaking out against the death penalty, said before he took the lectern. "God has told me what he wants me to do with my life."

Babbitt has believed that since he watched his brother, Manny, die in the San Quentin death chamber in 1999 on Manny Babbitt's 50th birthday.

He was executed for killing a 78-year-old Sacramento grandmother, Leah Schendel, in 1980, despite pleas that he be spared because his service in Vietnam had left him with mental disorders.

Many of the witnesses Tuesday had similar, personal connections to the death penalty: a mother whose daughter was stabbed to death but who opposed the death penalty for the killer; a former Death Row inmate from Oklahoma who was later exonerated and freed; a witness to the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams in 2005.

Ostensibly, the hearing was simply to allow comment on new lethal injections guidelines drafted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, part of an effort to fend off legal challenges that have kept the death penalty on hold in California since 2006.

To allay legal challenges, corrections officials drafted 42 pages of procedures for administering three drugs to kill a condemned inmate, bolstered the amount of training execution teams receive and built a new death chamber at San Quentin.

Now, the department has until May 2010 to submit them to a federal judge in San Jose for approval, which likely will be followed by further legal challenges.

Supporters of the death penalty on Tuesday called the legal challenges "frivolous" and urged a resumption of executions.

John Mancino, a leader of the movement in 1986 that ousted state Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird from her post because of her opposition to the death penalty, told the hearing that 108,000 murders have been committed in California since 1963, while only 14 executions have.

He added that claims that inmates may suffer pain during the lethal injection process are a "smoke screen" aimed at ending capital punishment.

"If you have even been anesthetized for a tonsillectomy, you don't feel a thing," Mancino said.

But he clearly was in the minority at the hearing, where teachers, doctors, clergy and college professors gathered to speak out against capital punishment.

One woman drew loud applause when she noted the irony that a hearing on executions was being held in an auditorium at the state health department.

Some wore T-shirts or carried signs with slogans such as "Execute Justice, Not People," "The Death Penalty is Killing California's Budget," and "Money for Education, Not Executions."

With California teetering on the financial brink, many speakers said abolishing the death penalty could save the state millions of dollars, despite the corrections department's statement that the new lethal injection process would have no fiscal impact.

Proponents of abolishing the death penalty cite a state study that says housing 680 inmates on death row and trying to implement the death penalty costs $137 million each year, while placing them all in prison for life would save $125 million.

Mike Farrell, the former M*A*S*H star who now heads the anti-death penalty group Death Penalty Focus, said there are too many unknown costs associated with capital punishment, including psychological pressures on execution team members and wardens.

Lance Lindsey, the group's executive director, called the death penalty procedures "heinously flawed," and said it was something "you will take with you for the rest of your lives."

But the very 1st speaker of the day provided one of the most poignant – and personal – arguments.

Donna Doolin-Larsen said her son Keith is on death row at San Quentin, and facing the prospect of his execution is "terribly painful and dehumanizing."

She described her son as "factually innocent," and said the death penalty "has impacted me and my family in many ways."

"I visualize in my nightmares the moment when I may have to witness Keith entering the death chamber, being strapped to the death gurney, seeing the death catheter inserted into his vein for the death poison to be administered, hearing Keith's last dying words, and thinking, 'Save my son,' " she said.

Keith Zon Doolin was convicted in 1996 and sent to California's death row for shooting 6 prostitutes in Fresno County, 2 fatally.

(source: Sacramento Bee)

*********************

Jury recommends death for man who killed OC couple

In Santa Ana, a jury has recommended the death penalty for a man who fatally slashed an elderly Orange County couple with steak knives and left his DNA on a soda can in their kitchen.

It was the 2nd penalty trial for 33-year-old Carlos Martinez, who is set to be sentenced on Aug. 21.

Another jury last August deadlocked 11-1 for death, after convicting him of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder for the Dec. 29, 2004, slayings of 83-year-old Nicholas Casas and his 73-year-old wife Emilia.

Prosecutors say Martinez entered the home pretending to be a prospective home buyer then killed the couple.

Investigators found a Pepsi can at the scene that contained Martinez's DNA.

(source: Associated Press)

INDIANA:

Prosecutor eyes death penalty in Jada case

Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter said Tuesday his office is undertaking a death penalty review against 2 defendants charged with the murder of 2-year-old Jada Justice.

The prosecutor's office on Friday charged Engelica Castillo, 18, and her boyfriend, Tim Tkachik, 24, both of Hobart, with the murder of the Portage toddler. Tkachik told police Jada died after a June 13 beating administered by Castillo, according to reports. Tkachik helped Castillo dispose of the body in a LaPorte County swamp, authorities said.

Carter said state law permits him to file a capital murder charge in a case where the victim was younger than 12, but he and his top deputies first must survey the evidence to determine if the case merits the ultimate punishment.

"We are still going through a lot of information. A lot of the physical evidence is being examined by our experts. That all has to be assessed before any decision as to a potential death penalty," he said.

Jada's mother, Melissa Swiontek, said Tuesday she supports a death penalty case.

"If that's the court's decision, I'm not going to oppose it," she said.

Swiontek said before her daughter was killed, she used to be against the death penalty. But she has since changed her mind, she said, "when it comes down to your baby."

She said she has no remorse for her cousin or Tkachik, saying "They're not even human ... if they can do that to my Jada.

"My baby's gone. They broke my heart. They have no right to be on this earth, if you ask me."

Lake County Deputy Chief Public Defender David Olson said Tuesday a death penalty charge will affect his office, which will be defending Castillo.

"We are just waiting for the state to decide," Olson said.

He said he would have to request additional tax dollars from the County Council if the prosecutor does go for the death penalty, which usually costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional law fees, expert-witness fees and other extraordinary expenses. He said his office will appoint two lawyers to defend Castillo if a capital murder charge is filed.

Olson said, "The question is whether the county can afford it? I don't know. It's very expensive."

Tkachik said Monday he may hire his own lawyer, although court sources said few private lawyers have the resources to undertake a death penalty murder defense.

Olson said a cheaper option for the county would be for the prosecutor to pursue a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Lake and Porter County judges have sentenced more than 23 men and women to death since capital murder was reinstated in 1977, but only 1 has been executed.

Kevin Charles Isom, 42, is awaiting trial later this fall on capital murder charges he killed his wife and her 2 children Aug. 6, 2007, at the Lakeshore Dunes Apartments in Gary's Miller section.

(source: Munster Times)

NORTH CAROLINA:

Controversial death penalty bill advances

A bill aimed at reducing racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty advanced another step in the N.C. General Assembly yesterday

. Supporters of the bill, which is known as the "North Carolina Racial Justice Act," say that it would combat racial bias by giving defendants and death-row inmates clear legal procedures to argue that race played a significant role in decisions to impose the death penalty.

But the bill is controversial because of the way it would allow defendants and inmates to use statistics to try to show racial bias.

The bill would allow them to use data from other death-penalty trials within the same county, prosecutorial district, judicial division or the state at large. For instance, a black defendant might argue to a judge that, statistically, blacks are much more likely than whites to receive the death penalty in one or more of those jurisdictions. The statistical evidence alone would be enough for a judge to throw out the death penalty for that defendant -- regardless of the particular facts of the defendant's case.

Supporters say that the bill is necessary to overcome a legacy of systemic bias in the criminal-justice system that has been especially pronounced in the realm of capital punishment. Murders involving black defendants, or white victims, or both, are more likely to result in death sentences.

The bill's sponsors also said that defendants would have to meet high standards before a judge would rule that race played a significant role in decisions to impose the death penalty.

''I just want to re-emphasize that the burden of proof in this act is with the defendant," said state Rep. Earline Parmon, D-Forsyth. She and Rep. Larry Womble, also D-Forsyth, are two of the bill's biggest advocates.

''This is a bill for fair sentencing," Parmon added. "And it's been around a long time, and it's time for us to move forward on it."

The legislature is doing just that, but the bill is far from a sure bet to pass into law. Yesterday, the bill was approved by a key judiciary committee in the N.C. House. The committee's vote was 7-6.

It must go through one more committee before coming up in the full House, where Republicans plan to oppose it aggressively, and some conservative Democrats may be unenthusiastic about the bill.

''I think it will be close," said Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, R-Wake and the House minority leader. "We will fight it hard."

Another test for the bill is in the N.C. Senate. That chamber previously approved a version of it, but the bill has undergone significant changes since then that may make it less palatable to some senators.

The bill's opponents argue that it would, in effect, create racial quotas for the death penalty. The bill's supporters dispute that claim.

Under the bill, a defendant charged with 1st-degree murder could use the bill's procedures to challenge either a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty or a jury's decision to issue a death sentence. It also would give all current death-row inmates 1 year to challenge the death sentences in their cases on the basis of race.

If a death sentence were thrown out, it would be automatically converted to a sentence of life in prison without parole.

The General Assembly's Fiscal Research Division estimates that the bill could cost the state $2 million to $6 million in new expenses based on the additional appeals that would likely arise in death-penalty cases.

(source: Winston-Salem Journal)

*************************

NC House takes up anti-bias death penalty bill

A North Carolina legislative committee has narrowly advanced a bill supporters say could counteract racial bias that might put a murder defendant on North Carolina's death row.

Democrats on a House judiciary committee voted 7-6 Tuesday to recommend a bill called the Racial Justice Act. It would allow a judge to rule out capital punishment before or after a murder trial on the basis of race.

The defendant could use data or other evidence to try to prove race was a significant factor in a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty or for jurors to impose it.

The Senate earlier approved a version that would remove legal obstacles that have blocked executions since 2006. The House stripped out those changes.

(source: Associcated Press)

*******************

House committee narrowly approves Racial Justice Act; cost estimates released

By a 7-6 vote, the House Judiciary I Committee approved a "clean" version of the Racial Justice Act (SB 461), which would prevent the execution of defendants who can prove race was an underlying factor in the decision to seek, or impose, the death penalty at the time of their trial. Meanwhile, a rough cost estimate has been published, with prosecutors and defense attorneys disagreeing over whether the bill would cost, or save, the state money.

The bill the House J1 Committee approved today does not include controversial clauses that would ensure the resumption of the death penalty in North Carolina, which were added on the Senate floor but later removed in the House Ways and Means Committee. It also contained several technical amendments to the version Ways and Means had passed. The bill now heads to the House Appropriations Committee, before coming up for a vote on the House floor. If House members succeed in keeping the bill free of the execution amendments, a compromise will likely need to be struck in conference committee.

After a discussion by committee members, Committee Chair Deborah Ross asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the bill. Nobody raised his hand.

Rep. John Blust (R-Guilford) offered an explanation: "People might not like the idea of coming forward and being against something that's titled 'the Racial Justice Act.'" He added:

"If we really want to talk about racial justice we need to think about the people out there right now, in the various communities in this state, some of whom live in very rough communities and face a survival question day-to-day, at the hands of people who often prey on them. And it's those African-American citizens, out in the community, that I have more concern about their racial justice, to be able to live their lives. That's going to be impacted with the DA's having to look over their shoulders in prosecuting capital cases from now on."

The Rev. William Barber II, president of the NAACP state chapter, walked to the podium to debunk the concern: "African-Americans want to see this passed."

In an interview after the vote, he cited better schools, jobs and economic development—not the death penalty—as "the deterrents that we need in regards to the issues [Blust] was talking about."

"The African-American community is somewhat conservative, when it comes to crime," he said. "We believe, if you do the crime, you ought to do the time. What we fight for is there not being one system of sentencing for black folk, and then another system for others."

He added: "No prosecutor that's really interested in justice is worried about anyone reviewing what they have done."

Simultaneously, a fiscal note (PDF, 96 KB) has been added to the Racial Justice Act's ncleg.net page, including broad estimates on the cost of implementing the bill. N.C. Indigent Defense Services estimated "there will likely be a net savings associated with implementing the bill," due to the removal of trial and post-conviction appeal costs when defendants successfully make a Racial Justice Act claim, meaning they would instead be sentenced to life without parole, or, if their trial has not yet begun, tried for life without parole.

The N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) estimated that the extra court fees for Racial Justice claims in the first year to be between $2.4 million and $6.2 million, consisting mostly of defendants already on death row, who have one year to file a claim. However, the agency also noted that "to the extent a pretrial hearing resulted in a ruling that causes a case to proceed non-capitally, where it might otherwise have proceeded capitally, the subsequent costs for that case would be considerably less." AOC did not provide estimates of these long-term savings.

The N.C. Department of Justice estimated the additional costs of current death-row inmates making Racial Justice Act appeals to be $4 million, and did not factor in any potential savings from cases that would instead proceed non-capitally. (According to an Indy analysis of figures provided by the IDS, the state would have saved an estimated $36 million in defense costs alone, between the years 2001 and 2008, if it had sought life without parole, instead of the death penalty, in 733 capital cases.)

Both the AOC and Department of Justice arrived at their cost estimates by relying on a single capital murder trial in Durham, in which expert fees to investigate a claim of racial bias cost at least $25,000. (The defendant's motion wasn't heard; the charges have been reduced to noncapital murder, due to other circumstances.)

"Under the RJA, each case will have different data that defense and prosecution experts will have to consider and evaluate," the Department of Justice figures. "Thus, it is assumed that similar expense will be required for each of the 163 inmates currently on death row."

However, District Attorney Tracey Cline, the opposing attorney in the murder trial, told the Indy those costs should not factor into the Legislature's decision to approve or disapprove the Racial Justice Act. "Statistics in Durham County were applied in the wrong way. But in other, rural areas, it may be exactly what's needed," Cline said. "I don't want people to think that because of what happens in Durham, we should not support the Racial Justice Act, because I think that would be a travesty."

One way to keep such costs down is to launch a "coordinated statewide statistical study," which is what the IDS suggests in the fiscal note. Such a study, for which IDS suggests not-for-profit foundation funding, could produce "a baseline of data that may be disaggregated for purposes of analyzing racial discrimination claims by county, district and division."

In other words, each case would not have to re-invent the wheel, as the Department of Justice suggests.

Other than the one-year window for the 163 inmates presently on death row in North Carolina, the Racial Justice Act would allow defendants facing the death penalty to raise the claim either in pretrial hearings or after their conviction. (The 1-year deadline would then expire, and the bill would then no longer apply to death-row inmates.)

Committee Counsel Hal Pell acknowledged there is "some overlap" with constitutional protections, but added that the bill "provides some specific guidance, and allows statistical evidence to be used, and provides a procedure for this claim."

The burden is on the defendant to prove that race was an underlying factor; meanwhile, the bill would also allow the prosecution to rebut a Racial Justice Act claim with statistical evidence, or by pointing to programs that seek to eliminate the consideration of race in sentencing decisions.

(source: IndyWeek)

FLORIDA:

Fla. justices hearing execution appeal

The Florida Supreme Court again is considering an appeal from a convicted killer who is under an active death warrant.

The justices will hear oral argument Wednesday. They previously stayed the scheduled May 13 execution of John Richard Marek so a new trial judge could hear his appeal. The high court ruled a previous judge should have disqualified himself.

Marek, 47, was convicted of the June 1983 kidnapping, rape and strangulation of Adella Marie Simmons in Broward County. He had picked her up on Florida's Turnpike where her car had broken down.

The new judge rejected an argument that recently discovered evidence points to a co-defendant, who received a life sentence, as the actual killer.

(source: NBC News)

NEW MEXICO:

New Mexico's Death Penalty Ban Goes Into Effect

On July 1, new laws go into effect around the country. That includes New Mexico's ban on the death penalty that made headlines around the world.

Though the law goes into effect Wednesday, executions can still take place. Capital punishment can be sought for accused murderers who have already been indicted.

The repeal does not apply to people already on death row.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White is leading a campaign to reinstate the death penalty.

(source: KOAT News)

USA:

Obama and the death penalty

Politico notes that we may soon get an idea of where Obama stands on the death penalty as a chief executive. It's one thing to be opposed as a state senator. It's another thing to be a mix of tough on crime but troubled by the system as a candidate. What will he do when he has the power to end a life? Or spare it? We'll find out soon.

Something the first black president may well consider is the role race plays in the system. The Supreme Court is clear on this point: Just because statistics prove -- pretty much without a doubt -- that murders of white victims and black victims are treated very differently, that is not proof of discrimination in any particular case. True enough, but that's like saying, "We realize the system is flawed, but that doesn't mean it might not just deliver justice for you."

So, as he considers what to do, Obama should think about the fact that black people are about six times more likely than whites to be victims of murder. But, curiously, it is the killers of white people who overwhelmingly see the ultimate justice. For example, of white people executed in the United States since 1976, only 5 % killed someone of a different race. That means 95 %.

For black people, it's not even the opposite. It's worse than that. Of the black people killed since 1976, 68 % killed people outside their race. Only 32 % were executed for intra-racial murders.

What does that say about the value we, as a society, put on the lives of people of different races?

One of the main arguments people use for supporting the death penalty is that it deters crime. A quick glance at the graphs shows that the murder rate among white people is very low and stable. It's high and unstable for black people. Perhaps, death penalty proponents will conclude that we need to expand the death penalty for more black-on-black murders. You know, to deter them as much as we seem to deter murders of white people. But look a little closer and you'll see that the motives involved are not the kinds of crimes you can deter. If anything, drug-related homocides should be easier to deter than family-related, right? But far more whites die in family homicides than blacks, and vice-versa for drug-related homocides.

In short, it is a lie that the death penalty is meant to clean up our violent streets or stop random murders. It punishes the murderers of white people who knew their killers far more than it punishes people of color who see little help in cleaning up their violent neighborhoods. Maybe Obama will have the guts to expose this myth, this separate and unequal system of so-called justice.

(source: Michael Landauer, Dallas Morning News)

PENNSYLVANIA:

Pastor to devote more time to abolishing death penalty

Walter Everett set aside his pastoral duties at St. John's United Methodist Church on Tuesday after 3 years of service in order to devote more time to the cause he has actively pursued for 20 years — abolishing the death penalty.

He does so because he has learned to embrace the greatest form of restitution — forgiveness toward the man who murdered his son.

People ask him if he can make a living doing what he will be doing. Not financially, the 74-year-old tells them. "But I'm making a living in terms of what I do and who I am," he said.

"I always opposed the death penalty," Everett said. "But it never impacted my life as greatly as it did after my son was shot and killed."

Scott Everett was murdered in 1987 by a man named Mike Carlucci, who was coming off a 3-day drug and alcohol binge when Scott knocked on a neighbor’s door after locking himself out of his apartment, startling Carlucci, who then opened his door and opened fire.

"I looked for something that would get me past my anger and depression," Walter Everett said. "I began to pray and ask God, 'How do I unload this anger?' All I got was, 'Wait.’?"

It was an answer he didn't like, he said, but he continued to pray and believed the answer would come.

When Carlucci agreed to take a plea bargain after the shooting, Everett became angered at the system that would shorten the sentence of his son’s murderer. But because he pleaded guilty, Carlucci was able to tell the Everett family how sorry he was for what he had done.

Everett said, "God nudged me at that moment and said, 'This is what I asked you to wait for.'?" The process of healing began, and exactly one year after his son’s murder, Everett wrote a letter to Carlucci, telling him he forgave him, and in which he explained God’s forgiveness. "As soon as I mailed it, I felt the burden begin to lift," Everett said.

The written correspondence led to many visits with Carlucci over the next 2 years. Everett later testified on Carlucci’s behalf before the parole board. He was released in 1991.

"God had made a big difference in Mike's life, but He also made a big difference in my life," Everett said.

Carlucci is 1 of only 6 former inmates in Connecticut allowed to go back into prisons to share their experiences.

He and Everett have shared their story with radio programs and magazines and even appeared on "The Today Show" with Matt Lauer.

The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to criminals, Everett believes, and is extremely costly — 3 to 4 times as much as it is to keep someone in prison, because of all the appeals and court costs involved. And even with a trial, he said, innocent people have been convicted. Over the past 30 years, 133 people have been exonerated from death row.

(source: Daily Item)

IRAN----executions

6 people were hanged in Tehran's Evin prison today

6 people were hanged in Tehran's Evin prison early this morning July 1, reported the state run Iranian news agency ISNA.

None of those who were executed today were identified by name, age or details around what they were convicted of.

The state run news site "young journalist's club" also reported that one man identified as Alireza (28) was hanged in Tehran’s Evin prison convicted of murdering his friend.

Jerusalem Post , quoting a source in Iran, reported that 6 poeple were hanged in Tehran in relation with the recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran.

Iran Human Rights can not verify this report.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson of "Iran Human Rights" said:"We are concerned that none of those executed today were identified by name. Regardless of what they are charged with, we condemn today's executions, and repeat our concerns about the fact that many of the arrested under the pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran are in danger of torture, forced confession and execution".

The ISNA report also said: The six people who were hanged today were convicted of murder. The report added that execution of three others that was scheduled to take place today, was postponed. One of them, identified as "Hossein R." was a minor offender convicted of a murder at the age of 16.

(source: Iranhr.net)

*********************

Maryam Rajavi warns of execution of detainees----Regime forms 3-man committee to deal with detainees of uprising

Mullah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, the notorious head of the regime's Judiciary, has set up a three-man committee to deal with those arrested in the course of the Iranian people’s nationwide uprising. The regime's state television said on Monday that the committee would consist of Prosecutor-General mullah Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, General Inspection Organization Director Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, and First Deputy Judiciary chief Ebrahim Reissi.

This new committee is reminiscent of the "Death Committee" founded by Khomeini in 1988 which in the space of a few weeks ordered the execution of 30,000 political prisoners. Pour-Mohammadi and Raissi were both members of the "Death Committee." Pour-Mohammadi, a former Interior Ministry under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was at the time of the massacre a deputy Intelligence Minister and played the greatest role in carrying out Khomeini's order for the massacre of political prisoners.

Dorri-Najafabadi, a former Intelligence Minister, is responsible for many killings and crimes in this regime, including the chain murders of political opponents in the late 1990s which took place while he was minister. All 3 members of the new committee have committed crimes against humanity.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, warned of the possibility that detainees of the Iranian people's uprising would be executed and said that the mullahs' Supreme Leader is trying to save himself and his regime from the people's wrath through executions, killings, and spread of fear and terror. Mrs. Rajavi called on the UN Secretary General and Security Council to condemn the crimes of the mullahs' regime and refer the criminal file of those responsible for executions, killings and suppression, which include Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Shahroudi, Dorri-Najafabadi, Pour-Mohammadi and Raissi, to an international tribunal.

Mullah Ahmad Khatami, a member of the mullahs' Assembly of Experts, in a sermon on June 26 said those arrested had "waged war on God," and he urged the Judiciary to execute them.

(source: Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran)

CALIFORNIA:

California death row's dicey math----It'll cost the state about $1 billion to keep capital punishment on the books for the next 5 years. Is it worth it?

When Tuesday's hearings in Sacramento on proposed changes in California's method of executing convicted murderers veered into a discussion of why solutions to the state's budget crisis ought to include the abolition of capital punishment, it was another example of how divided our attitude on this issue remains.

In fact, if you look back through this vexed issue's history here, what emerges clearly is a deep ambivalence -- a popular unwillingness to renounce the death penalty as a symbol of the state's ultimate sanction against criminality, and a persistent current of reluctance to see it imposed too frequently. It's that division that sets California apart from most other capital punishment states.

The death penalty was first incorporated into California's penal code early in 1872, and, from the language of the statute, it's clear that o of the lawmakers' primary concerns was to keep their state's executions from turning into the kinds of public spectacles that still were common across the country.

"A judgment of death must be executed within the walls or yard of a jail, or some convenient private place in the county. The sheriff of the county must be present at the execution, and must invite the presence of a physician, the district attorney of the county, and at least 12 reputable citizens, to be selected by him; and he shall at the request of the defendant, permit such ministers of the gospel, not exceeding 2, as the defendant may name, and any persons, relatives or friends, not to exceed 5, to be present at the execution, together with such peace officers as he may think expedient, to witness the execution. But no other persons than those mentioned in this section can be present at the execution, nor can any person under age be allowed to witness the same."

There are no reliable statistics on how many such county executions were carried out, but in 1891, the law was amended to require that all hangings be done at either San Quentin or Folsom prisons. Over the next 46 years, 307 people were hanged at one or another of the prisons, or just slightly more than six prisoners per year, a stunningly low total for what was a fairly bloodthirsty period in the history of American criminal justice.

In 1937, the state adopted the gas chamber as its preferred method of execution, and administration of the death penalty became the exclusive province of San Quentin, where California's death row for men remains to this day; condemned women are housed at Chowchilla. From that point until judicial rulings halted capital punishment in 1967, the state executed 194 men and women -- again about 6 per year, still a strikingly low number, particularly given the rapid rise in population over that period.

Since Robert Alton Harris' execution in 1992 -- the 1st after a 25-year hiatus -- California's actual imposition of the death penalty has slowed even more. Just 13 people have been executed since then, which is less than one per year. These days, an inmate is more likely to die of natural causes than to be executed. But the number of people sent to death row has continued to climb, and San Quentin now houses 682 condemned men.

In other words, if we continue to execute condemned men at the current rate, it will take something approaching 1,000 years to clear San Quentin of all prisoners currently under sentence of death. If you feel like you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone, you're not alone.

Though 60% of Californians continue to support capital punishment, few people are calling for eliminating procedural safeguards and speeding the rate of execution. As they have historically, the people of this state appear to support the idea of the death penalty, but to be dubious about its application.

No doubt the work of attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their New York-based Innocence Project, which has relied on DNA testing to exonerate wrongly convicted men and women across the country, has had an impact on peoples' attitudes toward the death penalty. Americans will quarrel to the death over points of principle, but science is science. And what the application of genetic science to the criminal justice system has made clear is that what we hopefully call "due process" is too often a crap shoot.

Given California's deep ambivalence about capital punishment, the arguments being made by former Los Angeles District Atty. and state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp -- a longtime capital punishment supporter -- and others that death row simply has become too expensive to maintain have a new resonance. Van de Kamp and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's former state corrections chief, Jeanne Woodford, argue that cash-strapped California will spend as much as $1 billion to keep the death penalty on the books over the next 5 years.

Assuming the state eventually comes up with an execution protocol that passes judicial muster, that's a lot to spend for the deaths of fewer than 5 convicts, who just as easily could be sentenced to life without parole.

(source: Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times)

JUNE 30, 2009:

TEXAS:

Defense rests, state calls rebuttle witnesses in death penalty case

Defense attorneys trying to convince jurors that Mark Robertson should get a life sentence instead of the death penalty have rested their case.

Defense attorneys Robbie McClung and Richard Franklin are trying to persuade jurors that Robertson's abusive home life as a child and drug use are mitigating factors.

But Dallas County prosecutors Pat Kirlin, Josh Healy and Ellyce Lindberg are asking jurors to give Robertson a death sentence.

Robertson, 41, was convicted in the 1989 robbery and murder of 81-year-old Edna Brau in her Preston Hollow home. He is also serving 2 life sentences for killing her grandson, Sean Hill, and a convenience store clerk, Jeffrey Saunders.

Today, prosecutors are calling a prison warden to talk about inmate life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the victims' family members.

(source: Dallas Morning News)

*********************** new execution date

John Balentine has been given an execution date of September 30; it should be considered serious.

(sources: Rick Halperin & Texas Department of Criminal Justice)

ARIZONA----new death sentence

Man sentenced to death in 2005 murder of student

Mike Peter Gallardo was sentenced to death Tuesday by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury for the 2005 murder of a 20-year-old college student.

Gallardo, 52, was found guilty June 10 on charges that included 1st degree murder, burglary and kidnapping in the death of Rudy Padilla, who was killed in his home in Phoenix.

Gallardo had 16 prior felony convictions and had served 20 years in prison for armed robbery and burglary. He was working for Cox Cable in 2005 when he cased the home of Rodolfo and Sandra Padilla in West Phoenix, according to court testimony.

Just after noon on Dec. 9, 2005, Gallardo used his cell phone to call the Padilla home and see if anyone was home. The Padillas were not, but their son, Rudy, was there on a day off from college. But he did not answer the call.

Gallardo arrived between 12:30 p.m. and 12:40 p.m., and thinking no one was home, he used a lawn chair to break in a glass door in back and cut his hand, leaving a trace of blood.

Rudy Padilla, still in his pajamas, confronted Gallardo and was overpowered. Prosecutors said that Gallardo bound Padilla's hands and feet with electrical cords and then put a pillowcase over Padilla's head and tied it with another cord.

Then Gallardo made Padilla kneel on the floor and shot him in the back of the head with a gun he found in the house, according to court testimony.

Later that day, Padilla's father returned to the home and found his son shot to death.

Gallardo's phone was tracked through caller ID that Cox had recently had installed in the Padilla house, according to court testimony. Gallardo was not the installer. In addition, investigators found a cigarette butt with Gallardo's DNA at the scene.

Phoenix Police arrested Gallardo a year after the crime. Gallardo was identified as an investigative lead and questioned during the investigation, but police didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest.

(source: The Arizona Republic)

*********************

Man gets death penalty for deadly home invasion

A man convicted of a deadly home invasion was sentenced to death.

A jury has sentenced Mike Peter Gallardo, 52, to death for the 2005 murder of Rudy Padilla, 20.

According to the Phoenix police probable cause statement, Gallardo broke into the victim's home in December 2005 to commit a burglary.

Padilla's parents had left for work earlier in the day and his father found him shot to death that afternoon.

According to facts revealed at trial, Gallardo tied the victim's hands and feet, placed a pillowcase over his head and then shot him in the head.

Following an extensive investigation, Phoenix police arrested Gallardo a year later.

Gallardo was found guilty of 1st-degree murder, burglary and kidnapping and on Tuesday, he was sentenced to death.

(source: AZ Family)

USA:

Commentary----When Governments Kill; A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty.

On most public policy matters, Jim Wallis and I disagree. Both of us, however, do believe that the death penalty should be abolished—although we may not agree on how that should be done.

I’m a Catholic. Because of my Christian faith, and because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, I oppose the death penalty. I’m a conservative as well, and because my political philosophy recognizes that government is too often used by humans for the wrong ends, I find it quite logical to oppose capital punishment.

I have been criticized by some conservatives for my opposition to the death penalty. On the other hand, some conservatives have told me they question capital punishment or even oppose it, but believe that the conservative "position" is to support it. Fortunately for me, even if someone were to question my conservative bona fides (I've never been called not conservative enough, trust me), I wouldn't care.

The fact is, I don't understand why more conservatives don't oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians—perhaps a character flaw?—and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law).

Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people.

Those of us who oppose abortion believe that it is perhaps the greatest immorality to take an innocent life. While the death penalty is supposed to take the life of the guilty, we know that is not always the case. It should have shocked the consciences of conservatives when various government prosecutors withheld exculpatory, or opposed allowing DNA-tested, evidence in death row cases. To conservatives, that should be deemed as immoral as abortion.

The death penalty system is flawed and untrustworthy because human institutions always are. But even when guilt is certain, there are many downsides to the death penalty system. I've heard enough about the pain and suffering of families of victims caused by the long, drawn-out, and even intrusive legal process. Perhaps, then, it's time for America to re-examine the death penalty system, whether it works, and whom it hurts.

On how society would ever get to the point of abolishing the death penalty, if it were to do that, I have my conservative views. It must be done in a way consistent with our constitutional system. That means it cannot be imposed by the courts or by the federal government (except for federal cases). In my opinion, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban the death penalty in the states. That must be left to the people's representatives in their respective states, which also means that judges must not take it upon themselves.

This is why I am joining my friend Jim Wallis in a coalition of liberals and conservatives calling for a national moratorium and conversation about the death penalty, so people can study, learn, think, pray if they wish, about whether or how the various state death-penalty systems should be changed. I hope you'l join us.

(source: Richard A. Viguerie has been called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" by The Nation magazine----When Governments Kill. by Richard A. Viguerie. Sojourners Magazine, July 2009 (Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 10). Commentary.)

MISSOURI:

Special master appointed in Mo. death penalty case

The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered a special master to investigate claims that condemned prisoner Reginald Clemons was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.

The court announced Tuesday the appointment of Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners to take evidence, hear testimony and evaluate Clemons' claims.

Clemons was sentenced for the April 1991 murders of 20-year-old Julie Kerry and 19-year-old Robin Kerry in St. Louis. His execution was set for June 17, but a federal appeals court delayed it.

Court papers filed June 12 argue that new evidence supports Clemons' claim that police brutalized him into giving a statement. They also say Clemons' death sentence was out of proportion because a more culpable co-defendant received a lighter sentence.

(source: Kansas City Star)

KENTUCKY:

KY death row inmate gets life without parole

A jury recommended life without parole for a former Kentucky death row inmate.

The Kentucky New Era reported a jury in Madisonville handed down the recommendation after convicting 54-year-old Charles Bussell in the 1990 robbery and murder of 65-year-old Sue Spears Lail.

Bussell was sentenced to death in 1992, but after a 3rd trial, prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty.

(source: WFIE News)

COLORADO:

Family: Chase wouldn't have wished death for killer

The Chase family made it clear Monday that Susannah Chase would not have wanted the death penalty for the man who brutally killed her with a baseball bat 12 years ago.

"She wouldn't have hurt anything," Susannah's mother, Julie Chase, said. "Even her killer. She was a very sympathetic soul. She would not have killed him."

Diego Olmos Alcalde, who was convicted of 1st-degree murder Friday in the December 1997 beating death of Susannah Chase, was sentenced Monday to life in prison with no chance of parole.

The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office dropped the death penalty as an option in the case last year.

Susannah's brother, Stephen Chase, told Alcalde at the sentencing hearing that his sister's "empathy is her killer's greatest salvation."

Her other brother, Doug Chase, said Alcalde should recognize that his brutality would have been met with an attempt by his sister to understand what had gone wrong in his life.

"The ironic thing is that the very person whose life you stole from us is the reason you won't be sentenced to death today," he said.

Then-Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy filed a motion last August in which she stated her office wouldn’t seek the death penalty in the Chase murder case.

Lacy's decision was "based upon analysis of the applicable sentencing statutes and the facts of the case" and "consultation with the Boulder Police Department and the victim’s family," according to her motion.

At the time, Chase's family members told the Camera that they did not ask Lacy to seek the death penalty but did not ask her to rule it out.

“During the consultations, they raised that question with us, and we discussed it as a family. We told them we would be OK if the death penalty was not the end result,” Doug Chase said at the time.

Stan Garnett, who took over as the county's chief prosecutor in January, said Monday that the wishes of the Chase family were certainly considered but that it's ultimately not the victim’s family's decision to make.

"It's a complicated decision, and certainly the views of the family are important," he said. "If we ever do seek the death penalty, it's important that we are making a decision based on the law, and not based on emotion."

(source: Daily Camera)

FLORIDA:

Fewer from Brevard on death row----Numerous appeals lessen killers' sentences

With Mark Dean's Schwab's execution last July 1 and 3 major court decisions since, Brevard County's connection to Florida's death rowed has decreased by 4 men in 1 year.

In the past year, the Florida Supreme Court granted a new trial for 2 convict. And 2 others were granted new sentences, with local prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty in 1 of the cases.

9 murderers from here remain in 1 of 2 north Florida prisons, having awaited execution from 1 year to 29 years. This year marks 30 years since Florida resumed involuntary executions.

"There has been a pullback and slowdown in executions across the country," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center. "Last year showed the lowest number of executions in 13 years."

Dieter said there might be slight increase this year because legal challenges to lethal injection executions have been settled for the most part, but he sees executions overall to continue declining.

"What's driving this? Multiple factors," he said, "including DNA testing, mistakes and a more cautious judicial system."

Bryan Jennings, whom many agree will be the next Brevard killer put to death, has used the legal and appeals system to remain on death row the longest of Brevard's 9.

He was found guilty and sentenced to die 3 times and has been denied 12 times by various courts on numerous appeals. Jennings presently has an appeal before the Florida Supreme Court that maintains he had poor legal counsel.

Jennings brutally raped and killed a 6-year-old girl after snatching her from her Merritt Island bedroom through the window.

"A child is dead and a family destroyed, and (Jennings) is still alive," said Pat Eyster, who was the girl's principal at Audubon Elementary School and testified at Jennings' trials. "It's very upsetting that the legal system can be twisted to his advantage, when there was nothing to help that precious little girl."

Successful appeals

The lengthy appeal process that Jennings continues to pursue led to the three Brevard men leaving death row in the past year.

Crosley Green soon will be resentenced to life in prison for the 1989 murder of Charles Flynn Jr. Originally sentenced to die, the Florida Supreme Court ruled a Brevard jury never should have known about Green's juvenile record while living in New York.

The state announced it would abandon attempts to seek the death penalty again.

Anthony Welch also will be resentenced this year. The state's top court said a judge erred during jury selection in the penalty phase of the case.

Welch pleaded guilty in 2005 to killing his former next-door neighbors in their Pineda Crossings home, but was denied recently when he tried to withdraw his plea after the court decision.

The Florida Supreme Court voted 4-1 earlier this year that Willie Nowell, sentenced to death for killing a woman and her unborn child in 2002 in Palm Bay, was entitled to a new trial. The court said that the prosecution improperly excluded a prospective Hispanic juror and made a forbidden appeal to the emotions of jurors.

Execution issues

Schwab was executed on July 1, 2008, after spending 16 years on death row for raping and killing 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez of Cocoa in 1991. It was the state's 1st execution after a self-imposed moratorium due to a botched execution in 2006, when it took killer Angel Diaz twice the normal time to die from a wrongly administered lethal injection.

Since Schwab, Florida has executed 2 additional men without incident.

Death row proponents say it's dangerous not to execute murderers.

Political science professor John McAdams of Marquette University in Milwaukee regularly addresses the topic in his blog, mu-warrior.blogspot.com. He criticizes opponents of capital punishment for claiming innocent people get executed.

"Death-penalty opponents have incessantly stressed the possibility that some innocent person might be found guilty and executed -- something that apparently hasn't happened in the modern era," he said. "And they produce bogus lists of supposed 'innocents' on death row -- lists laden with names of people who really did the murder they were charged with, and got off on procedural grounds."

But Mark Elliott, executive director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said taxpayers are spending too much money on the death penalty. He also calls Florida's death penalty system neither swift, nor sure.

"All that time and money wasted each year to kill a couple of already-locked-up prisoners," Elliot said. "Let's use these resources to keep these crimes from happening in the first place and provide real help for the victims of violent crime and their families."

Elliot also argues that the lengthy appeals process is necessary so that innocent people are not executed.

"In the period since Bryan Jennings was sentenced to death, over 20 condemned Florida prisoners have been exonerated," Elliot said.

Earlier this year, the state's public defenders called for a furlough on the death penalty in order for the state to save to save on court costs, in addition to staffing and documentation expenses.

'Justice delayed'

The Rios-Martinez family lobbied for Schwab's execution for years, saying that "justice delayed was justice denied."

"Yes, most assuredly I have found peace since he was executed," said Vicki Rios-Martinez, the victim's mother. "We don't have to think about the lingering appeals or it always being in the background."

But Juanita Perez, who lost her son, his girlfriend and their 5-year old daughter in a murder in 2006, has lobbied the State Attorney's Office for months to accept Justin Heyne's offer to plead guilty to all 3 murders in exchange for 3 life sentences.

She said her family wouldn't have to suffer through years of appeals. But prosecutors, citing wishes of other family members, are going forward with seeking the death penalty.

"I know what the pain and price is for murder. I live with it every day," Perez said. "To punish his family is not right. . . . Only he should suffer by waking up every day for the rest of his life in prison."

(source: Associated Press)

NORTH CAROLINA:

NC House takes up anti-bias death penalty bill

House Democrats are trying to move forward a bill supporters say would attempt to ensure racial bias doesn't put a murder defendant on North Carolina's death row.

A House judiciary committee scheduled debate Tuesday on the "Racial Justice Act." It would create a procedure whereby a judge could rule out capital punishment before or after a murder trial on the basis of race.

The defendant could use data or other evidence to try to prove race was a significant factor in a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty or for jurors to impose it.

The Senate approved a version last month attached with provisions designed to remove legal obstacles that have halted state executions since 2006. The House stripped out those changes.

******************

Walk by anti-death penalty group ends in Raleigh

People who want the death penalty abolished in North Carolina are wrapping up a 300-mile pilgrimage by lobbying the Legislature.

Members of the group Sojourners for Abolition and Reconciliation will arrive Tuesday morning at the Legislative Building and hold a press conference.

Organizer Scott Bass is one of four people who has walked all or almost the entire way from Raleigh to the coast and back since June 14. They carry a cross and banner.

Bass said he's pleased with the dialogue they've had with people curious about their trip. They've talked about capital punishment, as well as about remembering family members of murder victims and of their perpetrators.

Last year's pilgrimage began in Raleigh and ended in Washington, D.C.

(source for both: Associated Press)

****************************

Jury in NC trooper death trial won't be local

A judge has ruled a jury that will hear evidence in the slaying of a North Carolina trooper won't be local, but the judge hasn't decided whether to move the trial another county.

Superior Court Judge Nathaniel Poovey ruled late Monday that Edwardo Wong's trial in October won't be heard by a Haywood County panel.

Wong's lawyers have asked the trial be moved because of pretrial publicity.

Wong, 37, of Ormond Beach, Fla., was charged with murder in the shooting death of Highway Patrol Trooper David Shawn Blanton Jr., 24. Blanton was shot to death in June 2008 when he pulled over a rented car trailer that had no license plate.

Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty if Wong is convicted.

Defense lawyers said publicity would prevent Wong from getting a fair trial in Haywood County. The lawyers said Wong was mentioned in 207 broadcasts by an Asheville television station and produced a thick binder of articles from 8 western North Carolina publications.

Prosecutors want a jury to be brought in from Cherokee County and the defense wants the whole case moved to Gaston County. Poovey said he didn't want to ask jurors to spend hours each day on a bus.

"It is a lot to ask of someone to spend 6 weeks in a case," the judge said. "It's even more to ask of somebody to spend 6 weeks in a case when they are there 12 hours a day."

(source: News & Observer)

GEORGIA:

Supreme Court delays Troy Davis decision

Death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis got another legal break Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court recessed for summer without acting on his latest appeal, likely delaying any developments in his case until fall. Earlier, his supporters presented Savannah’s district attorney with 60,000 petition signatures urging him to reopen the case.

Davis has spent nearly 18 years on death row after his conviction for killing an off-duty police officer, and his case has become a rallying point for death penalty opponents worldwide. His attorneys say Davis is innocent of killing officer Mark MacPhail and deserves a new trial after several prosecution witnesses reconsidered testimony given at his 1991 trial.

Davis has been spared from execution three times since he was 1st scheduled to die by lethal injection in 2007, as various courts have weighed and ultimately rejected his appeals.

Davis' attorneys filed his latest appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their request for a new trial in April. The Supreme Court had not decided whether it would hear Davis' appeal when justices recessed for the summer Monday. They won't reconvene until September.

"It's definitely good news," said Jason Ewart, Davis' attorney, who interpreted the court’s inaction as a sign it wants to take a closer look at the case. "It's not just a move buying more time."

While the Supreme Court's in recess, the next move would be up to Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm.

There's no stay of execution preventing Chisolm from seeking a judge’s order to move forward with Davis' death sentence. The prosecutor released a brief statement Monday that stopped short of saying he would wait for the Supreme Court before acting.

"As previously stated, the Chatham County District Attorney's office has no comment on the substance of this case until all appeals are exhausted," Chisolm said.

Chisolm's spokeswoman, Lydia Sermons, declined to comment further.

Davis' supporters say Chisolm has another option. They're working to pressure Chisolm to reopen Davis' case without waiting for the courts.

"He doesn't have to wait for them," said Martina Correia, Davis' sister. "He could still open this case at any time."

About 25 people from the NAACP, Amnesty International and other groups supporting Davis held a news conference Monday outside the Savannah courthouse to present Chisolm's office with 60,000 petition signatures urging the prosecutor to seek a new trial for Davis.

They said about 11,000 signatures came from Savannah and surrounding Chatham County, where black voters were key to Chisolm's election as the county's1rst African-American district attorney last fall. Davis is also black.

"We have sufficient evidence, we believe, to show that Troy Anthony Davis is innocent," said Prince Jackson, president of the NAACP's Savannah branch. "We are asking that he be given a chance. After all, his life is at stake."

Sermons, who accepted the petitions on Chisolm's behalf, has previously said the district attorney wasn't sure he has the legal authority to halt Davis' execution. She declined to elaborate Monday.

Chisolm's predecessor, Spencer Lawton, was district attorney when Davis was convicted. Prosecutors under Lawton, who retired last year, rejected Davis’ claims of innocence and labeled statements by recanting witnesses as "suspect."

MacPhail was slain 20 years ago while working off-duty as a security guard at a bus station. He had rushed to help a homeless man who had been pistol-whipped at a nearby parking lot, and was shot twice when he approached Davis and 2 other men. Witnesses identified Davis as the shooter at his 1991 trial.

But Davis' lawyers say new evidence proves their client was a victim of mistaken identity. They say 3 people who did not testify at Davis' trial have said another man confessed to the killing. But in an interview with the Associated Press, the jury foreman at the trial said he had no doubts about Davis' guilt.

The case has attracted worldwide attention, with calls to stop Davis' execution from former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Desmond Tutu. Rallies have been held as far away as Paris.

(source: Associated Press)

***********************

US high court delays decision on death row inmate

The US Supreme Court has quietly put off deciding whether it will take up the case of black death row inmate Troy Davis who for 20 years has insisted he did not kill a white policeman, a source close to Davis said Tuesday.

"The US Supreme Court called Troy's lawyer -- there will be no decision (which also means no execution date) until their court reconvenes in September," Sara Totonchi, head of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, which supports Davis, said in an email sent to AFP.

Davis's lawyer was not available for comment.

The justices delayed a decision in Davis's case without explanation on Monday, the last day of the Supreme Court's term before a long summer recess.

Davis has been in jail for 18 years for the murder in 1989 of white police officer Mark Allen MacPhail.

Now 41, Davis has repeatedly said he did not kill MacPhail, and seven out of nine witnesses who gave evidence at his trial in 1991 have recanted or changed their testimony.

No murder weapon was ever found, no DNA evidence or fingerprints tie him to the crime, which other witnesses have since said was committed by another man -- a state's witness who testified against Davis.

Davis has won several 11th-hour stays of execution since July 2007, when he was originally sentenced to die for murdering MacPhail.

One of the stays was granted by the Supreme Court in September last year, less than two hours before Davis was due to be put to death.

Around 2 weeks later, the high court refused to consider the constitutionality of executing a person when there is new evidence to show he was not guilty of the crime he stands accused of, and referred Davis's case back to the lower courts.

In April, a court in Georgia denied Davis a retrial but granted him another stay of execution to allow lawyers to take his case back to the Supreme Court.

With its racial overtones and Davis's continued claims of innocence, the case has triggered an international outcry, including from the European Union, whose 27 member states oppose any use of capital punishment, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu of South Africa, and Pope Benedict XVI.

(source: Agence France-Presse)

ALABAMA:

Jury set to recommend sentence for convicted killer

An Elmore County jury is currently deliberating whether to recommend the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole for convicted killer Calvin McMillan.

Closing arguments in the penalty phase of McMillan's capital murder trial ended at 10 a.m. today, and the jury began deliberating about 10:20 a.m.

Jurors took a break for lunch about 1 p.m. The jury will begin deliberating again at 2 p.m.

The state is seeking a death penalty recommendation from the jury, with the defense asking for the only other available recommendation of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

McMillan, 20, of Opelika was convicted Friday of 2 counts of capital murder in the shooting death of James Bryan Martin, 23, a Millbrook father of 2.

Martin was gunned down the night of Aug. 29, 2007, in the Millbrook Wal-Mart parking lot. Prosecutors proved that McMillan killed Martin during the theft of Martin’s 2004 Ford F-150 pickup.

"Calvin McMillan lay in wait for 40 minutes for a defenseless victim in a public parking lot," said James Houts, chief assistant district attorney, in his closing arguments. "Bryan Martin was there to buy diapers and baby wipes. Calvin McMillan valued a car more than a human life. He dumped James Bryan Martin in the parking lot without blinking an eye."

The prosecutor seemed to look ahead to the defense's closing. In the evidentiary portion on the penalty phase, the defense presented evidence that McMillan was a victim of physical, psychological and sexual abuse throughout his youth and teenage years.

"Calvin McMillan is not deprived. He’s depraved," Houts told the jury.

Defense attorney Kenny James told the jury that they must consider McMillan's background.

"Calvin McMillan sits there guilty of 2 counts of capital murder because of the way he was raised," James said, as he turned to point to his client. "Calvin McMillan chose to get a gun and chose to steal a car, but you are the result of your childhood."

James acknowledged that McMillan is responsible for Martin's death. "This is about the appropriate sentence given the background Calvin grew up in," James said. "Calvin is not an animal. He is a human being. You can lock him in a cage like he is an animal for the rest of his life. That's what needs to be done."

The jury will give its recommended sentence to Circuit Court Judge John Bush, who can either accept or override the recommendation.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)

CALIFORNIA:

Majority at public hearing oppose California's proposed lethal injection changes----Only 2 of more than 100 speakers support the resumption of executions once legal challenges are addressed.

Reporting from Sacramento -- Corrections officials heard overwhelming condemnation of proposed new lethal injection procedures Tuesday at the first-ever public hearing on execution methods in the state.

Contrary to the solid majority of Californians who in opinion polls expressed support for the death penalty, only two out of more than 100 speakers supported a resumption of death sentences once legal hurdles are cleared.

But the opponents' sentiments are unlikely to be persuasive because the hearing was intended to review specific execution procedures, not the pros and cons of capital punishment, which remains a legal option in the state.

Executions have been on hold since a federal judge raised concerns 3 1/2 years ago that California's three-drug method could inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Their resumption isn't expected in the near future, not because of opposition but because of legal and financial obstacles the state has yet to overcome.

Tuesday's hearing by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation concluded a 2-month period for public comment that drew more than 5,000 written opinions, which will be considered before the protocols are adopted, said department spokesman Seth Unger.

2 court cases still stand in the way of executing any of the 682 prisoners on death row, both filed by Michael A. Morales, the convicted murderer whose challenge to the constitutionality of the process brought the de facto suspension in February 2006.

When and if the protocols are approved, in two months at the earliest, the legal reviews are expected to take a year -- and probably longer if opponents are successful in raising other constitutional issues. Condemned prisoners have a right to habeas corpus appeals in federal court, but a lack of funds for lawyers and jammed court calendars grossly delay the cases. It now takes an average of 25 years between conviction and execution.

Despite what was supposed to be a narrow discussion, religious leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers and family members of murderers and their victims seized the opportunity to rail against "state-sponsored killing" and the $125 million a year spent to maintain a dysfunctional death row.

Opponents rallied by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California capped the 8-hour marathon of three-minute speeches by delivering a symbolic, oversized check for $1 billion to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office -- the amount needed over the next five years to bring executions up to constitutional standards.

Crucifixion, beheading, drawing and quartering, hanging, firing squads, the electric chair and the gas chamber all have had their day as acceptable means of punishing the worst offenders only to be recognized later as barbaric, said retired Oakland engineer Charles Feltman.

Paul J. Kaplan, a San Diego State professor of criminal justice, recalled waking up during surgery, fully conscious but unable to convey his ability to feel pain to the doctor because the paralytic agent in his anesthesia had immobilized him.

"I woke up on the operating table but couldn't breathe or move. I was totally paralyzed but alert and feeling," he said, providing a cautionary tale for the lethal injection procedures that use the same anesthetizing and paralyzing sequence.

"This is nothing more than a costly manicure on the bloody fingers of the state of California," Lyle Grosjean, a minister from Paso Robles, said of the revised execution procedures.

Johanna Westerson, a Swedish human rights lawyer living in San Francisco, urged state officials to "join the civilized nations of the world in abandoning this barbaric practice" and part company with the likes of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Let's televise these events and show the world what we're doing, like the Taliban," Palo Alto resident Gerard McGuire proposed. "Shine the full light of public knowledge on this event, this state-sanctioned murder."

Former wardens and chaplains from the nation's busiest death houses sent accounts of witnessing executions that have haunted them.

The only speakers in favor of resuming executions, John Mancino and Howard Garber of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Civil Responsibilities Union, blamed the cost of maintaining death row on excessive appeals allowed condemned inmates and vowed to defeat the efforts of activist judges to deprive murder victims' families of justice.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

*************************

Day of Action to End the Death Penalty

Today, for the 1st time ever, Californians will have the chance to weigh in on the state’s broken death penalty system. Victims, clergy, legal experts, wrongfully convicted individuals and concerned taxpayers from around the state will converge on Sacramento for a public hearing of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to give their comments on new regulations for lethal injections.

The hearing comes after 3 years of legal challenges and 3 years without executions in California. If the rules are adopted and more pending legal challenges are resolved quickly, executions could resume as soon as 2010. But only 4 people have exhausted all of their appeals and would even be eligible for execution. Meanwhile in the last 3 years, 16 people on death row have died of natural causes or suicide. California has only managed to carry out 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.

Yet despite having no official method of execution for the last 3 years, California has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on the death penalty system, and stands poised to waste another $1 billion over the next 5 years. So after voicing their opinion on executions today, concerned taxpayers will also have their chance to voice their opinion on wasteful spending, calling on the Governor to end the death penalty altogether and save the state millions.

Coincidentally, it was exactly one year ago that Californians got the first comprehensive report on exactly how dysfunctional and expensive the death penalty system already is. On June 30, 2008 the bipartisan California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice released their report on the death penalty, finding that it costs taxpayers $137 million each year, yet remains riddled with serious flaws, including a real risk of wrongful execution and an appeals process that causes suffering to murder victim survivors. On the other hand, the Commission found that the alternative of permanent imprisonment for all those currently on death row would save $125 million each year, while still protecting the public. Now, 1 year later, the system is just as dysfunctional and even more expensive.

Rather than continuing the status quo, the Governor could suspend the death penalty and save the state $1 billion in 5 years. The potential savings break down as:

$125 million per year in the extra expenses of the death penalty. By converting all death sentences to permanent imprisonment, Gov. Schwarzenegger would save the state over $600 million in 5 years.

$400 million for the construction of a new death row. The State Auditor estimates building a new death row facility at San Quentin will cost at least $400 million. Building anywhere else will be even more expensive. If all death sentences were converted and any new death sentences suspended for 5 years, we would avoid this cost.

Some hear these figures and think the best solution would be to "speed up" the death penalty appeals process. But the Commission tried to find ways to do that, and discovered they would cost even more money — nearly $100 million more.

Today, hundreds of diverse California residents will seize their first opportunity to speak out publicly against the death penalty and will say loud and clear to the Governor and the Legislature stop wasting our money on this failed system.

(source: ACLU--Natasha Minsker, Death Penalty Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California)

***************

California's long process to resuming executions

A Contra Costa County judge last week sentenced Darryl Kemp to death for the random rape and murder of a young jogger. But chances are that Kemp will not be executed anytime soon, if at all. He is 73. It takes an average of 20 years to execute an inmate in California. And capital punishment has been suspended since February 2006 when Michael Morales came within two hours of execution for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl.

On Tuesday, the return to capital punishment takes a step forward when prison officials convene a daylong public hearing on proposed rules for lethally injecting condemned inmates with three drugs. Even if the proposal passes legal muster, reinstating the death penalty is expected to take up to a year.

Whatever is decided in California, where there are 680 condemned inmates, is expected to shape how other states carry out executions.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court signed off on Kentucky's lethal injection process last year and lifted a brief nationwide moratorium, 36 states and the federal government, which employ the execution method, have experienced varying degrees of success in restarting capital punishment.

A federal judge in 2006 halted executions in California until officials expanded the death chamber at San Quentin prison and provided more executioner training and other upgrades to ensure the condemned do not suffer cruel and unusual punishment.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has since constructed a new death chamber and the proposed new regulations require execution team members to undergo monthly mock executions. The rules would require 3 syringes, each filled with different drugs, to be administered by staff licensed to give injections in California. A physician must be on hand to declare death.

A state judge ruled that the 42 pages of execution protocols, including instructions for mixing and injecting the drugs, had to be subjected to California's lengthy regulatory process, starting with a 45-day public comment period.

Corrections officials have received more than 1,400 written comments, the vast majority opposed to the proposed procedures or death penalty generally.

For the mother of Morales' victim, the wait for his execution has been too long.

"There has been too much 'red tape,' paperwork, and time lost in this matter," Barbara Christian, the mother of Terri Winchell, wrote in an e-mail. "Other victims such as I are grieving and waiting for justice for their loved ones. We are the ones bearing the brunt of this fiasco. The lethal injection is humane with no pain. Let's get on with it."

Maryland has embarked on a public comment process like California's. A federal judge has ordered a halt to executions in Missouri. And other states such as Texas have carried out a combined 68 lethal injection executions since the Supreme Court's ruling in 2008.

Michael Rushford, president of the death penalty advocates Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, said he is confident that California also will resume executions, partly because the state's protocols are more detailed than the Kentucky procedures approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most comments opposing the new protocols stemmed from letter campaigns organized by the ACLU, Catholic Legislative Network and other death penalty foes. The ACLU complained that the proposed process shrouds in secret most of the lethal injection procedures.

At least 10 death row inmates complained in writing that they have not received copies of the new regulations.

The son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg noted the profound impact of the death penalty on the children of the condemned.

"There is an apparent disregard for children who have had a family member executed," wrote Robert Meeropol, a lawyer in Easthampton, Mass. The Rosenbergs were executed at a New York prison in 1953 for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union when Meeropol was 6.

"My earliest distinct memories of my parents are of visiting them on death row," Meeropol wrote. "I have clear memories of the last week of my parents' lives."

******************************

Public comments on California lethal injection proposal

Dozens of speakers lined up today for their chance to weigh in on California's new proposed rules for executing condemned inmates at a state hearing that quickly morphed into a debate over the morality and practicality of capital punishment.

George Husaruk and his wife drove 2 1/2 hours from their home near Willits to argue that California can no longer afford the death penalty.

"We need to use the money for education," the middle-school teacher said during a daylong meeting convened by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to take public comment on its proposed lethal injection procedures. The agency received more than 5,000 written comments in the last two months on the 42-page draft by prison officials, who were ordered by a federal court in 2006 to revise their plan.

Though the audience was warned to keep its comments focused on the proposal itself, the hearing soon expanded into a wider death penalty discussion. Most of the approximately 100 speakers signed up to address the issue this morning opposed the death penalty.

Outside the hearing room, Father George Horan, a Catholic priest from Los Angeles, argued heatedly with death penalty advocate Howard Garber over whether life in prison without parole is a just sentence for heinous killers.

Many abolitionists have seized on the high cost of implementing the death penalty during California's dire fiscal crisis. A report released last year by a commission created by the state Senate and "using conservative rough projections" concluded that it will cost the state an additional $137 million a year to support the death penalty rather than making the maximum sentence in the state life in prison without parole.

Garber and other death penalty supporters blame the lengthy appeal process for the condemned for the high costs. "90 % of the appeals aren't contesting guilt," Garber said outside the hearing.

After today, the state will have up to a year to assess the comments and edit the proposed procedures before they become official regulations. Only then will they be presented to U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who has suspended executions in California until prison officials fix the deficiencies he identified in the lethal injection process.

In 2006, Fogel halted executions until officials expanded the death chamber at San Quentin prison and provided more executioner training and other upgrades to ensure the condemned do not suffer cruel and unusual punishment.

The state has since constructed a new death chamber and the proposed new regulations require execution team members to undergo monthly mock executions. The rules would require three syringes, each filled with different drugs, to be administered by staff licensed to give injections in California. A physician must be on hand to declare death.

At least 10 death row inmates complained in writing that they have not received copies of the new regulations.

Even if the proposal passes legal muster, it would take at least a year to reinstate the death penalty.

Whatever is decided in California, which has the nation's largest death row at 680 condemned inmates, is expected to shape how other states carry out executions.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court signed off on Kentucky's lethal injection process last year and lifted a brief nationwide moratorium, the federal government and 36 states that employ the execution method have experienced varying degrees of success in restarting capital punishment.

Maryland has embarked on a public comment process like California's. A federal judge has ordered a halt to executions in Missouri. And other states such as Texas have carried out a combined 68 lethal injection executions since the Supreme Court's ruling in 2008.

Michael Rushford, president of the death penalty advocates Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, said he is confident that California also will resume executions, partly because the state's protocols are more detailed than the Kentucky procedures approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the mother of a death row victim, the wait for his execution has been too long.

"There has been too much 'red tape,' paperwork, and time lost in this matter," Barbara Christian, the mother of the murdered teen Terri Winchell, wrote in an e-mail. "Other victims such as I are grieving and waiting for justice for their loved ones. We are the ones bearing the brunt of this fiasco. The lethal injection is humane with no pain. Let's get on with it."

(source for both: Associated Press)

****************

US: California Execution Procedure Violates Rights

It's shocking that California plans to put human beings to death using a method that's considered too cruel to use on animals.

The state of California's new procedure for carrying out executions by lethal injection violates international human rights law, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to state officials.

California has recently revised its execution procedure in response to criticisms and concerns raised in legal challenges. But the new procedure continues to use a 3-drug formula that poses a significant risk of unnecessary suffering, Human Rights Watch said.

"California should follow the example of New Jersey and New Mexico and abolish the death penalty," said David Fathi, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. "But as long as California carries out executions, international human rights law requires it to make every effort to minimize the prisoner's physical and mental suffering."

At issue is the use of pancuronium bromide, a paralytic agent, as one of the drugs in the execution process. A 2006 Human Rights Watch report, "So Long As They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States," showed that use of this drug creates a risk that an inadequately anesthetized prisoner could be fully conscious and experiencing excruciating pain, yet be unable to move, cry out, or otherwise communicate suffering. The risk that paralytic agents like pancuronium bromide can mask unnecessary suffering is so well recognized that their use in animal euthanasia is banned in California and many other states.

"It's shocking that California plans to put human beings to death using a method that's considered too cruel to use on animals," Fathi said.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty ratified by the United States in 1992, does not completely prohibit capital punishment. But it has been interpreted to require that executions be carried out "in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering." The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994, also imposes limits on execution methods by prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality.

(source: Human Rights Watch)

OHIO:

Ohio Supreme Court affirms death penalty for James Trimble

The Ohio Supreme Court unanmiously agreed Tuesday to uphold the death penalty against James Trimble, who shot and killed 3 people in Brimfield more than 4 years ago.

Among Trimble’s 15 allegations of legal and procedural errors — all of which were denied — was that the trial judge should have moved the trial from Ravenna.

On Jan. 21, 2005, Trimble murdered his girlfriend Renee Bauer, and her 7-year-old son Dakota Bauer in the home they shared.

Trimble then fled into nearby woods. Shortly thereafter, he broke into the home of Kent State University student Sarah Positano and took her hostage. Trimble then shot 22-year-old student in the neck and killed her after a standoff with the SWAT team.

Trimble was convicted on 3 counts of aggravated murder — in what was the longest trial in the history of the county — and sentenced to death in November 2005.

(source: Revenna Record Courier)

OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board denies clemency

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board has unanimously denied clemency for a 32-year-old man facing execution for killing 2 men in southern Oklahoma. The decision came Monday after testimony from the condemned man, Michael P. DeLozier, and from the family of his victims. DeLozier is set to die by injection July 9 for the 1995 killings of Paul Steven Morgan and Orville Lewis Bullard. The men were shot and robbed while camping along the Glover River in McCurtain County. Defense attorneys argued that DeLozier's methamphetamine use and abuse by his stepfather played roles in his behavior. Morgan's widow and Bullard's son urged board members to allow the execution to go forward.

(source: Associated Press)

SAUDI ARABIA/CANADA:

Lower court leaves Mtl man in legal limbo languishing in Saudi jail

A lower court in Saudi Arabia has once again refused to reconsider its ruling in the case of a Montreal man facing public beheading in Saudi Arabia.

The latest decision leaves Mohamed Kohail languishing in a Saudi jail while the case heads back to Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council again.

Kohail's lawyer told Liberal MP Dan McTeague on Tuesday that the Jidda General Court would simply uphold their decision.

The 2 Saudi courts have been pitching the case back and forth to each other over the past months, a judicial stalemate that International Trade Minister Stockwell Day judged was a good sign.

Day said during a trip to the Middle East over the weekend that the country's highest court isn't sold on the lower court's ruling and that could play in Kohail's favour.

But McTeague said Tuesday it's clear with the latest ruling that the Canadian government must take a stronger diplomatic stand.

 "We're at the point now that the lower court refuses to change its mind," McTeague said.

"It doesn't care to hear evidence, it has made up its mind once and it doesn't want to be caught entertaining facts."

Kohail, 24, and a Jordanian friend were sentenced to death after being convicted in the death of Munzer Al-Hiraki during an after-school brawl in Jidda in 2007. The fight was sparked after Kohail's younger brother Sultan, 18, got into a row with Al-Hiraki's female cousin.

The brothers have repeatedly said they were acting in self-defence and were not involved in inflicting the fatal wounds during the fight, which involved dozens of teenagers.

In November, the verdict was upheld by the Appeals Court but was not endorsed by the Supreme Judicial Council when it looked at the case in February.

Sultan Kohail, meanwhile, had earlier been sentenced to 200 lashes and a year in prison by a juvenile court but that ruling was overturned by an appeals court. Sultan was ordered to face a new trial in adult court and a possible death penalty.

There has been some informal talk of a possible dia - or blood money compensation - being paid to the victim's family to spare the lives of the Kohails. But the amount allegedly being sought, believed to be about $5 million, is far more than they can afford.

Both brothers have claimed their innocence and say the Saudi judicial system has not afforded them a fair trial.

Mohamed Kohail has written twice to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A letter was given to Day for Harper by Kohail's family on the weekend.

In it, Mohamed Kohail has asked the prime minister to personally intervene in his case.

McTeague said Harper must act.

"The ball clearly rests with the prime minister to once and for all raise this sham and this farce," he said. "To demand that this innocent Canadian be released and that the Saudi government account for the confession obtained under duress, under torture, which is a breach of Saudi Arabia's international obligation."

(source: Canadian Press)

AUSTRALIA:

Canberra to act on death penalty ban

THE Federal Government has written to the states, telling them of its plans to introduce laws banning them from ever reintroducing the death penalty, whether they like it or not.

While all states have abolished the death penalty, there is nothing preventing a government from bringing it back.

The Age has a copy of a letter sent from Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland to his state counterparts on June 16, informing them "of the Commonwealth Government's intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the application of the death penalty throughout Australia".

The language of the letter is significant, as it indicates the Federal Government has opted to use the external affairs power in the constitution to put the prohibition in place.

This is instead of asking the states to refer their powers to the Commonwealth to enable it to pass the laws banning the reintroduction of the death penalty — an option that is seen as less watertight by the Federal Government because usually states only refer their powers for a limited period of time.

It is understood the Federal Government has legal advice that under the external affairs power and international treaties signed by Australia, including the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is able enact the laws and so intends to take this path.

The Federal Opposition's preference will be to not rely on the external affairs power.

The Federal Government has given the states until Monday to respond to its letter and said the formal prohibition would "further demonstrate our nation's commitment to the worldwide abolitionist movement".

"It would complement our co-sponsorship of resolutions calling for a moratorium on the death penalty in the United Nations General Assembly and safeguard the fulfilment of our obligation under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to abolish the death penalty within Australia's jurisdiction," the letter said.

Three Australians are on death row in Indonesia — Scott Rush, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, who are part of the so-called "Bali 9".

The Federal Government is keen to send a strong message internationally about Australia's opposition to the death penalty.

There is cross-party support for the Federal Parliament to ban states from reviving the death penalty. A bipartisan working group against the death penalty, including Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, was established late last year.

The bill to ban the reintroduction of the death penalty is likely to be introduced into Parliament in spring. It will probably form part of the same bill criminalising torture as a federal offence.

The Federal Government has already consulted with the states over its decision to make torture a Commonwealth offence and to ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which involves allowing international inspections of places of detention.

It is understood that the West Australian Liberal Government is the only state to have raised concerns over the issue.

KEY POINTS

--Legislation to make it impossible to reinstate death penalty.

--Ban to be pursued under constitutional law.

--Move to support international death penalty abolition.

(source: The Age)

NIGERIA:

Collapsed Building - Builders Want Death Penalty For Defaulters

Death sentence has been canvassed by the Council of Registered Builders of Nigeria (CARBON) for engineers and other professional builders involved in the construction of building that collapsed during or after its construction in the country.

The council registrar, Mr. Aliyu Ajari Ova said this during the CARBON and The Nigerian Institute of Builders' (NIOB) third mandatory training programme for builders in Gombe.

According to Ova, the negligence of the professionals involved in building that usually cost the lives of innocent people following a structural failure prompted the council to start clamouring for the severe penalty.

Said he: "They kill innocent people owing to their negligence and it is natural to be killed when you kill. Therefore with this penalty in place building production professionals will live to their responsibility in accordance to ethics."

Speaking on the essence of the 5-day training, Ova said the mandatory programme would enable the members to interact and get themselves acquainted on the usage of building documents. He said that for any building production to be executed, the national building codes as contained in the building documents as approved by the Federal Executive Council and National Assembly must be observed and guarded.

He said the building documents contained the construction methodology, project health and safety plan, early warning system chart, information requirement scheduled and construction programme. He said if the foregoing codes are strictly observed in our building production, collapsed building and failure of reinforcement would be an experience of the past in this country. He said that, in a national building code, all professionals have a stake "if a contracted structure was to be erected at the end of the day, the experts involved would have their names documented. Therefore, in the event of structure failure it would be easy to refer to the document for justice to take its course."

He said that the council would not relent in its effort of disciplining its members until the culture of using stipulated procedures had become fully inculcated. He said the concern of any professional builder as a production manager was on "quality", which is not only applicable on cement and sand but also on the reinforcement, ceiling and roofing which at the end determine the lifespan of the structure.

(source: All Africa News)

JUNE 29, 2009:

TEXAS:

Death row inmate's bid for release delayed

A Harris County judge wants to hear testimony from a forensic expert before deciding whether new DNA evidence is favorable to death row inmate Charles D. Raby, condemned in the 1994 murder of an elderly woman.

Raby’s conviction is receiving new scrutiny because DNA tests contradict evidence from the Houston Police Department crime lab in his case. His lawyer is seeking his release or a new trial.

This morning, state District Judge Joan Campbell delayed closing arguments in an evidentiary hearing on the DNA evidence to allow testimony from the city's expert, Patricia Hamby. She has called the original testimony and lab work by HPD analyst Joseph Chu "incorrect … and not supported."

Hamby, who is based in Indiana, is expected to testify sometime next month. After her appearance, Campbell will decide whether the new evidence is favorable to Raby's case, a decision that could provide an opening for his attorney to seek his release or a new trial.

A Harris County jury sentenced Raby to death in the 1994 murder of Edna M. Franklin, 72, a grandmother who lived alone in her north Houston home.

At Raby's trial, jurors heard testimony from HPD crime lab analyst Chu, who told them that tests conducted on scrapings from under Franklin's fingernails were inconclusive.

Years later, as revelations about chronic problems at the HPD crime lab came to light, Raby's case received a 2nd look.

Campbell ordered DNA tests on the finger nail scrapings, in which analysts at a California lab found no evidence from Raby. The tests also excluded the victim's 2 grandsons, the only people she regularly had contact with, as the sources of the scrapings.

The Harris County District Attorney's office has maintained that the new evidence is inconclusive and does not clear Raby.

(source: Houston Chronicle)

****************************************

Stop The Texas Execution Of Texas David L. Wood----Target:Governor Rick Perry, Taxpayers of Texas, People Worldwide----Sponsored by: Dee Hawk, The Abolishment Movement

This petition is to ask for a stay of execution or clemency for Texas death row inmate David L. Wood who is scheduled to be executed by the state of Texas on August 20, 2009.

Although the crimes Wood was arrested, convicted and sentenced to die for are serious, and we sympahize with the family and friends of the victims, we feel that Wood has major claims of innocence in these crimes.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/stop-the-texas-execution-of-texas-david-l-wood

(source: Thepetitionsite.com)

MISSOURI:

Moratorium on Missouri executions makes sense

Executions in Missouri are on hold — again.

Any delay is to be applauded. The death penalty is expensive and impossible to mete out fairly. It is simply a flawed public policy.

But Missouri is allowing inmate appeals to determine how and when the state administers capital punishment. The on-again, off-again pace of executions is excruciating for family members of both victims and inmates.

Incoming state Supreme Court Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr. said last week the state will likely schedule no execution dates while officials await the outcome of a federal appeal filed on behalf of death row inmate Reginald Clemons.

Clemons had been scheduled to die on June 17. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals put his execution on hold after his attorneys challenged Missouri’s lethal injection procedure.

This latest stay comes after the state went 4 years without an execution, also because of concerns about the 3-drug method of lethal injection. Courts ruled the procedure constitutional, and Dennis Skillicorn was executed on May 20.

Last session, the Missouri House took a step toward resolving the uncertainty when it seriously considered a moratorium on executions. Lawmakers stopped short of taking that step. But they voted to create a commission that would review cases to ensure those sentenced to death are guilty and received adequate legal counsel, and to consider possible alternative punishments.

Unfortunately, the Senate didn't endorse comparable legislation. So the legislature passed up its best opportunity in years to lead the discussion on capital punishment.

The state has a sorry history of handling capital cases. Several inmates have been released from death row after flaws were found in the legal process. Serious questions remain about the fairness of some executions that took place.

A moratorium and a study are the best ways for Missouri to resolve the many troubling issues that have arisen from its application of the death penalty.

Reluctant lawmakers may find some encouragement in a new report in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, published by the Northwestern University School of Law.

The report, by University of Colorado-Boulder professor Michael L. Radelet and researcher Traci L. Lacock, notes problems with previous studies that claim death penalty laws deter people from committing murders.

Radelet and Lacock surveyed 76 criminologists who have been cited by peers as leaders in their field. Of those experts, 88 % said they don’t think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

The report adds, "Fewer than 10 % of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment."

Missouri’s long-troubled death penalty hasn't made the state safer. It has instead cost taxpayers millions of dollars and created endless frustrations. The legislature should acknowledge those realities and get serious about a moratorium.

(source: Kansas City Star)

OKLAHOMA:

Clemency denied today for inmate Michael DeLozier

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board has unanimously denied clemency for a 32-year-old man facing execution for killing 2 men in southern Oklahoma.

The decision came Monday after testimony from the condemned man, Michael P. DeLozier, and from the family of his victims.

DeLozier is set to die by injection July 9 for the 1995 killings of Paul Steven Morgan and Orville Lewis Bullard. The men were shot and robbed while camping along the Glover River in McCurtain County.

Defense attorneys argued that DeLozier's methamphetamine use and abuse by his stepfather played roles in his behavior.

Morgan's widow and Bullard's son urged board members to allow the execution to go forward.

(source: Associated Press)

FLORIDA:

Hearing planned in state trooper killing

Attorneys for a Florida man charged with killing a state trooper in Haywood County say pretrial publicity makes it impossible for the man to get a fair trial in the county.

The Asheville Citizen-Times reported that attorneys for Edwardo Wong will argue at a hearing Monday that the trial should be moved. The 37-year-old Wong is charged with 1st-degree murder in the June 2008 slaying of Trooper David Shawn Blanton Jr. on Interstate 40 near Canton.

Blanton and his wife, Michaela, had a son, Tye, only weeks before he was shot. The child was born prematurely and with medical problems that led to his death in October.

Wong's trial is scheduled for October. The state is seeking the death penalty.

(source: Associated Press)

ALABAMA:

Dad's killer returns to court today

The same jury that convicted Calvin McMillan last week in Elmore County Circuit Court of two counts of capital murder also will decide on his recommended sentence.

The "penalty phase" of the trial is set to begin this morning. It's just like any other trial, where the prosecution and defense will have opening and closing arguments to the jury, witnesses will be called and evidence will be presented.

The difference is that McMillan's guilt or innocence is no longer in question. The jury will recommend a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty.

The judge can either accept or overturn the jury's decision.

The defense likely will call seven or eight witnesses during this week's proceedings, said Kenny James, one of McMillan's defense attorneys. During the trial portion of the case, the defense only called one witness.

"Obviously our goal during the trial was a not guilty verdict," James said. "Now we shift to trying to save Calvin's life. If the jury comes back with a life without recommendation, we can look on that as a victory of sorts."

The defense will call a psychiatric specialist to tell the jury of McMillan's troubled youth.

"Calvin has been the victim of psychological, sexual and physical abuse as a child and young person," James said. "He is also the product of excessive poverty. We think it's important that the jury know these things before they make a decision."

The penalty phase could take 2 to 3 days, District Attorney Randall Houston said.

"We laid out most of our case during the trial portion," he said. "We will of course highlight some of the more heinous parts of the crime. But with this case, it is full of heinous parts.

"This has been a death penalty case from the beginning. We spoke with the family shortly after Calvin McMillan was arrested and they agreed with our decision to seek the death penalty. We will be asking the jury to make that recommendation (to) the judge."

The jury recommends a sentence, but it will be up to Circuit Judge John Bush to make the final decision.

During the penalty phase, the decision of the jury doesn't have to be unanimous, as it does for the verdict. A super majority of 10-2 is required for the death penalty to be recommended.

McMillan, 20, of Opelika was found guilty of gunning down James Bryan Martin, 23, a young father of 2 from Millbrook.

Testimony last week showed that McMillan shot Martin four times in the parking lot of the Millbrook Wal-Mart in August 2007.

Martin left behind a wife, 3-month-old daughter and 2-year-old son. He had attended a Montgomery Biscuits game that night with friends from Kelley Aerospace, where he worked in Montgomery. He had stopped by the store to pick up a few things before going home.

He bought a Vault energy drink, Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, baby wipes and 2 packs of Pampers.

Prosecutors proved McMillan murdered Martin so he could steal Martin's 2004 Ford F-150 truck. The verdicts on the capital charges came back about 2:38 p.m. Friday, but Bush dismissed the jury instead of going directly into the penalty phase.

"This has been a very emotional week, for everybody," he said, of the 3 /12 day trial.

He made his comments to a Montgomery Advertiser reporter outside the presence of the jury.

"I think we all need the opportunity to step back and have the weekend recover a bit. Then we'll start early Monday morning and get back to work."

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)

GEORGIA:

Justices delay death row inmate's appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court delayed a decision on whether to accept an appeal from a Georgia death row inmate who has gained international support for his claims of innocence in the the murder of a Savannah police officer 2 decades ago.

Troy Davis' case has earned the support of leaders including the pope and former President Jimmy Carter.

The justices were scheduled to announce Monday whether they would take the case of Troy Davis, but no order was released. The court is expected to take up the matter again in September.

Last fall, the Supreme Court granted Davis a stay of execution 2 hours before he was to be put to death. A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the capital punishment to proceed, but a federal appeals court issued another stay.

The high court's latest delay means Davis will continue to sit on death row.

His supporters Monday delivered about 60,000 signatures in petitions to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial.

"This delay is an indication that the Supreme Court is concerned by the gravity of Troy Davis' innocence claims," said Laura Moye, director of Amnesty International USA's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign. "We will continue to call on all authorities, including the Supreme Court, to finally hear the evidence that has motivated hundreds of thousands of people worldwide to raise their voices and demand justice."

Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. Witnesses claimed Davis, then 19, and 2 others were harassing a homeless man in a Burger King restaurant parking lot when the off-duty officer arrived to help the man. Witnesses testified at trial that Davis then shot MacPhail twice and fled.

But since his 1991 conviction, seven of the nine witnesses against him have recanted their testimony. No physical evidence was presented linking Davis to the killing of the police officer. The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board last year held closed-door hearings and reinterviewed Davis and the witnesses. The panel decided against clemency.

MacPhail's mother, Annaliese, told CNN at the time, "This is what we were hoping for, and I hope pretty soon that we will have some peace and start our life, especially my grandchildren -- my grandson and granddaughter. It has overshadowed their lives."

After the justices in October refused to grant a stay of execution, Davis' sister, Martina Correia, told CNN she was "disgusted" by the decision.

"It doesn't make any sense," she said. "We are praying for a miracle or some kind of intervention. We will regroup and fight. We will never stop fighting. We just can't be discouraged. The fight is not over 'til it's over."

10 days after the high court refused last October to intervene, a federal appeals court in Georgia granted a temporary stay of execution. Since then, further appeals by Davis' legal team have dragged on for 8 months.

Prominent figures ranging from the pope to the musical group Indigo Girls have asked Georgia to grant Davis a new trial. Other supporters include celebrities Susan Sarandon and Harry Belafonte; world leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter and former Archbishop Desmond Tutu of Cape Town, South Africa; and former and current U.S. lawmakers Bob Barr, Carol Moseley Braun and John Lewis.

(source: CNN)

*************

U.S. Supreme Court holds off on Troy Davis decision until September

This just in, from Amnesty International’s media relations director, Wende Gozan Brown: The country’s highest court has postponed its decision on whether to hear the appeal of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis, whose innocence claims have caused an international outcry.

Although a decision was expected today, the U.S. Supreme Court has opted to wait until it reconvenes in September — which will ward off a death warrant for Davis.

Davis already has had 3 execution dates set over the past 3 years, and once came within hours of execution before a last-minute stay was granted.

Here's a statement we just received from Amnesty International:

"This delay is an indication that the Supreme Court is concerned by the gravity of Troy Davis' innocence claims," said Laura Moye, director of Amnesty International USA’s Death Penalty Abolition Campaign. "We will continue to call on all authorities, including the Supreme Court, to finally hear the evidence that has motivated hundreds of thousands of people worldwide to raise their voices and demand justice."

(source: creativeloafing.com)

*******************

Clock ticks on Davis’ petition to high court----Justices have 2 days to go before recess. Death-row inmate’s legal team could use delayed decision to rally support.

With 2 days before the U.S. Supreme Court closes for summer recess, the court is expected this week to consider a last-ditch hearing for death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis.

If the court does not decide by Tuesday whether to hear Davis' most recent petition to retry his 1991 case in the murder of a Savannah police officer, justices won't convene again until fall. This current petition is largely considered Davis' most viable option to stay alive, said Laura Moye of Amnesty International's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign.

But a delay could be good news for Davis' legal team and supporters.

"It buys more time for all of the advocates to get more publicity on the case," Moye said.

If the court decides against hearing Davis' petition, it will be up to Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm whether to pursue Davis' 4th execution warrant. Chisolm could not be reached for immediate comment Sunday.

Davis, 40, was convicted of murdering Savannah police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail, 27, though no physical evidence directly linked him to the crime.

Since Davis' trial, 7 of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and some people have implicated Sylvester "Redd" Coles as the shooter. Coles was the first person to implicate Davis in the killing.

Davis' execution has been stayed 3 times as his attorneys work to save his life. Requests for a new trial in Chatham County have been denied, as have their petitions to have new evidence considered in the case.

Judges, lawmakers and worldwide leaders have rallied behind Davis.

In May, a group of 27 former jurists and federal prosecutors pushed for a new hearing for Davis, filing a petition that said Davis can show "new, never reviewed evidence that strongly points to his innocence."

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat who represents the 5th District, has called for a new trial. Former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI have asked that the inmate be spared death by lethal injection.

On Monday, Moye will be joined by the NAACP and community faith leaders to deliver thousands of new petitions to Chisolm calling for a retrial, she said. They've collected roughly 10,000 signatures in Chatham County alone, with as many as 70,000 signatures from around the world, she said.

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

*******************************

Troy Davis' sister speaks at ILWU convention

Martina Davis-Correia, the sister of Georgia death row prisoner Troy Anthony Davis, addressed the delegates at the 34th International Longshore and Warehouse Union Convention in Seattle on June 10. She called for support of a resolution entitled "Racist Oppression and the Death Penalty."

The resolution, which was submitted by ILWU Local 10, reaffirms the union's opposition to the death penalty, supports a lawsuit on behalf of Davis-Correia’s brother and demands freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal, Troy Davis, Kevin Cooper, Leonard Peltier and the San Francisco 8.

Resolutions to free the Cuban Five and to end the blockade of Cuba were also introduced and were passed unanimously.

Davis-Correia thanked the ILWU for permitting her to speak and acknowledged how the ILWU’s slogan, "an injury to one is an injury to all," really resonated with her. She praised the union for its history of fighting for social justice.

Davis-Correia told the delegates: "It's so refreshing when I come out here and I see people on the West Coast. I see this union and see Black, White, Hispanic and Asian all fighting for human rights and speaking up. I applaud you because I don't see that in my community. ... I ask you to stand up with us and to encourage other labor unions around the country to stand with us to fight against the death penalty and to save Troy Davis and other innocent people who are in jail and possibly facing execution."

Jack Heyman, ILWU Local 10 Caucus and Convention delegate, introduced Davis-Correia to the important international labor leaders attending the conference: Itoh Akinobu, president of the Zenkowan Japanese Dock Workers Union; Paddy Crumlin, general-secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia; and Richard Hughes, president of the International Longshore Association. Akinobu and Crumlin assured Davis-Correia that they would get their respective unions to support Davis. Hughes made a commitment to put information about the case on the ILA Web site.

The delegates gave Davis-Correia a standing ovation. Some delegates were moved to tears when she told of the saga of Troy Davis—who has faced 3 execution dates—to prove his innocence before he is executed. Copies of her remarks were made available to the delegates.

If the state believes the defendant received a fair trial, then it does not consider it unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.

To learn more about the Davis case, go to www.troyanthonydavis.org.

(source: Workers World)

NEBRASKA:

Death Penalty Question Puts Toddler Murder Case On Hold

Lawyers for the man accused of raping and killing a South Sioux City toddler want the death penalty off the table.

29-year-old de Jesus Melisio Camacho is charged with 1st degree murder, and burglary. He's accused of breaking into a South Sioux City mobile home and brutally murdering a 3-year-old girl.

Monday morning his lawyers filed a motion asking that the death penalty not be used in Camacho's case. Here's their reasoning. Lethal injection, Nebraska's new execution method doesn't become effective until August. Since the crime was committed back in May, when Nebraska had no form of execution, the most severe sentence Camacho should face is life in prison.

Camacho's arraignment has been delayed for 30 days.

(source: KCAU TV News)

PENNSYLVANIA:

DA To Seek Death Penalty in Baby Case

The district attorney in Lackawanna County has decided to seek the death penalty for a man accused of killing a child.

Darak Williams is charged with beating 3-year-old Kavannah Salvador in Scranton last year. Salvador's mother, Kashema Reddish, also faces charges.

Police said the couple had been on the run for a year. They were arrested in Buffalo, New York after the case was featured on the Fox Television show "America's Most Wanted."

No trial date has been set for Williams.

(source: WNEP News)

NEW YORK:

New York City Bar Association In collaboration with American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and Muslim Bar Association of New York present:

Religion and The Death Penalty

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Association, 42 W. 44th St.

FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!

Drawing on teachings and traditions of justice and the dignity of human life, religious communities have been deeply involved in the debate on capital punishment. An outstanding panel of scholars will discuss whether it is morally acceptable under religious teachings for the state to execute humans, and if so under what circumstances.

Panelists:

S. David Sperling, Professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion

Mark Lewis Taylor, Upson Professor of Theology & Culture, Princeton Theological Seminary

Abed Awad, The Law Offices of Abed Awad

Hon. William M. Erlbaum, Justice, Supreme Court, State of NY, Queens County

Moderator: Muhammad U. Faridi

(source: NY Abolitionists)

VIRGINIA----federal death penalty to be sought

WVa man to go on trial in Va in sailor's death

A West Virginia man charged with being the triggerman in a murder-for-hire plot is going on trial in federal court in Norfolk.

David Runyon of Morgantown, W.Va., and co-defendant Michael Draven of Newport News will be tried together on charges of conspiracy to commit murder for hire and several other counts. The trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday.

Prosecutors say Draven and Catherina Voss of Newport News hired Runyon to kill Voss' husband, 30-year-old Navy ensign Cory Voss.

Police say Cory Voss was shot while sitting in his pickup outside an ATM in Newport News on April 29, 2007.

Catherine Voss has pleaded guilty to arranging the killing.

If Runyon is convicted, prosecutors plan to seek the federal death penalty.

(source: Associated Press)

USA:

U.S. Supreme Court looks over 9th Circuit's shoulder----This term, justices reversed, at least partially, 94% of the Western appeals court's rulings. Part of the reason, experts say, is the court is perceived as liberal and partial to the underdog.

From prisoners' rights to environmental protection, laws set by the West's powerful appeals court were overturned in 15 of the 16 cases reviewed this term by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The reversals affect a broad range of civil rights and business practices challenged in the 9 states and 2 Pacific territories covered by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices shot down 4 rulings seen as protecting nature against industrial hazards and 5 cases asserting claims by convicts that their rights were abused.

Judicial analysts attribute the high reversal rate at least partly to the 9th Circuit's reputation as a liberal-dominated bench, even though more recent conservative appointments have diluted that influence. Experts, including former law clerks, say the Supreme Court justices are more inclined to look over the shoulders of the 9th Circuit judges they suspect of favoring the underdog.

The high court historically reverses the majority of all cases it reviews -- 76% so far this term, with 3 decisions still pending. Legal analysts say that's because they seek to correct what they see as erroneous interpretations by lower courts or to settle conflicting views among the circuits about a law's meaning.

"Pretty much all courts have a generally high reversal rate before the Supreme Court," said Adam Samaha, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. "The justices have a practice of taking a case for purposes of changing what happened below."

Long-running trend

But the 9th Circuit's record this term, with 94% of its cases reversed at least in part, extends a long-running trend of being disproportionately overturned. The 9th Circuit -- the only one in which a majority of judges were appointed by Democratic presidents -- has had a larger-than-average share of its cases overturned in 8 of the last 10 years.

"It's true that the 9th Circuit is slightly more liberal, generally speaking, than the Supreme Court, and that probably accounts for the more frequent reversal rate the 9th Circuit has," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, who teaches at Stanford Law School. But he attributes the appeals court's dominance of the high court docket to the unique issues emanating from the diverse region it covers.

"A lot of important policy cases involving interesting and difficult questions come out of the 9th Circuit. The West is known for its experimentation, the initiative process -- things that bring constitutional questions to the fore more often," Fisher said.

He argued before the high court this term for a Washington state prisoner who contended that illegal jury instructions led to his murder conviction. The case was one of the 13 from the 9th Circuit fully reversed by the justices.

The sole 9th Circuit case affirmed in full, involving an Oregon boy with learning disabilities, held that parents don't have to send their special education students to public schools before seeking reimbursement for private-school tuition.

Students' rights also were at issue in one of the 2 cases affirmed in part and reversed in part, the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school authorities that the justices ruled was an unconstitutional intrusion. However, they overturned the circuit's ruling that school officials, who were searching for drugs, could be held liable for violating the girl's constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Most analysts dismiss statistics on reversal as of little significance, given the small number of cases reviewed from most circuits. The 6th and 8th circuits, which together cover 11 states from Tennessee to the Dakotas, saw 100% of their cases reversed this term. The 11-state region accounted for only nine cases on the high court's 83-case docket.

Even with the 9th Circuit's larger sample size, it is hard to read much into its variance with the overall reversal rate, said David Hoffman, a Temple University law professor.

"Because the circuit is large, it produces a lot of cutting-edge law, due to industries concentrated in the circuit and the large variation of underlying states and state criminal laws," Hoffman said.

Close scrutiny

But Samaha, a former law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens, said it was common knowledge that decisions made by panels including certain liberal judges get closer scrutiny than others.

"Is it really a circuit being profiled, in a sense, or really a smaller set of judges who set off alarm bells?" Samaha said. "I would suspect it's the latter."

Suspicions fell on the liberal stalwarts Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson, but the appointees of President Jimmy Carter sat on only a couple of the 3-judge panels in the reviewed cases.

Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who closely tracks the federal judiciary, sees the justices weighing in more with the 9th Circuit in an attempt to balance what they see as its tendency to rule for the poor and powerless.

"It's a very skewed group of cases that the Supreme Court takes, not a random selection of 9th Circuit cases," Hellman said. "They are basically cases in which what one would call the liberal side has prevailed. That's not accidental."

In all 5 criminal cases, the high court reversed the 9th Circuit's rulings that found in favor of the convicts. That included an Alaska case in which a convicted rapist was denied the right to test the DNA from crime samples against his own, and at his own expense.

The justices also show keen interest in 9th Circuit rulings that favor environmentalists, the law scholars noted. The reversals allowed the U.S. Navy to resume sonar testing off the Southern California coast despite alleged harm to marine life and significantly reduced the amount owed by Shell Oil Co. in the cleanup of a hazardous waste storage site in Arvin, Calif.

Whether the judges take a lesson from the reversals "varies judge by judge, but I think in general we try to be in accordance with the precedents established by the Supreme Court," said Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, the 9th Circuit's longest-serving conservative after Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

"I don't think any judge likes to get reversed, so presumably they take a message."

(source: Los Angeles Times)

NEW MEXICO:

Remembering Richardson's struggle as death penalty repeal set to take effect

The abolishment of the death penalty that Gov. Bill Richardson signed into law earlier this year takes effect Wednesday, the Associated Press reports.

But as writer Deborah Baker reminds us, the new law doesn’t mean executions are a thing of the past: 2 men are still on death row, their sentences untouched by the repeal and the governor unwilling to commute them. 2 other potential death penalty cases are in the legal pipeline, awaiting trial.

Conceivably, the state could end up putting someone to death a decade or 2 after capital punishment was outlawed, given the drawn-out appeals typical in such cases.

Richardson has said he favored the death penalty for Michael Paul Astorga, the Albuquerque man suspected of killing a Bernallillo County sheriff’s deputy in 2006.

Much will be made of this seeming inconsistency — the state has abolished the death penalty at the same time someone might be put to "death a decade or 2 after" death was outlawed as punishment for a crime.

Such a situation likely will provoke continued debate among supporters and opponents of the death penalty.

What I will remember for a long time, however, is the press conference where Richardson signed the abolition bill into law last March. The governor gave some of us in the media who attended the ceremony an unexpected glimpse into his private struggles over the rightness of his decision.

Here’s part of what I wrote then, as I reflected on the governor's outward appearance:

At moments he appeared still to be working out the issue in his head and doubt occasionally crept in to darken his face.

Are there people who deserve the death penalty? Is it right for the state to execute a killer? What about the flaws in the system? And what of the United States’ general approval of the death penalty when compared to most Western democracies?

Richardson struggled to balance all those competing interests, but appeared unable to arrive at an absolutely satisfactory answer.

"I believe it's the right decision. My conscience feels good, but I am still troubled," Richardson said, by way of explaining his decision to repeal the death penalty.

He paused.

"I still wonder if… I know we did the right thing, but I am not totally, totally convinced that every argument that I have just said to you is accurate," he said.

Let me be clear: I am not celebrating or critiquing which way the governor decided this issue, but rather the journey he appeared to have taken as he navigated compelling arguments for and against state-sanctioned executions.

The private struggle the governor experienced on whether to abolish the death penalty was a reminder that this issue, and others that wind up before lawmakers and the governor, oftentimes don't give way to easy, pat answers. Instead they require a sorting through of many shades of gray rather than the simple choice between black and white.

And for that I was oddly heartened by the governor's airing publicly his struggles. It paid respect to the seriousness of the issue.

(source: New Mexico Independent)

COLORADO:

Man gets life sentence in Colo. slaying of student

The family of a college student beaten to death 12 years ago told her killer that his life was spared Monday because his victim would not have wanted anyone, even her murderer, to receive the death penalty.

"Her empathy is her killer's greatest salvation," Stephen Chase, the victim's brother, told Diego Olmos Alcalde during his sentencing on Monday. The 39-year-old Chilean national was convicted Friday in the 1997 rape and slaying of Susannah Chase.

Chase's family said they met with prosecutors before the trial to discuss whether to pursue the death penalty but they decided against it because they believed the 23-year-old University of Colorado student would be against it.

"The ironic thing is that the person whose life you stole from us is the reason you won't be sentenced to death today," said Doug Chase, another one of Chase's older brothers.

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett said prosecutors considered the wishes of the Chase family, but he could not comment on whether it was determining factor in their decision.

Boulder County District Judge James C. Klein gave Olmos Alcalde the mandatory sentence for 1st-degree murder, sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Olmos Alcalde also received 48 years in prison for sexual assault and 24 years for kidnapping.

Klein ordered the latter 2 sentences to be served concurrently after the life sentence.

Chase, of Stamford, Conn., had left a pizzeria after getting into an argument with her boyfriend when she was attacked a block from her home in Boulder on Dec. 21, 1997. She was dumped in an alley.

Chase died in a hospital the day after the attack, on the same day she was supposed to fly home to Connecticut for Christmas.

The case went unsolved for 10 years until a DNA sample related to a separate Wyoming kidnapping case linked Olmos Alcalde to Chase's slaying. His half-sister, Ona Bayers, and his ex-girlfriend, Sonci Francis, testified during the trial that days after Chase's death, Olmos Alcalde told them about a similar attack in which the victim was a man he got into a fight with at a bar.

Chase's brother, Stephen, said he hopes that every time Olmos Alcalde sees a "fleeting glimpse of blue sky, or a butterfly" from his prison cell, he will think of Susannah Chase.

"He shall know that it is she who is free at last," he said.

Attorneys for Olmos Alcalde have said they plan to appeal.

(source: The Guardian)

WISCONSIN:

Tell Me Again Why Wisconsin Doesn't Have the Death Penalty?

According to the criminal complaint, shortly after 5:00 p.m. on June 17th, Joevone Jordan entered the the "Odds and Ends" candy store on 83rd and Silver Spring through a rear door. Johnson, armed with a 12 gauge shotgun, proceeded to try to rob the 77 year old store owner, Roland Haefner. During the course of the robbery, Jordan allegedly fired the shotgun at Haefner striking him once (or twice) in the chest. Haefner died at the scene.

Jordan was arrested the following evening after a search of his bedroom uncovered the murder weapon and clothing containing what appears to be blood. An acquaintance of Jordan's told authorities that Jordan said he warned "the old man" not to grab for Jordan's shotgun during the robbery.

Jordan has now been charged with 1st degree intentional homicide in connection with the brutal murder of Roland Haefner.

This story would be awful under any circumstances. If possible though, it's made even worse because of the victim's backstory.

Aftr he retired from Louis Allis, Roland Haefner opened up his candy store as a way to fill his time and offer a positive influence in the area. Despite being robbed several times over the years, Haefner refused to quit on either the store or the community. He was understandably beloved in the neighborhood.

And now, Mr. Haefner is dead. And Mr. Haefner is dead because a guy who was convicted of his first felony at the age of 17 decided to execute him while robbing a neighborhood candy store.

If convicted, Jordan will become the guest of the State for a long period of time. During his incarceration, taxpayers will provide Jordan with television, exercise opportunities, 3 meals a day and educational opportunities (should he wish to pursue them). Even if Jordan is sentenced to life in prison without the potential for parole, there's always the possibility that some progressively-minded legislators may turn him loose as part of the "Prison Overcrowding Relief Act of 2029".

Meanwhile, Roland Haefner is dead and his family and friends will deal with the aftermath of this horrendous crime for the rest of their lives.

Some people think the death penalty may deter monsters like Joevone Jordan from killing in the first place. I don't know whether that's true or not?

I do know though that society has a right to punish those among us who commit crimes. Life in prison (maybe) as a guest of the taxpayers just doesn't strike me as sufficient punishment for the murder of Roland Haefner. It's a simple matter of justice!

Tell me again why Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty for crimes like this?

(source: WTMJ News)

CALIFORNIA:

Death row foes now fight the cost of executions----The state could save up to $1 billion over the next five years, they say, by commuting all 682 death row inmates' sentences to life without the possibility of parole.

Nearly 3 1/2 years into a court-ordered suspension of executions, opponents have embraced a new argument: that Californians can't afford to carry out the death penalty in a constitutional manner.

They contend that by commuting all 682 death row inmates' sentences to life without the possibility of parole, the state could save up to $1 billion over the next 5 years -- a view expected to be offered, and challenged, during a public hearing today in Sacramento on proposed changes to the lethal injection procedures.

The cost-saving argument has emerged as abolitionists have unsuccessfully lobbied for repeal of capital punishment on moral grounds. They have been empowered by the state's budget crisis, as well as by some influential law-and-order advocates who have concluded that deficiencies in the legal and corrections systems are beyond repair.

More California death row inmates have died in the time that executions have been halted than were put to death in the previous 30 years: 16 have died since early 2006, 11 of natural causes and five by suicide, compared with 13 put to death since 1976.

Today's 6-hour hearing concludes a 2-month period for public comment on the revised lethal injection routine that has drawn at least 2,000 written opinions.

Among those calling for commutation on economic grounds are former California Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and former corrections chief Jeanne Woodford.

"With California facing its most severe fiscal crisis in recent memory -- with draconian cuts about to be imposed from Sacramento that will affect every resident of the state -- it would be crazy not to consider the fact that it will add as much as $1 billion over the next 5 years simply to keep the death penalty on the books," Van de Kamp argued.

A death penalty advocate through his long prosecutorial career, Van de Kamp led a review last year of the state's capital punishment apparatus by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

The bipartisan panel concluded that the system is dysfunctional and needs nearly $100 million more annually to provide adequate legal representation for capital cases and cut in half what is now an average of 25 years between conviction and execution.

Or, opponents of execution say, the state can abandon the legal battles and special death row accommodations that boost the cost of imprisoning each capital inmate to about $138,000 a year, or three times that of other prisoners.

"Resources now spent on the death penalty could be used to investigate unsolved homicides, modernize crime labs and expand effective violence prevention programs, especially in at-risk communities," Woodford wrote in her statement to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which she headed as an appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Longtime death penalty foes have jumped on the savings bandwagon, recognizing an approach more likely to persuade budget-conscious conservatives than traditional arguments that executions are immoral and disproportionately applied to minorities, the poor and the mentally ill.

"Now is really the time to ask: If we are faced with the choice of laying off police and prosecutors and closing crime labs or shutting down the death penalty, is the goal to protect the public? If it is, that should be an easy decision to make," said Natasha Minsker, head of death penalty policy for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Even those wrongfully made into symbols for repealing the death penalty have switched tactics to cite the social benefits of commutation.

"Weighing the need for the death penalty with our other needs -- police, firemen, teachers -- I think the balance should go on the side of the community," said Tom Goldstein, an Orange County man who spent 24 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

Still, arguments persist for retaining execution as a sentencing option.

A study this year by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation suggested that the savings from commuting death sentences may be elusive, and that prosecutors may have a harder time getting plea bargains in murder cases if the possibility of death is off the table.

"In states where the death penalty is the maximum punishment, a larger number of murder defendants are willing to plead guilty and receive a life sentence," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the Sacramento-based foundation.

District attorneys, however, already appear to be seeking the death penalty less often. The number of death sentences in the state has fallen by half over the last decade, from 42 in 1999 to 18 last year.

Nationally, the numbers have fallen even more sharply, from 328 in 1994 to 111 last year.

California's distinction of housing the nation's largest death row yet accounting for only 13 of the 1,168 executions in the country since 1976 demonstrates the state's ambivalence about capital punishment, said Mark Drozdowski, a deputy federal public defender who heads the Los Angeles capital case unit.

"It's like a college where nobody ever graduates, where they just keep building more dorms," Drozdowski said.

"The fact that we hardly ever have executions in California makes it more palatable" for those who oppose capital punishment, fostering tolerance of the status quo that fails to bring about closure for victims' families or timely reprieve for those found on appeal to be wrongly convicted, Drozdowski said.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

IRAN:

MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY FOR 'APOSTATES' SCRAPPED----Proposed amendment reportedly shot down after international outcry.

A member of Iran's Parliament reportedly revealed last week that the country's Parliamentary Committee has stricken the mandatory death penalty for those who leave Islam from proposals for an amended penal code.

Citing a BBC Persian news service report on Tuesday (June 23), United Kingdom-based Christian Solidarity International (CSW) announced on Friday (June 26) that a member of Iran's Legal and Judicial Committee of Parliament, Ali Shahrokhi, had told the Iranian state news agency (IRNA) of the decision to eliminate the mandatory death penalty amendment, which had drawn international protests.

The Parliamentary Committee had come under intense international pressure to drop clauses from the Islamic Penal Code Bill that allowed stoning and made death the mandatory punishment for apostates.

The new penal code was originally approved in September 2008 by a preliminary parliamentary vote of 196-7.

In Friday’s statement, CSW said that the bill must now pass through a final parliamentary vote before being sent to Iran's most influential body, the Guardian Council, which will rule on it.

The council is made up of 6 conservative theologians appointed by Iran’s Supreme Leader and 6 jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by Parliament. This body has the power to veto any bill it deems inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law.

The Christian and Baha'i communities of Iran are most likely to be affected by this decision. Iran has been criticized for its treatment of Baha’is, Zoroastrians and Christians, who have all suffered under the current regime.

Joseph Grieboski, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, said the timing of the announcement of the decision during protests over contested elections might not be coincidental.

"Were the regime to maintain [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's presidency then pass and enforce a restrictive penal code, the international pressure on Iran would be unbearable for the regime," said Grieboski. "I do not consider it a sign of opening up. Instead, I see it as a sign of self-preservation."

Security Backlash

Huge protests over the election results demonstrated considerable opposition to the Iranian government's heavy-handed tactics, and although the official churches have taken no official stance, many Christians have supported the opposition, according to sources connected to social networking sites.

In the face of the massive protests, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, Hassan Qashqavi, released a statement condemning Western involvement in Iranian affairs and accusing the BBC and Voice of America networks of spreading "anarchy and vandalism."

This passing of blame bodes ill for minorities in the country, including Christians, whom the Iranian government sees as pawns of the West; they could expect even harsher treatment in a feared post-election clamp-down.

"Since minorities, especially Baha'is and Christians, are often seen as fronts for the West, we can expect that they will feel the greatest backlash by the regime during the protests, and I would argue an even worse crackdown on them if Ahmadinejad and [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei come out of this," said Grieboski.

An Iranian Christian who requested anonymity told Compass that both Christians and Iranians as a whole were tired of the dictatorial regime and asked for prayers for relief.

"The people are really tired, they have no hope, mentally, financially, spiritually, it is really difficult to live in Iran," the source said. "You can't have a private life, you can't make a decision about what you believe, women can't even decide what to wear. We just pray for the whole nation."

The Iranian source was reticent to predict how the government might react to Christians following the elections but said that if there were a reaction, they could be among the 1st victims.

"So what the reaction of the government will be we can't be 100 % sure," the source said, "but they could have a very radical reaction."

Iranian Christians Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad, 30, who were arrested on March 5 for their Christian activities, are still held in the notorious Evin Prison. The facility has drawn criticism for its human rights violations and executions in recent years.

Compass has learned that the women have been placed in solitary confinement.

(source: Compassdirect.org)

***************************

The human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei has been arrested

According to the sources in Iran, Mohammad Mostafaei, lawyer of more than 20 minor on the death row, has been arrested by the Iranian authorities.

According to some sources he was arrested 5 days ago. We have no further details about where he is being kept or why he was arrested.

According to our sources Mr. Mostafei was arrested on Thursday June 25.

Following the last 2 week's pro-democracy demonstrations, several known human rights defenders and lawyers such as Abdolfattah Soltani have been arrested in Iran.

Iran Human Rights has earlier issued warning that those arrestyed are at risk of torture and forced confessions.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesman of Iran Human Rights, said: "The United Nations should ask Iranian authorities to immediately release all those arrested and send a special envoy to Iran in order to guarantee their safety".

(source: Iranhr.net)

****************************

Iranian court delays trial of Bulgarian drug suspect - news agency

The court in the Northwestern Iranian city of Tabriz has stayed proceedings for further consideration of the case against Bulgarian truck driver Zhivko Roussev, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Dragovest Goranov said Monday [29 June].

Roussev (55) was reportedly arrested in September last year in the Northwestern Iranian town of Tabriz in an operation of the local drug control authorities when 135 kg of heroin were found in a secret compartment in his truck.

According to the laws of the Islamic republic he faces the death penalty.

In Goranov's words, the prosecution has to collect new data, witnesses and facts in order to support their charges.

Goranov also said the Bulgarian consul there has travelled to Tabriz, met with Roussev and was in the court room with the permission of the Iranian side.

In his words, Roussev is in very good condition both physically and mentally and has sent a letter to his family in Bulgaria.

(source: BBC News)

SUDAN:

Death penalty for Sudanese killers of USAID workers

A Sudanese judge has handed down verdicts for 5 men charged with crimes related to the murder of 2 USAID workers in Khartoum. The decision: guilty. The penalty: death for 4 of the men, and a lesser sentence for a minor player.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the verdicts "an important step in bringing justice" for the 2 men, John Granville, 33, and Abdel Rahman Abbas, 40, who were shot and killed as they made their way home from New Year's celebrations at the start of 2008. She hailed them as representing "the highest ideals" of USAID.

Alonzo Fulgham, acting administrator at USAID echoed these sentiments, and praised Granville and Rahama for their "service to others and a compassion for those in need."

The reaction from the Granville family was a tad more subdued. In a statement released to the media, the family, residents of Buffalo, NY, said that "Although the guilty sentence brings us relief, not even justice can bring him back to us." The family added that, because of his status as an American in the Sudan riding in a car with diplomatic plates, they felt that his murder was an assassination.

According to USAID, Granville's work in Sudan focused on improving governance and democracy in the country. He helped distribute solar power radios in the south of Sudan in a bid to prepare the region, torn by 2 decades of civil war, for elections.

Rahama, a Sudanese national, began working for USAID in 2004. He was heavily involved in aid missions to Darfur, including the very 1st one, carried out by the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team.

4 of the 5 men found guilty of the murders were sentenced to death by hanging. The 5th admitted to supplying the killers with the weapon, and was sentenced to serve 2 years in prison. The Granville family revealed that, in accordance with Sudanese law and customs, the murderers' families offered "blood money" —cash payments to the victims' families—in order to receive lighter sentencing. Both the Granville and Abbas families refused the payment.

The verdict came as somewhat of a surprise. Sudan has been considered a state sponsor of terror by the U.S. government since 1997, was bombed by the U.S. under the Clinton Administration in 1998, and, just this year, Sudanese President Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur.

Despite the rejection of the ICC by the U.S, one might expect the Sudanese government to take an antagonistic attitude toward any sort of American interests in the country, given the recent history of animosity between the 2 countries.

News of the guilty verdict caused the U.S. embassy to issue a warning to Americans in the Sudan. Citizens were advised to "avoid the Khartoum North courthouse, located in downtown Khartoum, maintain a low profile, and increase vigilance."

The murderers had links to a Wahhabist group, and claimed that the USAID workers were killed because of their attempts to spread Christianity in the Sudan.

(source: ohmygov.com)

JUNE 28, 2009:

CALIFORNIA:

California's lethal-injection plan is proven to be inhumane

On Tuesday, California prison officials will hear public comment on their proposed procedures for conducting lethal-injection executions. Although officials claim their goal is to achieve humane executions, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation plans to stick with a 3-drug protocol that risks just the opposite.

The protocol is so fraught with danger that it would be illegal to use to euthanize a dog or cat in this state.

It involves the administration of 3 drugs: 1st, an anesthetic; 2nd, a drug that paralyzes the inmate; and 3rd, potassium chloride to stop the heart.

Activists have denounced the practice of paralyzing inmates before executing them, and for good reason. Executioners are typically not qualified to administer anesthesia, let alone monitor the inmate's reaction to the drug throughout the execution. If the inmate is paralyzed and the anesthesia fails, he will feel the excruciating burn of the potassium chloride as it scorches through his veins, but will be unable to indicate he is in pain. His death will appear peaceful, and the public will never know that yet another execution has been botched.

Such a procedure would be illegal if used on animals in California. Even when accompanied by anesthesia, paralytic drugs are generally banned in euthanasia because of the risk that failed anesthesia can go undetected in a paralyzed animal. For that reason, a shelter worker who administers a paralytic during animal euthanasia is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. That's been the law in this state since 1978.

For the past 3 decades, the primary method of animal euthanasia in California has been a simple, 1-drug procedure: the overdose of a barbiturate called sodium pentobarbital. This method causes a painless death, usually within a few minutes. When it revised the law in 1998 to outlaw another dangerous euthanasia method — carbon monoxide — the California Senate Judiciary Committee wrote that "there is a general consensus that a lethal injection of sodium pentobarbital is the most humane way to euthanize unwanted dogs and cats."

California is not alone. Euthanasia by use of a single drug — sodium pentobarbital — is the preferred method of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and every major animal welfare organization in the country. The vast majority of states — 42 out of 50 — prohibit the use of paralytics in animal euthanasia.

If this method of killing is unconscionable for animals, why does California insist on using it to execute people? Prison officials cannot claim ignorance. There are decades, even centuries, of evidence that these drugs have the potential to inflict a painful and horrifying death.

In 1868, a Swedish physiologist described paralytic drugs as "the most cruel of all poisons." In the 1970s, military officers in the Philippines, Brazil and Uruguay used paralytics to torture political prisoners. The Humane Society's current training manual states that its members have a "moral and ethical duty" to end the practice of injecting animals with paralytic drugs.

Some Californians believe that inmates should suffer the same painful death that they inflicted on their victims. We cannot deny the grief and rage that accounts for these emotions, but the Constitution requires humane executions. It is time to abandon a drug that has been used to torture both people and animals, and has been rejected by veterinary and animal welfare communities for decades.

(source: Opinion, San Jose Mercury News)----TY ALPER is the associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, and is the author of "Anesthetizing the Public Conscience: Lethal Injection and Animal Euthanasia." He wrote this article for the Mercury News)

GEORGIA:

Court may hear Troy Davis case----Off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail killed in 1989

With just 2 days before the U.S. Supreme Court closes for summer recess, the court is expected this week to consider a last-ditch hearing for death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis.

If the court does not decide by Tuesday whether to hear Davis' most recent petition to retry his 1991 police murder case, justices won't convene again until this fall. This current petition is largely considered Davis' most viable option to stay alive, said Laura Moye of Amnesty International USA’s Death Penalty Abolition Campaign.

But the delay could be good news for Davis’ legal team and supporters.

"It buys more time for all of the advocates to get more publicity on the case," Moye said.

If the courts decide against hearing Davis' petition, it will be up to Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm whether to pursue Davis' 4th execution warrant. Chisolm could not be reached for immediate comment Sunday.

Davis, 40, was convicted of murdering Savannah Police officer Mark Allen MacPhail 20 years ago, though no physical evidence directly linked him to the crime. MacPhail, then a 27-year-old former Army ranger, was working off-duty when he was shot 3 times in a Burger King parking lot.

Since Davis' trial, 7 of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and some people have implicated Sylvester "Redd" Coles as the shooter. Coles was the 1st person to implicate Davis in the killing.

Davis' execution has been stayed 3 times as his team of attorneys exhaust their efforts to save his life. Requests for a new trial in Chatham County have been denied, as have their petitions to have new evidence considered in the case.

Judges, lawmakers and worldwide leaders have rallied behind Davis.

In May, a group of 27 former jurists and federal prosecutors pushed for a new hearing for Davis, filing a petition that said Davis can show "new, never reviewed evidence that strongly points to his innocence." U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat who represents the 5th District, has called for a new trial. Former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI have asked that the inmate be spared death by lethal injection.

On Monday, Moye will be joined by the NAACP and community faith leaders to deliver thousands of new petitions to Chisolm calling for a retrial, she said. They've collected roughly 10,000 signatures in Chatham County alone, with as many as 70,000 signatures from around the U.S. and world, she said.

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

PAKISTAN:

Sarabjit gets new lawyer, to file fresh review petition

Rekindling hope for Indian prisoner on death row in Pakistan, a high court advocate of that country has been appointed his new lawyer.

Sarabjit Singh's mercy petition challenging the sentence had been turned down by the apex court there on Wednesday after his lawyer Rana Abdul Hameed failed to turn up, but with Owais Sheikh being engaged to take up the case on Friday, faith seemed to come alive once again.

Talking to TOI on phone from Lahore, Owais said, "Sarabjits case is a challenge for me and will prove to be a milestone in Indo-Pak relations. I will file a plea for restoration of the review petition that was earlier dismissed by the court. Or else, the only way will be to file a mercy petition before Pakistan president."

Blaming Rana for failing to deliver, he said, he was duty bound to represent Sarabjit. "Now Rana is annoyed with me for taking up the case, but I have to abide by my profession."

Meanwhile, Sarabjit's daughter, Punam Kaur, said in Ludhiana that she was hopeful Pakistan president Zardari would grant pardon to her father. "I'll personally request him to do so because my father is not guilty."

*********************************************

Pak has 7,000 on death row to India's 300

He was sentenced to death in 1991 as Manjit Singh and today is one of the longest-serving death-row inmates in the world. What is lesser known though is that Sarabjit Singh — currently lodged in a jail in Pakistan — faces a system that is extremely indulgent towards death as punishment.

Both in terms of handing out and carrying out the capital punishment, Pakistan remains one of the top countries in the world. So favourable is its judicial system towards the death penalty that as recently as 2006 a juvenile offender, Mutabar Khan, was executed at Peshawar Central Jail. Khan was just 16 in 1998 when he was charged with murder.

More than 7,000 people are currently on the death row in Pakistan. This contrasts sharply with 3,220 in the US and just about 300 in India. In 2008 alone, Pakistan's courts handed out 236 capital punishments — far more than 111 in the USA, which is popularly considered favourable towards death sentencing.

Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani did announce in June 2008 that his government would consider commuting all death sentences to life but since then 36 executions have already been carried out in Pakistan.

Legal experts say that trial courts in Pakistan award death quite freely because the judicial system recognises the concept of 'diyat' or blood money where the convict can escape execution by paying money to the victim's family. Organisations like Amnesty International say it allows only the rich to get away with murder and leads to "unscrupulous bargaining" for cash even when a man is awaiting execution.

Even in terms of carrying out the death penalty, Pakistan was amongst the top 5 countries in the world in 2008. It put 36 people to death. Even this considerable figure was quite a come-down from 135 executions carried out in 2007 under a military regime.

The Indian judicial system on the other hand is extremely reluctant to use death as a form of punishment for crime. The Supreme Court has laid down that trial courts should award hanging only in "rarest of rare cases." Thus in 2008 only 70 persons were sentenced to death in India.

Currently there are a few more than 300 prisoners on death row in India of which 29 are at the final stage of seeking Presidential pardon. The rest are awaiting results of appeals to courts. The last execution in India was carried out in 2004 when Dhananjay Chatterjee was hanged to death.

************************************

(source for both: The Times of India)

INDIA:

Surtis demand death penalty for gangrape accused

Citizens are still boiling with anger for the 3 youths who gangraped the 17-year-old class XII student on June 12.

Shahid Saiyad, Tariq Saiyad, both sons of policemen and Abu Bakr Shaikh, who had once faced mob ire in court, again encountered fuming girl students, who booed them with nasty slogans outside the sessions court on Saturday evening.

"Arise haivano ko to beech raste min phasi deni chahiye (Such satans must be hanged in full public view)," screamed Shristi Naik, a college student, who cancelled her weekend outing with friends to specially remain present on the court campus at Athwalines to hit out at the three accused. When the trio emerged from the police van, Shristi could not control her emotions and abused the trio for their heinous act.

She had waited for 3 hours for the trio to emerge out of the court building on Saturday.

"I salute the victim for her courage in exposing the rapists. Now, the judiciary should deliver her the justice by fixing apt punishment for the rapists," said another girl student present there.

Like Shristi, many youngsters including girls and boys had thronged the court building demanding stringent punishment for the rapists on Saturday.

"Being a girl, I very well understand the mental and the physical condition of the victim. This case should be settled in such a way that the rapists either get death or life term sentence," said Prachi Patel, a school student.

Pratik Pujara, a sales executive, said, "The culprits should be handed over to us. Let the people of Surat punish the culprits."

Fearing attack from the enraged mob waiting out the court premises, the police had ensured stringent security by closing the entry gates of the building.

"The accused have been thrashed by the public on 2 occasions. Since they are in our custody, it is our responsibility to protect them," said RH Hadia, 1 of the investigating officers in the gangrape case.

(source: The Times of India)

TEXAS:

HPD crime lab back in the spotlight----Death row inmate insists DNA clears him, but DA disagrees

A death row inmate from Houston, whose conviction is receiving new scrutiny after DNA tests contradicted evidence in his case, will return to court next week where his lawyer will seek his release or a new trial.

A Harris County jury sentenced Charles D. Raby to death in the 1994 murder of a 72-year-old woman assaulted and stabbed in her own home. It is a case that once again highlights errors in work from the Houston Police Department crime lab, with the city's own expert calling the original testimony "incorrect … and not supported."

State District Judge Joan Campbell on Monday is scheduled to resume a hearing that began in January when Raby's lawyer presented new DNA tests on scrapings from the victim’s fingernails, which include no evidence from Raby. Since then, his case has stalled as prosecutors and the Houston Police Department sought expert opinions.

Raby's lawyer, Sarah Frazier, goes so far as to call the crime lab evidence presented at trial false and claimed prosecutors failed to disclose information about the forensic tests that could have helped Raby before his 1994 trial.

"Trying to pretend that Mr. Raby's trial was at all legitimate is becoming more and more strained," Frazier said. "He clearly is entitled to a new trial after all this time."

The Harris County District Attorney’s office has maintained that the new fingernail evidence is inconclusive and does not clear Raby. Prosecutors on the case were unavailable Friday and a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined comment.

In January, Assistant District Attorney Lynn Hardaway said the new evidence should not affect Raby's conviction because "the absence of DNA doesn't mean he didn't do it."

Case got 2nd look

Police arrested Raby in the 1994 stabbing death of Edna M. Franklin, a grandmother who lived alone in her north Houston home.

At Raby’s trial, jurors heard testimony from HPD crime lab analyst Joseph Chu, who told them that tests conducted on scrapings from under Franklin’s fingernails were inconclusive.

Years later, as revelations about chronic problems at the HPD crime lab came to light, Raby's case received a 2nd look.

Experts questioned Chu’s conclusions. Patricia Hamby, an expert hired by HPD, found that Chu had strayed from accepted procedures for body-fluid testing and had drawn faulty conclusions.

"The reporting of the blood typing of the 'fingernails' as 'inconclusive' … is contrary to and not supported by the recorded laboratory results," Hamby wrote in a report last month to Irma Rios, HPD's crime lab director.

In 2005, the Court of Criminal Appealsapproved DNA testing on the fingernail scrapings. A private lab in California last year completed analyses that revealed the profiles of 2 men. They matched neither Raby nor Franklin's 2 grandsons.

"The grandsons' exclusion is significant because these were the only individuals who had regular contact with the victim — a frail, malnourished woman in her 70s who rarely left her home or entertained strangers," Frazier wrote.

In fact, a forensic expert hired by Raby's lawyers testified in January that it is rare to find foreign DNA under a crime victim's fingernails, and that if often can be traced to the person's partner or attacker.

"In their wildest dreams (prosecutors) could not imagine a scenario where there wasn't somebody else involved," Frazier suggested. "I would love to see, not just a new trial, but let's have a new investigation. Let's find out who it is."

At his trial, prosecutors also presented evidence on Raby’s background. They argued that he was a 22-year-old parolee with a violent history who had been taken in by Franklin at her grandson’s request, but who had turned on her when she told him he no longer was welcome.

They also introduced a confession, which Raby and his lawyer now say was coerced. They note inconsistencies between the facts of the crime and his statement. Those discrepancies also caught the attention of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which in a 2005 opinion wrote "in his statement (Raby) did not say he stabbed the victim. In some aspects (his) statement contradicts the testimony of police officers about the physical evidence from the crime scene."

Raby, now 39, is imprisoned in Livingston.

Still baby-faced after 15 years on death row, he said he knew Franklin's house because he befriended her grandsons, once spending Thanksgiving with the family. He said he confessed because officers threatened his girlfriend and their son.

"I started making things up and they were coaching me,' he said. "I said what they wanted me to."

(source: Houston Chronicle)

CALIFORNIA:

Death row inmate dies of natural causes

A man on death row for the 1995 murder of his ex-wife's husband has died of natural causes.

State prison officials say 60-year-old Lawrence Bergman died Friday at a hospital in Northern California. No further details about his cause of death were available.

Bergman had been serving time in San Quentin State Prison since he was sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Edwin Stark.

Bergman's ex-wife married Stark, who was ambushed in the living room of his house. He was handcuffed, bludgeoned and stabbed and his arms were broken.

His body later was found in a field.

Bergman and his son, Edward, were tried for the slaying. Both were convicted of murder. The son is serving life in prison without parole.

(source: Examiner.com)

NEW MEXICO:

NM death penalty expires

Although New Mexico officially abolishes the death penalty on Wednesday, that doesn't mean there won't be another execution in the state.

There are still two men on death row, their sentences untouched by the repeal and the governor unwilling to commute them. 2 other potential death cases are in the legal pipeline, awaiting trial.

Conceivably, the state could end up putting someone to death a decade or 2 after capital punishment was outlawed, given the drawn-out appeals typical in such cases.

"Nonsensical," sums up Jeff Buckels, head of the capital crimes unit of the New Mexico Public Defender Department.

"It makes no sense to be seeking the death penalty in a state which has abolished the death penalty," he said.

After a decade of effort, capital punishment opponents managed to persuade the Legislature in March to replace lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The new law applies to certain murders committed as of July 1 and made New Mexico just the second state - after New Jersey - to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty 33 years ago.

Unlike New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who commuted the sentences of eight men when he signed the death penalty repeal in 2007, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declined to commute the sentences of Robert Fry of Farmington and Timothy Allen of Bloomfield.

The Legislature clearly intended the new law to go into effect on July 1 and the governor respects that decision, Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said.

"He has no intention of commuting the sentence of anyone facing the death penalty before that effective date," Gallegos said this week.

Fry and Allen are still in the midst of their appeals processes, with no execution dates in sight. New Mexico has executed only one person since 1960: child killer Terry Clark in 2001.

The New Mexico Supreme Court is being asked, meanwhile, to rule out the possibility of death sentences in 2 pending murder cases. Michael Astorga is charged in the shooting of a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy and Billy Joe Watson is accused of hiring another man to kill a Roosevelt County rancher.

Among other arguments, their lawyers contend it would be unconstitutional to pursue death sentences now that New Mexico has decided it is no longer an acceptable punishment.

"It's over with, and the repeal applies to everybody," said Ruidoso lawyer Gary Mitchell, who represents Watson.

The attorney general's office disagrees, saying the repeal was specific and clear in its effective date and that defendants in pre-July 1 cases don't benefit from the new law.

"We certainly think the community is really expecting us to do everything we can to pursue justice and keep the community safe," said Pat Davis, a spokesman for Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg, who is prosecuting Astorga in the high-profile case.

Defense lawyers argue the state shouldn't continue to pour money into death-eligible cases, which require a heightened level of scrutiny and are more expensive than others.

"They are sucking up resources that could be better used to promote public safety," said defense lawyer Mark Donatelli, a longtime lobbyist for repeal.

Viki Elkey, executive director of the New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty, said her group was advised that a death penalty repeal could not be written to apply retroactively or to affect pending cases.

The new law might have been crafted to effectively preclude any further executions - for example, by eliminating the procedures for lethal injection, Donatelli said. But doing that could well have made it harder to get the repeal through the Legislature, he said.

Death penalty opponents are hopeful that court decisions, or commutations by a future governor - Richardson leaves office next year - or some combination of the 2 will rule out any further executions.

Such an execution "would be an appalling spectacle," Donatelli said.

(source: Silver City Sun-News)

GEORGIA:

Jurors who sentenced man to die for '91 Ga. cop killing now split over appeal

Inside the jury room, 7 men and 5 women huddled around a table to discuss a parade of witnesses in the case of an off-duty police officer shot and killed outside a fast-food restaurant.

In just 2 hours they found Troy Anthony Davis guilty. In another 7, they said he deserved to die. Both times they were unanimous.

Since then, Davis' attorneys have delayed his execution 3 times - less than 24 hours before he was to be executed, in one instance - by raising doubts about those witnesses.

Davis has drawn support from the Vatican to the European parliament, from former President Jimmy Carter to Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The NAACP has launched an "I am Troy" campaign.

While the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to hear Davis' latest appeal, one thing is clear: Those who convicted Davis in 1991 no longer agree on whether they did the right thing.

The Associated Press set out to find the 12 jurors, some of whom are speaking publicly for the 1st time since the verdict. In interviews or affidavits, at least 4 said they were having 2nd thoughts, based on claims by Davis' attorneys that key witnesses have backed away from their court testimony. At least 2 others, including Raleigh W. Powers, stand by the verdict and say Davis should be executed in the killing of police officer Mark MacPhail.

"That's something that I have closed the door on. It's painful enough to make that decision," said Powers, a 78-year-old retired engineer who served as the jury foreman. "As well as I remember, he stood over this young man and shot him in the face. I wouldn't do that to an animal."

For Brenda Forrest, the decision to sentence Davis to death was agonizing - so painful that she didn't tell her husband she had served on the jury until nearly a decade after they married.

Forrest agreed to meet with Davis' lawyers when they tracked her down two years ago in Chicago, where she moved in 1999. After reading 2 affidavits signed by trial witnesses saying they were coerced by police, Forrest gave a signed statement of her own saying she felt Davis had been sentenced based on "incomplete and unreliable evidence."

In a lengthy interview, she said she has doubts about the testimony she heard nearly 2 decades ago.

"Maybe I might have voted him guilty, but never, ever the death penalty," said Forrest, a 53-year-old research and development manager. "That part is clear to me. If need be, take this thing back to trial."

Davis' attorneys say 7 witnesses who testified against their client have signed affidavits disputing all or parts of their trial testimony. Others who did not testify at the trial have since said another man admitted shooting MacPhail.

Prosecutors stand by their case, saying Davis killed MacPhail, who was working as a security guard on Aug. 9, 1989. That night, the 27-year-old officer was shot twice while trying to help a homeless man who had been pistol-whipped in a nearby parking lot.

They say evidence presented at Davis' trial was solid and allegations that someone else later confessed to the slaying were inconsistent and not admissible in court. Several courts have agreed, including the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said in a 2-1 ruling in April that it was "unpersuaded" by the affidavits.

The AP sought interviews with the jurors for a clearer picture of what they remember from the 1991 trial - and where they stand on the appeal. 3 of them have died. Of the 7 reached by the AP, 3 - Curtis Wilson, John C. Smith and Theodosia Johnston - declined comment.

2 jurors, Michelle Strickland and Cynthia Quarterman, could not be reached. A current phone number and address for Strickland could not be found. Repeated phone calls to Quarterman's house rang unanswered, and there was no sign of anyone at her home when an AP reporter recently visited.

Powers, the jury foreman, cited the testimony of Harriet Murray, who told the jury she saw Davis pistol-whip her friend. And juror William Hilliard said her testimony and others helped sway jurors to sentence Davis to death.

Murray identified Davis as MacPhail's killer in a police photo lineup, and later pointed to him as the shooter in court, saying he had "a little smirky-like smile" when he pulled the trigger.

But Murray, who has since died, signed an unsworn affidavit in 2002 that gives a more vague account of the shooting and doesn't name Davis as the killer. Defense attorneys say it adds to the doubt over Davis' guilt, but prosecutors say it doesn't exclude Davis as the shooter.

Hilliard, a 64-year-old retiree who now lives in California, said he's "100 % OK with my decision."

(source: Associated Press)

YEMEN:

Tanzanian man arrested in Yemen for drug trafficking: Could face death penalty

A TANZANIAN national has been arrested in Yemen after authorities discovered a huge stash of narcotic drugs hidden in 2 fishing boats.

Drug trafficking is a serious offence in Yemen, usually punishable by death.

According to media reports from Yemen, police sources said the 2 fishing boats were apprehended 13 nautical miles off the port of Sher City in the western Hadramout Province.

When searched, they were found carrying a large consignment of drugs in a total of 162 bags.

The Tanzanian national was among 2 Africans, the other said to be a Kenyan, caught on 1 of the boats. 5 Yemenis were arrested on the 2nd boat. The identity of the Tanzanian is yet to be released. Both he and the Kenyan are believed to be in their mid-30s, while the 5 Yemenis were aged between 19 and 52.

Last month, Yemeni authorities destroyed four tonnes of hashish and 6 million pills of amphetamines, all said to have a total street value of well over $83m. About 75 suspects including 47 Yemenis, 12 Pakistanis, 10 Iranians, 2 Syrians, 2 Saudis, 1 Eritrean and 1 Ethiopian, are reported to have all faced drug trafficking and drug trade charges in the country in recent months. Some of these trials have been completed with a number of those found guilty sentenced to death and others to serve lengthy prison sentences. Other trials are still in progress.

According to Yemeni authorities, the traffickers often use boats to bring in huge quantities of hashish and pills - mainly amphetamines - as it is easy to avoid security guards along the country's long coastline.

The increase in drug trafficking is blamed on a rise in demand from Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia. The latest arrest of the Tanzanian and other suspects came hours after Yemen earlier in the day reported that 18 Somali migrants had drowned and at least 29 others gone missing after a smuggling boat with 88 Somalis aboard sank in the Gulf of Aden.

The boat apparently went under in rough weather. African refugees and migrants continue to risk death crossing the dangerous sea route where several have been killed and dozens gone missing so far this year.

Many displaced Africans die while crossing into Yemen, when overcrowded boats capsize or when smugglers force them to swim in deep waters to reach the Yemeni coast.

They usually flee deteriorating situations in their homelands rocked by civil war, poverty and famine. In the last few days, Yemen's interior ministry said about 340 Africans including women and children had been intercepted as they attempted to enter the country illegally. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) said 146 Africans drowned on their way to Yemen via the sea, although more than 25,000 got to their destination safely.

(source: This Day)

**********************************

JMP denounces death sentence, demands better environment for dialogue

Opposition parties, the Joint Meeting Parties, have urged local and international human rights organizations to stand against a death sentence against 3 of its members.

In its periodical meeting on Saturday, the JMP said the death sentence against 3 of its activists in Khaeran al-Mahraq in Haja province over killing the director of al-Mahraq in 2006 is "political" and an attempt to temper JMP.

The al-Mahraq director was killed in tensions occurred during campaigns for the presidential elections in 2006, but there is no evidence proves that the three activists killed him, said the statement.

The JMP has gone further to say that its dialogue with the ruling General People's Congress party cannot be done without creating suitable political environment for dialogue. It conditioned that the GPC stops violations of the security personnel, releases detainees over protests, putting an end for chaos in the country, keeping the right of people to stage peaceful protests.

However, the statement hailed efforts exerted by the President’s political advisor, Abdul-Karim al-Iryani, to push the GPC and JMP towards dialogue.

Meanwhile, the regional director of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) for the Gulf States Affairs, "Mrs. Katherine", and the resident director of NDI in Yemen, Heather Therrien, affirmed in a meeting with the head of Foreign Relations Division in the ruling GPC Mohammd Qubati on Saturday the importance of dialogue between the Yemeni political parties which have representatives in the Parliament to reform the political system in the country and boost its security and stability in the country.

(source: NewsYemen)

NEBRASKA:

Inmate seeks execution for 1973 killing

An inmate in a Nebraska prison, convicted as a teenager of strangling an 8-year-old boy in 1973, has asked for execution.

Patrick Ronald Russell, 52, made the request in a motion filed with the Douglas County Superior Court, the Omaha World-Herald reported Saturday.

"Defendant would rather be executed than to live the remainder of his life in protective custody and denied visits, medical care, religious services and exercise," Russell, acting as his own lawyer, said in his filing.

Russell was 17 when he strangled Joseph Edmonds, a neighbor in Omaha, with a telephone cord in November 1973 and dumped the body in a vacant apartment. He later told police the boy had said something mean about his grandmother.

Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty in the case. Russell was sentenced to life imprisonment by a judge who called the crime "cold, ruthless, brutal and senseless."

In his court filing, Russell complains about the conditions of his confinement at Tecumseh State Prison, which he says is run like "the old Nazi death camp."

(source: United Press International)

JUNE 27, 2009:

TENNESSEE:

A Supreme Case of Contempt----A tragic legal saga paved the way for civil rights protections and federal habeas actions and players in the U.S. v. Shipp case.

The case was United States v. Shipp. There were 9 defendants, all charged with contempt of court—contempt of the Supreme Court, that is. The U.S. attorney general had filed the charges against them directly with the court, thus giving it original jurisdiction in the matter. The petition alleged that the defendants and other people engaged in actions "with the intent to show their contempt and disregard for the orders of this honorable court ... and for the purpose of preventing Ed Johnson from exercising and enjoying a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

It was a full-blown trial. There were special prosecutors, dozens of witnesses and a special mas­ter assigned to take the evidence. The trial rec­ord exceeded 2,200 pages. Each side was given a full day of oral argument before the justices.

Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, who normally encouraged his colleagues to write the court’s opin­ions, decided that the importance of this case demanded that he take on the responsibility. Before reading the opinion that accompanied their verdict, Fuller—in his typically soft, almost inaudible voice —noted to a packed courtroom that the Supreme Court had entered new territory for which there was no precedent.

A hundred years later, United States v. Shipp has faded into the haze of precedent and history, but le­gal historians say its impact remains undiminished. Shipp has been cited as the genesis of federal ha­be­as corpus actions in state criminal cases. The case also was a pivotal turning point in asserting the importance of the rule of law and the need for an independent judiciary.

"In countries all over the world, the United States is helping develop legal systems similar to ours," says Thomas E. Baker, a constitutional law professor at the Flori­da International Uni­versity College of Law in Miami. "But the one thing that has been most difficult to teach is respect for the law. We had to learn it the hard way. There is no better example, there is no clearer symbolic pre­cedent of establishing and enforcing the rule of law than this case."

But despite its legal importance, Shipp provided the climax to an amazing story involving a cast of memorable characters—perhaps most of all 2 unknown African-American lawyers who, because of their tenacity and bravery, changed the U.S. justice system. As a reward for their efforts, those 2 lawyers saw their cli­ent murdered, their practices destroyed, their families threatened and their homes burned to the ground. Fearing for their lives, they never returned to their hometown after attending the Supreme Court hearing in Washington, D.C., on that spring day in 1909.

"This story reminds us why we became lawyers and of the important role of lawyers in our society," says Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. Dis­trict Court in Williamsport, Pa., and a member of the executive committee for the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges in the ABA’s Judicial Division. "The lessons taught in this case are just as important today as they were a century ago."

FOOTSTEPS IN THE NIGHT

When Chief Justice Fuller read the majority opinion in the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision, he started with a detailed recitation of the extraordinary facts of a case that began on a dark street in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Chattanooga lies just north of the Georgia state line. The city sits in the shadows of Lookout Moun­tain and Missionary Ridge, 2 famous Civil War battlegrounds. The mighty Tennessee River cuts through the heart of the city.

In 1906, Chattanooga—whose population of 60,000 was about 1/3 black—enjoyed a healthy econo­my built on a strong industrial base, especially iron factories and steel mills. The city had been a stronghold of Union support dur­ing the Civil War, and in the years after the war, racial friction was perhaps somewhat less charged than in many other Southern cities. One measure of that climate was the fact that Chattanooga had fewer lynchings than many other communities in the South.

Nevada Taylor, a 21-year-old white woman, lived with her father in a house at the foot of Lookout Mountain. She worked as a bookkeeper at a grocery store downtown.

On Jan. 23, 1906, Taylor left work about 6 p.m. She stepped from the electric trolley 25 minutes later and walked between some buildings as she headed toward her home. The sun had long since set behind Lookout Mountain.

Suddenly, Taylor heard footsteps behind her. Before she could turn around, there was a leather strap around her throat.

"If you scream," the man whispered, "I will kill you."

20 minutes later, Taylor regained consciousness. She ran to her house—less than 100 yards away—where her father used their newly installed telephone to call Hamilton County Sheriff Joseph F. Shipp and report that his daughter had been raped.

Jan. 24: News of the attack on Taylor spread quickly. The Chattanooga News described it as "the most fiendish crime in the history of Chattanooga." Despite the fact that Taylor told the sheriff she didn't see her assail­ant, the newspaper reported that the crime had been committed by a "Negro brute."

Jan. 25: Sheriff Shipp and Hamilton County Judge Samuel D. McReynolds, both up for re-election in a couple of months, were hearing calls for their resignations when 2 days passed without an arrest in the Taylor case. They announced a $375 reward—$200 came from Gov. William Cox—for anyone who could identify the attacker.

Jan. 26: A white man named Will Hixson, who read about the reward in the newspaper, stepped forward to say that he had seen Johnson, a young black man, carrying a leather strap near the scene of the crime at about the time it took place.

Shipp arrested Johnson, who was 19 years old. John­son had dropped out of school in the fourth grade and, by his own account, he could not read or write. Nor did he have a criminal record. During the day, Johnson did carpentry at various local churches. At night, he tended pool tables at a place called the Last Chance Saloon, which sat on the state line. North Georgia counties were dry, so this was the last chance to buy alcohol.

Despite 3 hours of interrogation, Johnson maintained his innocence, claiming that he was at the Last Chance Saloon all evening on the 23rd. He provided the names of a dozen men who could vouch for his whereabouts.

Recognizing that Johnson's life was in danger—the newspapers had essentially predicted that a lynch mob would try to raid the jail to institute immediate "justice" —the sheriff and judge secretly moved Johnson by train to Nashville pending trial.

Several hundred men did raid the county jail that night—and the following night—in an effort to lynch Johnson. At one point, Judge McReynolds personally pleaded with leaders of the mob to let the courts deal with Johnson, and promised that justice would be swift.

If the mob had gotten its way, Chattanooga would have seen its 1st lynching since 1897—nearly a decade.

Jan. 28: McReynolds announced that he had appointed 2 lawyers, neither of whom had previously handled a criminal case, to defend Johnson. A 3rd lawyer also stepped forward to help defend Johnson. He was Lewis Shepherd, a former judge who was widely regarded as one of the best lawyers in Tennessee. He also was well-known for representing the poor and downtrodden, and he often defended blacks charged with crimes against whites.

Jan. 29: McReynolds met with the three defense lawyers and prosecutors to announce that Johnson’s trial would commence in 10 days in Chattanooga.

Shepherd argued that they couldn’t put together an adequate defense in just 10 days. McRey­nolds warned Shepherd against filing a motion to stay or delay the trial. "I won't grant it and it will only make me angry," the judge said.

Shepherd then asked the judge to move the trial to Nashville, Knoxville or Memphis—anywhere but Chatta­noo­ga—pointing to the 2 lynching attempts and the newspaper articles that had unfairly tainted the local jury pool.

"Don't file a motion for a change of venue," McRey­nolds instructed. "I won't grant it, either."

'I BELIEVE HE IS THE MAN'

Feb. 6: Johnson was brought back to Chatta­nooga for trial. 34 white men were summoned to jury service. A dozen were seated.

The 1st witness was the victim, Taylor, who walked the jury through what had happened on the night of her attack. "I believe he is the man," she told jurors, pointing to Johnson.

The 2nd witness was Hixson, who had claimed the $375 for iden­tifying Taylor's attacker. Hixson told jurors he saw Johnson near the scene of the crime at about the time the attack took place.

But under cross-examination and later through rebuttal witnesses, it became ap­parent that Hixson probably wasn't near the crime scene at all on the night of the at­tack. Witnesses testified that on the morning the reward was announced, Hixson had walked by the church where Johnson was working on the roof and casually obtained his identity. An hour later, Hixson was mak­ing his statement to the sheriff.

Feb. 7: Defense attorneys called 17 witnesses, in­cluding a dozen men who swore under oath that they had seen Johnson at the Last Chance Saloon at various times on the night of the attack.

Feb. 8: At the request of jurors, Taylor was recalled to the witness stand. "Miss Taylor, can you state positively that this Negro is the one who assaulted you?" a juror asked.

"I will not swear that he is the man," Taylor re­sponded, "but I believe that he is the Negro who assaulted me."

A second juror rose, tears streaming down his face. "In God's name, Miss Taylor, tell us positively—is that the guilty Negro? Can you say it? Can you swear it?" Taylor raised her left hand heavenward and said, "Lis­ten to me. I would not take the life of an innocent man. But before God, I believe this is the guilty Negro."

At which point a 3rd juror jumped from his chair and started going toward the defendant with his arms raised, only to be held back by fellow jurors. He yelled out, "If I could get at him, I would tear his heart out right now!"

Feb. 9: The 3-day trial ended with the jury finding Johnson guilty of rape. Judge McReynolds informed the defense attorneys that he planned to sentence Johnson to death.

When they met with Johnson, even Shepherd reluctantly went along with the advice that any attempt to appeal the conviction would be fruitless. They explained to Johnson that he could either die according to a court's decision or at the hands of a lynch mob.

That afternoon, Johnson stood before Judge McRey­nolds to receive his sentence. "The jury says that I am guilty, and I guess I will have to suffer for what somebody else has done," Johnson said. "I guess I will be punished for another person's crime."

McReynolds scheduled Johnson to be hanged on March 13 in the basement of the county jail.

Feb. 10: Noah W. Parden and his partner, Styles L. Hutchins, were the leading black lawyers in Chatta­nooga. Parden had helped Shepherd track down witnesses in the Johnson case but had declined his invitation to officially join the defense team. And when John­son's father appeared at their office asking them to take his son's case on appeal, Parden was still reluctant, worrying about the sensational nature of the case and the negative impact it might have on their practice.

But Hutchins pushed for them to take the case. In­voking the Bible, Hutchins said, "Much has been given to us by God and man. Now much is expected."

Feb. 13: Parden, 41, and Hutchins, 53, stood before Judge McReynolds in open court to file a motion seeking a new trial for Johnson. They told the judge there was significant doubt about the guilt of their client, and they argued that his previous lawyers had improperly abandoned him by convincing him to waive his right to appeal.

But McReynolds quickly rejected the plea, stating that the defense attorneys had missed the deadline under local rules requiring that motions for new trial be filed within 72 hours of a verdict.

Besides, the judge scolded them, "What can 2 Negro lawyers do that the defendant's previous 3 attorneys were unable to achieve? Do you know the law better than this court or the lawyers who represented the defendant? Do you think a Negro lawyer could possibly be smarter or know the law better than a white lawyer?"

Feb. 20: Parden and Hutchins filed an appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court, as well as a writ of supersedeas seeking an emergency stay of execution.

March 3: In a unanimous ruling, the court denied the appeal.

ENTER THE FEDERAL COURTS

March 7: Parden and Hutchins filed a petition in U.S. District Court in Knox­ville under the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act, which allowed defendants in state criminal cases to ask federal judges to review their cases if they believed they had been imprisoned in violation of their federal con­stitutional rights. But those rights wouldn't be fleshed out by Congress and the courts for several more decades, and in 1906, lawyers agreed that federal habeas petitions were pretty much useless.

The 9-page petition pointed out that Johnson's original lawyers were denied the right to file pretrial motions, that the trial was unfairly influenced by the threat of mob violence, that only white people were summoned to jury service, that Johnson's lawyers abandoned their client by advising him to waive his rights to appeal, and that there were numerous irregularities during the trial, including the fact that a juror tried to attack the defendant in the middle of the trial.

Hours later, Judge C.D. Clark agreed to hold a hearing to allow Parden and Hutchins to present evidence and make arguments.

March 10: The habeas hearing in federal court lasted more than eight hours. Among the witnesses called by Parden and Hutchins—who had been joined by Shepherd—were the other 2 of Johnson’s original lawyers. They largely confirmed the allegations in the habeas petition, including how the threat of the lynch mob influenced their decisions. A deputy in the Hamil­ton County clerk’s office tes­tified that he remembered only 1 black person ever being called for jury service in Chattanooga.

Hamilton County District Attorney Madison N. Whitaker argued that there had been no violation of John­son’s federal rights. And Judge Mc­Reynolds himself insisted the trial had been fair.

March 11: After deliberating in his chambers for more than 3 hours, Judge Clark returned to the bench to announce his decision at 12:47 a.m. He pointed out that "counsel were to an extent terrorized on account of the fear of a mob." He also expressed doubts about the state's case against Johnson. He ruled that he was not empowered by the Constitu­tion to grant the habeas petition, but he did issue a 10-day stay of execution, permitting Johnson's lawyers to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 12: In an interview with the Chattanooga News, Judge McReynolds asserted that federal judges do not have authority to issue stays in state criminal cases.

March 13: Gov. Cox granted Johnson a 7-day stay of execution—3 days fewer than the federal court. More newspaper articles quoted McReynolds and several lawyers saying that the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was frivolous and would be quickly rejected.

March 14: In Chattanooga, a grand jury was convened to investigate the lynching attempts against Johnson before his trial. But Judge McReynolds testified that he could not remember a single person he saw on the night he addressed the mob. The grand jury issued no charges in the incident, but it did indict 3 black men for stealing 2 mules.

March 15: At 1:30 a.m., a group of men set fire to the law office of Parden and Hutchins. At 3 a.m., men threw rocks and fired gunshots through the windows of Parden's home while his wife, Mattie, was there alone. A prominent local minister and educator, the Rev. T.H. McCallie, allowed Mattie to stay with his family while Parden journeyed by train to Washington to pursue Johnson’s appeal.

March 16: Parden filed the official appeal of the denial for federal habeas with the U.S. Supreme Court clerk. He was assisted by Emanuel D.M. Hewlett, one of the few black members of the Supreme Court bar, whose experience was limited to serving as co-counsel in one earlier case. This would be the first time a black lawyer served as lead counsel in a case before the court.

March 17: Parden made his arguments directly to Justice John Marshall Harlan, a Kentuckian who was assigned to hear emergency appeals from within the 6th Circuit.

Harlan, who was born two years before the death of his namesake, the great Chief Justice John Marshall, came from a slaveholding family but had served in the Union army during the Civil War. In 1896, Harlan had issued a scathing dissent when the court upheld the separate-but-equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Parden pointed to specific violations of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. "The atmosphere in the community was so poisoned that there was no way Ed Johnson could have received a fair trial from an impartial jury," Parden said. "Everybody in that courtroom knew going in what they were going to do. They were there to give Ed Johnson a trial, and then they were going to hang him."

March 18: Parden stepped from the train in Chatta­nooga, greeted by Hutchins, who waved a single sheet of paper in the air—a telegram from Washington, D.C.: "Have allowed appeal to accused in habeas corpus case of Ed Johnson. Signed: John M. Harlan, associate justice."

A TRIUMPH FOR MOB LAW

March 19: News of Justice Harlan's action spread throughout Chattanooga. Dozens of men, armed with guns, stormed the county jail holding Johnson. Leaders of the mob were surprised to find no resistance to their raid. Sheriff Shipp, claiming that talk of a lynching was nonsense, had given all of his depu­ties the night off—all except 72-year-old jailer Jeremiah Gibson. And all the other inmates had been moved off the floor where Johnson's cell was located.

The siege on the jail began about 8 p.m., with mob leaders using sledgehammers to pound away at the big iron lock that protected Johnson in his cell. Sheriff Shipp actually showed up at the jail amid the riot, but he was told to go into the bathroom and wait. He complied.

It took 3 hours for the iron lock on Johnson’s cell to fi­nally give way. The leaders of the mob grabbed him and took him to the county bridge that spanned the Tennessee River. They put a noose around John­son's neck and told him that there was nothing he could do or say to save his life, so he might as well confess.

But when he spoke, according to newspaper reports, Johnson said, "I am ready to die. But I never done it. I am going to tell the truth. I am not guilty. I am not guilty. I have said all the time that I did not do it and it is true. I was not there."

Then Johnson uttered his last words: "God bless you all. I am innocent."

The statement drove the crowd into a frenzy, and Johnson was lifted into the air by his neck. His body swung for a couple minutes. But he apparently wasn't dying fast enough, so some in the mob opened fire. One report stated that he was shot more than 50 times. Finally, a bullet pierced the rope and Johnson's body fell to the wooden planks of the bridge.

"He's not dead yet!" yelled someone in the crowd.

A man later identified as a deputy sheriff shot John­son five more times at point-blank range. He then pinned a note onto Johnson's chest that read, "To Justice Harlan. Come get your n----r now."

THE SUPREME COURT RESPONDS

In Chattanooga, most white leaders decried the lynching as awful and a blemish on the image of their progressive Southern city. But many of them also said the whole thing wouldn't have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had stayed out of a local criminal case.

8 days after the lynching, Shipp and Mc­Reynolds were re-elected in landslides.

In Washington, the Supreme Court justices, along with President Theodore Roosevelt and officials at the Justice Department, learned about the lynching the next morning. The news quick­ly triggered discussions about initiating a federal investigation.

Meanwhile, newspaper reports began to address the implications of the lynching.

"Johnson was tried by little better than mob law before the state court," Justice Harlan told the Washington Post. "He had the right to a fair trial, and the mandate of the Supreme Court has for the 1st time in the history of the country been openly defied by a community."

An article in the New York Times stated, "The open defiance of the Supreme Court of the Uni­ted States has no parallel in the history of the court. No justice can say what will be done. All, however, agree in saying that the sanctity of the Su­preme Court shall be upheld if the power resides in the court and the government to accomplish such a vindication of the majesty of the law."

U.S. Attorney General William Moody sent two Se­cret Service agents to investigate the lynching. For 3 weeks, the agents interviewed scores of eyewitnesses whose statements pointed to one conclusion: There was a conspiracy between the sheriff, his dep­uties and leaders of the lynch mob to kill Johnson.

On May 28, Moody did something unprecedented, then and now. He filed a petition charging Sheriff Shipp, 6 deputies and 19 leaders of the lynch mob with contempt of the Supreme Court. The justices unani­mously approved the petition and agreed to retain original ju­risdiction in the matter.

That very day, Shipp gave an interview to the Birming­ham News in which he said, "The Supreme Court of the United States was responsible for this lynching. I must be frank in saying that I did not attempt to hurt any of the mob and would not have made such an attempt if I could."

On Oct. 15, Shipp and his fellow defendants became the only individuals in U.S. history to stand before the Supreme Court justices to enter pleas of “not guilty” and to post bond.

The key legal argument brought in a motion to dismiss by the defendants was that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have authority to intervene in a state criminal proceeding by means of federal habeas. The motion also argued that the court did not have legal power to stay Johnson's execution or to declare him a federal prisoner while it considered his habeas petition. Because the Supreme Court’s original order staying Johnson's ex­ecution was invalid, they argued, the justices could not legally find the sheriff and others guilty of violating an illegal order.

It was an argument that made sense to a lot of lawyers and judges around the country.

But on Dec. 24, a unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, rejected the defense motion and the arguments made to support it.

"This court, and this court alone, has jurisdiction to decide whether a case is properly before it," wrote Holmes, "and until its judgment declining jurisdiction is announced, it has authority to make orders to preserve existing conditions, and a willful disregard of those orders constitutes contempt. The power and dignity of this court are paramount."

JUSTICE ON THE FLY

The trial officially began on Feb. 12, 1907. The proceedings were virgin territory for all involved, including the justices. To oversee the taking of testimony and the admission of evidence, the court appointed its deputy clerk as special master. For the sake of efficiency, the presentation of witnesses, as well as cross-examinations, took place at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga—9 blocks from the spot where Johnson was lynched. The justices did not attend those proceedings.

For more than a year, prosecutors and defense lawyers battled over a variety of legal motions. Ultimately, the justices dismissed charges against all the defendants except Shipp (who had been trounced in another bid for re-election in 1908) and 8 others.

On March 2, 1909, the lawyers gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol—where the Su­preme Court had been holding its sessions since 1860—this time for closing arguments. Each side was given a day to summarize its case.

Attorney General Charles Bonaparte (Roosevelt had named Moody to the court) chose to make the prosecution's 6-hour closing argument himself. "This proceed­ing is unique in the history of courts," he told the jus­tices. "Its importance cannot be overestimated. Lynchings have occurred in defiance of state laws and state courts without attempt, or at most with only desultory attempt, to punish the lynchers."

Furthermore, said Bonaparte, "never in its history has an order of this court been disobeyed with such impunity. Justice is at an end when orders of the highest and most powerful court in the land are set at naught. Obe­dience to its mandates is essential to our institutions."

Over 5 days in late April, the justices met in con­ference­—essentially, these were jury deliberations. A consensus gradually developed among 5 of the 8 justices deliberating the case. (Moody, who joined the court in 1906, had recused himself.)

But the justices were divided on the meaning of the verdict. Some argued it was exclusively about enforcing the integrity of the court. Others believed the court needed to send a message to states that lynch law would not be tolerated.

Chief Justice Fuller addressed both points when he read his majority opinion on May 24, 1909, finding Shipp, 1 of his deputies and 4 leaders of the mob guilty of contempt.

"It is apparent that a dangerous portion of the community was seized with the awful thirst for blood which only killing can quench," Fuller stated. "The persons who hung and shot this man were so impatient for his blood that they utterly disregarded the act of Congress as well as the order of this court."

When anyone in custody "is at the mercy of a mob," Fuller continued, "the administration of justice becomes a mockery. When this court granted a stay of execution on Johnson's application, it became its duty to protect him until his case should be disposed of. And when its mandate, issued for his protection, was defied, punishment of those guilty of such attempt must be awarded."

Six months later, on Nov. 15, the defendants appeared before the justices 1 more time to hear their sentences: Shipp and 2 others were ordered to serve 90 days in jail, while the others were sentenced to 60 days, all at the U.S. jail in the District of Columbia.

Like his co-defendants, Shipp was released early. Returning to Chattanooga by train on Jan. 30, 1910, he was greeted with a hero’s welcome by more than 10,000 cheering supporters. Later, a monument was erected in his honor. Judge McReynolds went on to serve in Con­gress for 18 years.

Fearing for their lives, Noah Parden and Styles Hutch­ins never returned to Chattanooga. Hutchins moved to Taft, Okla., but there is no indication that he ever practiced law again. Parden and his wife moved to East St. Louis, Ill., where he practiced law for nearly 4 more decades.

If a lynch mob had not murdered Johnson, his case before the Supreme Court might have spelled greatness instead of obscurity for Parden, who likely would have been the first African-American lawyer to argue a case before the court. Every one of Parden's constitutional ar­­guments in Johnson's case were eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court—that the right to a fair trial is undercut by the threat of mob violence; that defendants must be afforded the right to effective counsel; that criminal trials must be open to the public; that there is a federal right to a fair trial in state criminal pro­ceed­­ings; that states may not systematically exclude po­ten­tial jurors because of race; and that state crim­inal defendants have a right to federal habeas corpus proceedings.

May 24, 1909, stands out in the annals of the U.S. Supreme Court. On that day, the court an­nounced a verdict after holding the 1st and only criminal trial in its history.

After the proceedings ended, Parden told the Atlanta In­dependent that the importance of the case reached far beyond its specific legal outcome. "The very rule of law upon which this coun­try was founded and on which the future of this nation rests has been enforced with the might of our highest tribunal," said Parden. "We are at a time when many of our people have abandoned the respect for the rule of law due to the racial hatred deep in their hearts and souls. Nothing less than our civilized society is at stake."

Ed Johnson is buried in a dilapidated old cemetery on Missionary Ridge above Chattanooga. His headstone is still there, almost toppled over in disrepair. But there are words still clearly chiseled into the stone. "Farewell until we meet again in the sweet by and by" is the message on the back of the stone. On the front are reflected Johnson's words from that awful night a century ago: "God Bless you all. I AM A Innocent Man."

*********

A Shameful History

In 1892, Alabama's Tuskegee University developed a very specific definition for a slaying to qualify as a lynching. A racially motivated hate crime was not a lynching unless the group participating in the killing numbered 3 or more, and its members had "acted under the pretext of service to justice, race or tradition."

Be­tween 1882 and 1951, Tuskegee documented 4,730 lynchings in the United States under that definition.

The term lynch law reportedly originated during the American Revolutionary War when Virginia Justice of the Peace Charles Lynch ordered the extralegal punishment of a colonist who remained loyal to Britain. But after Reconstruction, white Southerners institutionalized lynching as a means of terrorizing, intimidating and controlling black people. While most lynchings involved hanging, some victims were shot, burned at the stake, dismembered or in other ways tortured to death.

While racism was the predominant force behind most lynchings, Tuskegee reported that at least 1,293 of the lynching victims were white, and most of those lynchings took place west of the Mississippi. Aside from Johnson and Shipp, only a few cases involving lynching and mob violence surfaced at the U.S. Su­preme Court.

Atlanta pencil factory manager Leo Frank, a white man, was convicted of raping and killing a 13-year-old girl. A mob occupied the courtroom and surrounded the courthouse throughout the trial. When the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case, Frank v. Mangum (1915), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in dissent, "Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury." The governor of Georgia, believing that Frank was innocent, commuted the sentence to life in prison. But 2 months later, a mob raided the prison where Frank was being held and lynched him.

Eight years later, Holmes prevailed in an effort to reverse the convictions of six black men sentenced to death in Arkansas. In the court's 6-2 decision in Moore v. Dempsey (1923), Holmes wrote that "if any prisoner by any chance had been acquitted by a jury, he could not have escaped the mob."

****************

A Case of Firsts

Legal experts say that United States v. Shipp and its predecessor case, Tennessee v. Johnson, forever changed the practice of criminal law in the United States. Between them, the cases featured:

• The 1st grant of a federal habeas corpus petition by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pending state criminal case.

• The 1st stay of execution issued by the full Supreme Court in a state death penalty case that declared the state defendant to be a federal prisoner.

• The 1st time in which a black lawyer was lead counsel in a case before the Supreme Court.

• The 1st and only time in history that the Supreme Court retained original jurisdiction in a criminal case.

• The 1st criticism of state elected officials and courts by the Supreme Court for conducting criminal trials under the influence of the threat of mob rule, thus denying a defendant the right to a fair trial and undermining the rule of law.

(source: ABA Journal, June Issue----Mark Curriden, a contributor to the ABA Journal, is a freelance writer based in Dallas. He is co-author, with Leroy Phillips Jr., of Contempt of Court: The Turn-of-the-Century Lynching That Launched a Hundred Years of Federalism, published in 1999)

NEW MEXICO:

New Mexico death penalty repeal set to take effect

Although New Mexico officially abolishes the death penalty on Wednesday, that doesn't mean there won't be another execution in the state.

There are still 2 men on death row, their sentences untouched by the repeal and the governor unwilling to commute them. 2 other potential death cases are in the legal pipeline, awaiting trial. Conceivably, the state could end up putting someone to death a decade or 2 after capital punishment was outlawed, given the drawn-out appeals typical in such cases.

"Nonsensical," sums up Jeff Buckels, head of the capital crimes unit of the New Mexico Public Defender Department.

"It makes no sense to be seeking the death penalty in a state which has abolished the death penalty," he said.

After a decade of effort, capital punishment opponents managed to persuade the Legislature in March to replace lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The new law applies to certain murders committed as of July 1 and made New Mexico just the 2nd state , after New Jersey , to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty 33 years ago.

Unlike New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who commuted the sentences of eight men when he signed the death penalty repeal in 2007, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declined to commute the sentences of Robert Fry of Farmington and Timothy Allen of Bloomfield.

The Legislature clearly intended the new law to go into effect on July 1 and the governor respects that decision, Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said.

"He has no intention of commuting the sentence of anyone facing the death penalty before that effective date," Gallegos said this week.

Fry and Allen are still in the midst of their appeals processes, with no execution dates in sight. New Mexico has executed only one person since 1960: child killer Terry Clark in 2001.

The state Supreme Court is being asked, meanwhile, to rule out the possibility of death sentences in 2 pending murder cases. Michael Astorga is charged in the shooting of a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy and Billy Joe Watson is accused of hiring another man to kill a Roosevelt County rancher.

Among other arguments, their lawyers contend it would be unconstitutional to pursue death sentences now that New Mexico has decided it is no longer an acceptable punishment.

"It's over with, and the repeal applies to everybody," said Ruidoso lawyer Gary Mitchell, who represents Watson.

The attorney general's office disagrees, saying the repeal was specific and clear in its effective date and that defendants in pre-July 1 cases don't benefit from the new law.

"We certainly think the community is really expecting us to do everything we can to pursue justice and keep the community safe," said Pat Davis, a spokesman for Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg, who is prosecuting Astorga in the high-profile case.

Defense lawyers argue the state shouldn't continue to pour money into death-eligible cases, which require a heightened level of scrutiny and are more expensive than others.

"They are sucking up resources that could be better used to promote public safety," said defense lawyer Mark Donatelli, a longtime lobbyist for repeal.

Viki Elkey, executive director of the New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty, said her group was advised that a death penalty repeal could not be written to apply retroactively or to affect pending cases.

The new law might have been crafted to effectively preclude any further executions , for example, by eliminating the procedures for lethal injection, Donatelli said. But doing that could well have made it harder to get the repeal through the Legislature, he said.

Death penalty opponents are hopeful that court decisions, or commutations by a future governor , Richardson leaves office next year , or some combination of the 2 will rule out any further executions.

Such an execution "would be an appalling spectacle," Donatelli said.

(source: Associated Press)

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Lawsuits target prisons agency----Former executioners and former auditor seeking damages

2 former death row executioners on Friday sued S.C. Department of Corrections director Jon Ozmint, contending he defamed them in a letter about their disability retirement benefits.

And, in a separate lawsuit filed earlier this week, a former auditor in the Corrections Department’s mental health services division claimed the division director fired her after she made reports of "serious mismanagement."

The former executioners, Ira Craig Baxley and Terry Bracey, each seek actual and punitive damages of up to $10 million against Ozmint, according to the suit filed in Richland County Circuit Court.

In her federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Columbia, Joann Boards said she is seeking actual damages of up to $2 million, along with punitive damages against John Solomon, director of the Division of Medical and Mental Health Services.

Corrections Department spokeswoman Donna Hodges said Friday in a prepared statement that the department's legal office has been notified about the Richland County lawsuit, but was "not aware" of the federal suit. She did not comment further.

Columbia attorney Ben Mabry, who represents Baxley and Bracey, declined Friday to discuss specifics of the Richland County suit.

"Craig Baxley and Terry Bracey each served our state with dedication and courage for over two decades," he said in a prepared statement. "To be the recipient of such a personal attack on their integrity by the director of the Department of Corrections ... is therefore perplexing."

Efforts Friday to reach Mabry’s law partner, Lewis Cromer, who represents Boards, were unsuccessful.

Baxley and Bracey in 2007 sued Ozmint in federal court, contending he and the director of operations forced them to perform executions, which they claim were supposed to be voluntary duties, in order to keep their ranks as majors and heads of crisis response teams. Those lawsuits are pending.

In their latest state suit, the Lexington County residents said as a result of "highly unusual, stressful and extraordinary work conditions, all or in part related to their roles as the state's executioners," they suffered "severe and debilitating emotional distress, damage and injury," which caused them to retire.

They contend that Ozmint, in a March 28, 2008, letter to Peggy Boykin, director of the retirement division of the State Budget and Control Board, defamed them by falsely stating that their claims for disability retirement — which, according to the suit, already had been granted — were attempts to "get money and benefits unlawfully." Ozmint, an appointee of Gov. Mark Sanford, sent copies of the letter to Sanford, a Sanford assistant and 2 state lawmakers, the suit said.

The letter "accuses the plaintiffs of filing false claims, fraud and deceit and other criminal offenses," the suit said. "The tone of the letter is venomous and exhibits a conscious effort by defendant to severely defame and otherwise harm the plaintiffs," the suit said.

The suit included copies of the letter and Boykin's reply to Ozmint in which she said, among other things, he had been "greatly misinformed regarding the calculation of disability benefits."

In her federal lawsuit, Boards said she was hired in June 2008 as a human services coordinator at McCormick Correctional Institution, and was promoted and transferred to Columbia in January to "promote auditing, educational and special projects" for the department.

The Richland County resident said in the "course of her work assignments," she made reports of "serious mismanagement, including waste and fraud on the part of management of the division of Mental Health Services" to Solomon, the division director, and to "others within the agency," though the suit didn’t give specifics.

In "retaliation and conspiracy with other high-level managers," Solomon on May 15 "took away most of the plaintiff's responsibilities," reduced her salary and offered her a position that paid far less with few responsibilities at an institution 75 miles from her home, the suit said.

A short time later, Solomon "proceeded to terminate her employment on false and pretextual grounds," the suit said.

(source: The State)

ALABAMA:

Judge to Holladay: 'You get to come out of prison in a pine box'

Etowah County Circuit Judge Allen Millican told convicted killer Glenn Holladay he will only leave prison in a pine box.

Millican said he had no choice but to follow a federal court order as he resentenced Holladay for the August 1986 slayings of 3 people in Etowah County.

Holladay was sentenced to death in 1987, but a federal judge ruled in 2006 that he cannot be executed because he is mentally retarded. That required he be resentenced.

In a capital murder conviction, a judge can only sentence someone to death or life without the possibility of parole.

Holladay was convicted of capital murder in the shooting deaths of his ex-wife, Rebecca Ledbetter Holladay; her boyfriend, David Robinson; and Larry Thomas Jr., a 16-year-old neighbor and friend of Rebecca Holladay's son.

Millican said he has reviewed the case "from beginning to end ... I cannot impose the death penalty that the jury handed down.

"I can impose death by incarceration in the sentence of life without the possibility of parole," he told Holladay, as Holladay stood shackled and chained in an orange-and-white striped uniform from the Etowah County jail. "You get to come out of prison in a pine box."

A graying 59-year-old Holladay nodded as Millican ask him if he understood.

"Yes, sir," Holladay plainly replied.

After Holladay left the courtroom under heavy guard, Millican apologized to the family members of the victims.

"I wish there was something different I could do," he said.

Extra security measures were in place when Holladay was brought to the Etowah County jail on Thursday.

He has been on death row in a state prison for more than 20 years.

Rebecca Ledbetter Holladay's sister, Katrina, said in those years, even though Holladay looks a little older, he has not changed.

She said after the hearing that when he was led into the courtroom, he made eye contact with her in the pew where she sat with several members of her family and the families of Robinson and Thomas. "I looked him in the eye, and he hasn't changed a bit," she said, adding that he twisted his lips in a mock sad look just as he did when he was on trial in 1987.

Katrina was at her sister's mobile home the night of the shooting and testified at the trial.

But it was Clare Thomas, the mother of 16-year-old Larry Thomas Jr., who addressed the court with her displeasure about what she calls a mockery of the judicial system.

"He may be uneducated, but he is street smart ... smart enough to know how to beat the system," she said.

Thomas said Holladay confessed to law enforcement officers in Florida when he was arrested about 6 weeks after the slayings.

She noted that Holladay was arrested after a Florida deputy shot him with a backup revolver.

"That didn't kill him, which would have been the best thing," she said, explaining that her late husband looked for Holladay and hoped to find him in the weeks he was on the loose.

"He said he would have had a slow, agonizing death," she said. "My husband would have been justified, but this man had no justification. He not only murdered my son, but my husband."

She had a small box which contained the ashes of her late husband, Larry Thomas Sr., who died several years after the shootings.

Emotional as she spoke, Thomas said Larry was her only child.

"He always saw the good in people, even Glenn Holladay," she said, wearing a T-shirt with a picture of her son on the front.

She said in the days after Holladay escaped from the Cherokee County jail and until the shooting, she and her husband worried that Holladay would come to the home of his ex-wife of almost 10 years. She said they warned their son to be careful.

"He always told us that Glenn would never hurt him," she said, unaware that Holladay often hung his head as she spoke.

Thomas said she believes Holladay fooled his lawyers and federal judges.

"He doesn't need to pretend he is retarded," she said. "He needs to be a man, but he likes to work the system. Anybody can fail an IQ test. He knew what he was doing.

"(If) he had been mentally retarded, he wouldn't have been able to mastermind the plan to come down there and kill them," she said. "He is a genius to be able to fool the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This man ... well, he's not a man. He's a piece of low-life scum who is a coward and took my only child away from me," she said. "This is not right ... not right at all."

Retired District Attorney James Hedgspeth originally prosecuted Holladay and spoke at the hearing. "He managed to sell the federal authorities a bill of goods," Hedgspeth told Millican.

Hedgspeth said he would not have supported the death penalty for someone who was mentally retarded and said Holladay's own father knew his son was not retarded.

"His dad said it best when he testified at trial," Hedgspeth said. "He said Glenn was a good kid growing up, but somewhere along the way he just went bad."

Hedgspeth said he believes the system failed in that 22 years is much too long for justice not to be served. He said he blames the attorney general, Troy King, as well.

"I am disappointed that Mr. King did not appeal (the most recent federal ruling)," Hedgspeth said. "He decided to quit. He failed the state of Alabama and these families."

Holladay was on death row and just hours away from death in the electric chair on June 22, 2001, when the execution was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Propst, who ruled in 2006 that Holladay cannot be executed.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that those who are mentally challenged cannot be executed. In 2006, Propst ruled Holladay could not be executed because his IQ score of 64, based from 10 different tests, was below Alabama's standard for mental retardation of 70.

When Holladay is returned to a state prison, the biggest difference is those sentenced to life without parole are in the general prison population, while those sentenced to death are housed in a separate area, isolated from other inmates.

(source: Gadsden Times)

********************************

OUR VIEW: Postconviction DNA testing should be available whether it's a constitutional right or not

The U.S. Supreme Court says people who were wrongly convicted of old crimes have no constitutional right to the DNA testing that could prove their innocence.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling last week, said it's not their job to say who should get DNA testing in old criminal cases. Rather, it should be up to Congress and state legislatures to make the call, and the court indicated satisfaction with what it called a "prompt and considered legislative response" on the issue.

Surely, though, the court wasn't thinking about Alabama. This past session, after years of efforts, our Legislature finally passed a postconviction DNA law, and it was one of the last states in the union to do so. (Only 3 states still don't have such a law. One of them, Alaska, generated the case decided by the Supreme Court.)

Moreover, the Alabama law is extremely limited by design. It allows only those convicted of capital crimes to petition for DNA testing -- and under such narrow circumstances that some experts believe it will be harder to get testing now than it was before the law passed.

In just one example, the Alabama law allows DNA testing only if the guilty party's identity was an issue at trial. That sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface. But some people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence pleaded guilty, so there was no trial, and no "question" about the identity of the perpetrator. What happens to them under Alabama's law?

Certainly, there must be a process with some restrictions, but the goal should be to make this latter-day, crime-solving method available wherever it could exonerate a wrongly convicted person -- and identify the person who got away with the crime.

Don't forget that last part, although Alabama officials sure seem to.

Like a number of their counterparts in other states, many Alabama prosecutors and law officers resist DNA testing in old cases as a matter of course. They are either so convinced they are right, or so worried at the prospect of being proved wrong, they prefer to keep a tight lid on that can of worms.

The U.S. Supreme Court could have pried open the lid for those hoping DNA will clear them of old crimes, and their refusal was a disappointment.

But all is not lost. As the justices said, the court doesn't have to make DNA testing a constitutional right for states to make it available to those who may have been convicted of crimes before the science was adapted for law enforcement.

Alabama can and should make it easier for anyone convicted of a crime involving biological evidence to have DNA tests performed. What is there to lose? If the tests confirm guilt, fine. If they prove innocence, shouldn't we want to find out?

This isn't about defendants' rights; it's about the state's responsibility to ensure that injustice doesn't stand and that justice is done.

------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHTS AND WRONGS

Here are some excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision regarding William Osborne, who was convicted in a 1993 sexual assault of a prostitute in Alaska:

-- From the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.:

"Establishing a freestanding right to access DNA evidence for testing would force us to act as policymakers."

-- From the dissent, written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter:

"A decision to recognize a limited right of postconviction access to DNA testing would not prevent the states from creating procedures by which litigants request and obtain such access; it would merely ensure that states do so in a manner that is nonarbitrary."

[source: U.S. Supreme Court ruling)

FLORIDA:

Inmate's case is in legal limbo

Convicted killer Franklin Delano Floyd says there are plenty of inmates on Florida's death row trying to avoid execution by acting crazy, but he's not one of them.

"I don't claim to be mentally ill," said Floyd, 66, at a Tuesday competency hearing in Pinellas County Circuit Court.

He does claim, though, to be the illegitimate son of longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and says he longs to see his "son" before he dies - a boy he kidnapped in 1994 and prosecutors suspect he killed. After his mental competency hearing, Floyd announced plans to file a billion-dollar lawsuit against his attorneys, prosecutors and the judge for mishandling his case.

Floyd's case sheds light on a corner of the justice system that seems ill-prepared to handle delusional inmates such as Floyd who are declared legally incompetent after their convictions. Compounding the problem is Floyd's refusal to take the medication that might make him legally competent, thus able to understand legal proceedings and to assist in his defense.

Uncharted territory

Most Florida laws and rules of procedure dealing with competency involve defendants found incompetent prior to trial. Post-conviction incompetence is, in large part, uncharted territory, according to Circuit Judge Nancy Moate Ley, who is deciding for the third time whether Floyd is competent. Since his conviction seven years ago, she has twice ruled he is not and ordered treatment.

Prosecutors view him as a depraved killer with a sinister past, involving kidnappings, child molestation and possibly other murders.

"He clearly in my view is one of the worst of the worst," said State Attorney Bernie McCabe.

McCabe says Floyd has just manipulated mental health professionals into delaying the legal process leading to execution with his strange claims and behavior.

"I think he's perfectly capable of fooling a bunch of folks, McCabe said.

Ley sentenced Floyd to die in 2002 for murdering a teenage stripper in 1989. He dumped the body of Cheryl Ann Commesso, 18, along Interstate 275 in St. Petersburg and kept Polaroid photos of her bound, beaten and sexually posed body hidden under a truck he stole during a kidnapping years later.

A road worker discovered Commesso's remains March 29, 1995, after accidentally kicking her skull while clearing underbrush. A day later, someone in Kansas City Kan., found the photos of her under the stolen truck that linked Floyd to her murder.

Forensic psychiatrist Ryan Estevez just completed a 30-page report on Floyd after examining him at length and reviewing more than 2,000 documents about him.

He agrees with McCabe that Floyd always will be a dangerous man.

"He's violated just about every taboo we have in society," Estevez said.

Estevez, though, does not think Floyd is faking mental illness.

"Mr. Floyd is very cautious when speaking about things that he suspects might make him look delusional or crazy or something like that," Estevez said.

During the sentencing phase of his murder trial, Floyd testified that his childhood was scarred by abandonment, molestation and his mother's alcoholism.

Violet Assaid runs the mental health division for the public defender's office that serves Pinellas and Pasco counties and was involved in the early stages of Floyd's defense.

Floyd had to be "broken" to do all the heinous things he's done, she said. At a minimum, he meets the legal standard for incompetency, Assaid said.

"The truth of the matter is that most of the people on death row probably meet the criteria for incompetency," Assaid said.

Floyd's courtroom ramblings, persistent outbursts and delusional claims have convinced state-appointed defense attorneys, 4 doctors hired to examine him and Ley, who sent him to death row, to conclude Floyd is not legally competent.

Four years ago, Floyd lost an automatic appeal of his case to the Florida Supreme Court. His attorneys began a series of collateral appeals, but those stopped when Ley first declared Floyd incompetent. Because his appeals are frozen, that also precludes the state from executing Floyd.

In Floyd's case, the rules have produced a frustrating ping-pong effect, with the judge declaring him incompetent and ordering treatment, doctors working for the state Department of Children & Families declaring him competent again and the judge sending him back for more treatment, after another finding of incompetence.

DCF based its most recent finding of competency, in part, on Estevez's report, even though the psychiatrist says Floyd is incompetent.

That's just one aspect of Floyd's case that's unusual.

"There is no provision in the rule of law for continuing incompetency for someone on death row," said Marie-Louise Parker, a lawyer with Capital Collateral Regional Counsels, the state agency that handles appeals for death row inmates.

Legal process is frozen

Parker's agency is at the beginning stages of automatic appeals in Floyd's case, Parker said. Even under the best of circumstances, appeals to state and federal courts can last years, but Floyd's incompetence has frozen the process in his case entirely.

It's a kind of legal limbo that has mired at least 3 other death row inmates' cases, Parker said. None of them has been executed.

Further complicating Floyd's case are his desire to fire his attorneys and represent himself, and the question of where he can be treated if DCF agrees he's incompetent.

Prosecutors fear that Floyd might attempt to escape, as he has before, if he's transferred to an outside state hospital for more effective treatment. DCF says it has no plans to move him. One option might be the Crisis Stabilization Unit at the Union Correctional Institution, where Floyd is incarcerated.

Floyd thinks a judicial conspiracy is behind his murder case, Estevez said.

In court Tuesday, Floyd suggested his prosecution has more to do with unanswered questions about the 6-year-old boy he kidnapped in 1994 than Commesso's murder.

Michael Hughes was the son of Sharon Marshall, a woman authorities say Floyd kidnapped as a child, raised as his daughter, then lived with as his wife before she died in an unsolved hit-and-run crash in which Floyd was a suspect.

When she was living with Floyd in Pinellas Park, Marshall danced with Commesso at the Mons Venus strip club in Tampa. Hughes was last seen alive in 1994 after Floyd kidnapped the boy and his principal at gunpoint from a school in Oklahoma. He left the principal handcuffed to a tree, but prosecutors suspect Floyd killed Michael.

Floyd has never said what happened to the boy but talks about him.

"I rescued him and got 50 years for it, and they put this death sentence on me to pressure me to give him up," Floyd said during a tirade before his hearing Tuesday.

"I want to see my son before I die."

A looming legal issue in Floyd's case is whether the courts can force a death row inmate to take medication that will help make him competent. Both Maria Chamberlin, another agency lawyer working on Floyd's case, and Chief Assistant State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, one of the prosecutors who helped convict Floyd, say that's an unprecedented circumstance.

The competency questions raised by Floyd's case involve several prickly legal issues and at least one irony: the requirement to heal a convicted killer's mental illness as a legal precursor to executing him, said Robert Batey, a law professor at Stetson University.

"It's the fundamental illogic of the system," Batey said, "The idea that we have to treat someone to be competent so we can execute him."

The ongoing effort to evaluate and treat Floyd to enable his appeals involves a huge investment of resources in a system ill-equipped to manage the problem, Estevez said.

"It's an absolute mess," he said.

No treatment, though, can change Floyd's criminal nature, Estevez said.

"There's no pill out there that's going to make you a nice guy."

(source: Tampa Tribune)

OKLAHOMA:

Jury recommends death penalty for Johnson

Raymond Eugene Johnson A Tulsa jury has recommended that Raymond Johnson, the man convicted of the murders of a Tulsa mother and her baby, be put to death for the crimes. Johnson was convicted of setting a house on fire to cover up the murders of Brooke Whitaker and her infant daughter, Kya.

The jury began deliberations shortly after noon on Thursday and returned the sentencing recommendation Friday afternoon. He was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of 1st-degree arson.

Police say Johnson confessed to the slayings on video tape, but the defense also argued that the confession may have been coerced by the police. The prosecution claimed that there was no evidence to support that argument.

(source: KJRH News)

PAKISTAN:

Sarabjit's lawyer asks Pak President to pardon him

Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh's counsel on Saturday appealed to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari to either pardon him or commute his death sentence to life imprisonment, 3 days after the Supreme court dismissed his appeal against the capital punishment. Rana Abdul Hamid, the lawyer representing Sarabjit, said the President should act on several mercy petitions that were pending with him.

"We filed a mercy petition in 2006. There are also appeals from the Indian government, Sarabjit's family and other persons," Hamid said. Hamid did not appear during the 2 recent hearings in the Supreme Court of Sarabjit's review petition challenging his death sentence handed out to him in 1991 for alleged involvement in 4 blasts in Pakistan as the lawyer was working as an additional advocate general of Punjab province till June 26.

A 3-member bench of the apex court on June 24 dismissed the review petition and upheld Sarabjit's death sentence after Hamid failed to appear in court. The judges also said they studied the case and found "no ground" to review the death sentence. Hamid said his job as the additional advocate general had ended and he was again representing Sarabjit.

Rights activists campaigning on behalf of Sarabjit have said any positive development in his case would strengthen relations between India and Pakistan. Leading rights activist Ansar Burney, who has often asked the government to pardon Sarabjit, condemned the apex court's decision to dismiss Sarabjit's review petition. He also questioned why the apex court had issued a verdict even though Sarabjit was not represented at the hearings by his lawyer. Burney too has appealed to the President to show clemency to Sarabjit, who has been on death row since he was convicted for alleged involvement in the 1990 blasts that killed 14 people.

Sarabjit's family insists that he was wrongly convicted for the bombings.

(source: The Times of India)

IRAN:

Senior Iranian cleric says rioters should be severely punished----Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami says those involved in 'destructive acts' during postelection protests are enemies of God and 'should receive the severest of the punishments.'

A senior cleric who is close to Iran's supreme leader said in a Friday sermon that anyone who engaged in violence in protests over alleged fraud in the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should receive the "severest of punishments," according to state broadcasting.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a confidant of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, described the unsanctioned public gatherings and rallies as being against Islamic law.

In the sermon, he described anyone taking part in "destructive acts" as muharib, enemies of God whose annihilation by true believers is religiously permitted.

"Anyone who takes up arms, be it guns or knives, is a muharib and Islam has said that muharib should receive the severest of the punishments," said Khatami, who shares a last name with a popular former reformist president but has opposite political views.

After refusing to grant demonstrators permission to protest election results, officials have increasingly cast those who massed in the streets for a series of peaceful rallies as extremists opposed to the government or dupes of antagonistic foreign leaders.

Khatami did not directly equate peaceful protesters with rioters, but most observers say that distinction may be lost on the club-wielding pro-government Basiji and Ansar-e Hezbollah vigilantes who have allegedly been beating demonstrators. Critics regard their actions as an attempt to terrorize dissidents into submission.

Instead, the cleric thanked the Basiji forces for their help in quelling unrest. Khamenei last week appeared to give such militiamen sanction to crack down violently on protesters, sparking fiery riots through central Tehran the following day.

Khatami also urged the courts to come down hard on those arrested in connection with the protests.

"I call on officials of the judicial branch to deal severely and ruthlessly with the leaders of the agitations whose fodder comes from America and Israel so that everyone learns a lesson from it," he said.

In Washington, President Obama offered his highest praise yet for Ahmadinejad's challenger, and said more strongly than before that his long-standing diplomatic goal of engagement with Iran could be affected by the election crisis.

"There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks," Obama said after a White House meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "And we don't yet know how any potential dialogue will have been affected until we see what's happened" in Iran.

Obama said that despite the Iranian government's crackdown on protests, the U.S. and its allies have a national security interest in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied that its nuclear program is aimed at building nuclear bombs.

The president says Iranians must determine the outcome of the country's election, but went further Friday in hailing Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the reform candidate who has continued to challenge the results.

In an earlier remark, Obama questioned whether Mousavi's election would affect key issues. Since then, Obama said, it's become clear that Mousavi has "captured the imagination" of pro-reform protesters.

"He has become a representative of many of those people who are on the streets and who have displayed extraordinary bravery and extraordinary courage," Obama said.

Around Iran on Friday, small groups of people released green and black balloons in symbolic acts of protest meant to honor Mousavi and those killed in the election aftermath.

Most independent analysts and Iran experts regard the results of the June 12 election, which Ahmadinejad claimed to have won in a landslide, as highly suspicious.

Western officials and the United Nations have decried a broad crackdown on dissidents and activists. Diplomats at a meeting of wealthy Group of 8 countries in Italy issued a statement condemning the violence in Iran.

Russia, often a backer of Iran, joined the West in noting some unease about the Iranian government's reaction to the unrest.

"Naturally, we express serious concern over the use of force, the death of civilians," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Trieste, Italy, according to Interfax news agency. "We do not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran, and we base our position on the principle that all issues that have arisen in the context of the election will be resolved in accordance with democratic procedures."

Khatami criticized Western leaders and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as hypocrites. "You are a miserable fellow," he said, addressing Ban. Many children were killed in Israel's incursion into the Gaza Strip this year, he said, adding, "You were not worried then?"

The election, which reportedly drew 85% of eligible voters, showed the "power and grandeur" of Iran's Islamic system, Khatami said, and he urged Iranians to let bygones be bygones.

"We should put aside the preelection resentments and act brotherly," he said. "We are one nation and one country. Let us not institutionalize grudges and instead institutionalize brotherhood and friendship against the foreigners who have prepared their sharp satanic teeth to loot the legacy of your martyrs."

(source: Los Angeles Times)

*******************************

Danger of executions after torture and forced confession

According to the Iranian daily Kayhan (close to Ali Khamenei the Iranian authority's supreme leader) the person who took the film showing Neda Agha Soltan being killed by a bullet has been arrested and confessed participation in planning the shooting at Neda.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of Iran Human Rights, warned that many of those arrested under the pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran could be in danger of torture, forced confessions and possibly execution. He said to the Italian daily Corriere della sera: "we have entered a new phase where the Iranian authorities, by taking forced confessions is preparing further arresting and possibly execution of some of those participated in the demonstrations". He continued: "The Iranian authorities will be at the same time using these constructed TV-confessions to intimidate those who are sending pictures and reports of the demonstrations to the international media".

Emphasizing that several hundred detainees are in risk of torture, forced confessions and execution, he asked the world community and UN to intervene and guarantee the safety and humane treatment of those who were arrested.

Several hundred people have been arrested after the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tehran, and they are being held at different detention centers such as Evin prison.

We still do not have the exact number of those arrested or killed in relation to the pro-democracy demonstrations of the past 2 weeks in Iran.

(source: Iranhr)

JUNE 26, 2009:

CALIFORNIA----federal death penalty trial

Western Addition killer escapes death penalty

The jury in San Francisco's 1st federal death penalty trial in 61 years spared the life of Dennis Cyrus on Friday after convicting him of murdering 3 men as a member of a drug-dealing gang in the Western Addition.

Jurors deliberated for 2 days before unanimously decreeing a sentence of life without parole for Cyrus, 25. He is scheduled to be formally sentenced Oct. 7.

Cyrus was convicted last month of 16 felonies, including dealing crack cocaine and committing murders as a member of the Page Street Mob. Jurors concluded that under federal law, the gang constituted a racketeering enterprise.

Prosecutors said Cyrus and other gang members had waged a bloody war against rivals and defectors to protect their drug trade. They sought a death sentence only against Cyrus, the triggerman in three 2002 killings. 5 others pleaded guilty last year and were given prison terms, including the alleged gang leader, Raymon Hill, who got a 17-year sentence. The shooting victims were Joseph Hearns and Randy Mitchell, who were killed in August 2002, and Ray Jimmerson, who was slain the following month.

Cyrus and another gang member beat Hearns and stripped him naked, and Cyrus shot him as he begged for his life, prosecutors said. They said Jimmerson was killed because he had talked to police about gang activities.

Jurors agreed in their verdict that Cyrus had tortured Hearns and killed Jimmerson to silence him. But they heeded a defense plea to let him live out a life that his attorney said began in hardship and violence.

Cyrus spent his early years with his crack-addicted mother and then moved in with his ex-convict father, who beat his children, his second wife and even his dogs, according to testimony.

His older brother was murdered when Cyrus was 5, and he started drinking in the 5th or 6th grade, then turned to drugs, his lawyer said. He was convicted of car thefts and drug dealing at age 16 and 17 and spent time in juvenile lockups before the murders.

"As a kid, he never had a break," defense lawyer James Thomson told the jury in closing arguments Wednesday.

Jurors left without talking to reporters, but the detailed verdict indicated their reasoning. All 12 agreed that Cyrus' "unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family" were grounds for a life sentence, and 11 said another reason was his upbringing in "a community where violence was common."

There were moans of relief from family members when a court clerk read the verdict. Cyrus shook hands with both his lawyers and waved as he left the courtroom, after one relative called out, "I love you, Dennis."

"I'm just glad I'll be able to see him," his mother, Pat Harris-Cyrus, said afterward. "They gave him his life. They saw what he went through growing up."

She said she was sorry for the suffering of the victims' families, but "2 wrongs don't make a right."

The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Frentzen, declined to comment after the verdict.

The last death penalty trial in San Francisco's federal district was in 1948, when 2 Alcatraz inmates were convicted, sentenced and executed in the San Quentin gas chamber for an escape attempt in which 2 guards and 3 prisoners were killed.

There have been no death penalty trials in San Francisco Superior Court since 1991, when Clifford Bolden was sentenced to death for a robbery and fatal stabbing. Bolden is the only San Franciscan among 680 condemned prisoners in California.

The last 2 district attorneys, Terence Hallinan and Kamala Harris, have had policies against seeking the death penalty.

Federal law allows the death penalty for a few crimes against federal authority, such as treason and espionage, but also covers ordinary homicides that involve some transaction across state lines, including racketeering.

Attorney General Eric Holder, whose approval is required for federal capital prosecutions, turned down a proposal by Cyrus' lawyers for a life sentence and let his case go to trial.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)

FLORIDA:

Jimmy Ryce's Killer To Stay On Death Row----State Supreme Court Rejects Appeal For Retrial

The man who killed 9-year-old Jimmy Ryce will stay on Florida's death row.

The Florida Supreme Court has rejected another appeal by Juan Carlos Chavez for a new trial.

Chavez claims he didn't realize he had the right to remain silent when questioned by police.

Ryce was kidnapped at gunpoint in rural Miami-Dade County after getting off a school bus and then raped and fatally shot 14 years ago.

There is a law named after Ryce that requires sexual predators to stay in prison past their release date if they are considered a danger to the community.

(source: WPBF)

OKLAHOMA:

Tulsa jury hands down death sentences ---- Raymond Johnson, 35, was also found guilty of 1st-degree arson.

Tulsa County jurors who found Raymond Eugene Johnson guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend and her infant have sentenced him to death for each murder.

The jury deliberated for about 1 hour and 30 minutes before coming back with its sentence.

The jury convicted Johnson on Thursday of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder for the deaths of Brooke Whitaker, 24, and 7-month-old Kya Whitaker.

Prosecutors asserted that Johnson, who had a troubled relationship with Brooke Whitaker, beat her repeatedly with a hammer and left her and Kya to burn in the victims' home at 6934 E. Newton St. 2 years ago.

Johnson, 35, was also found guilty of 1st-degree arson. Jurors deliberated his sentence for that conviction after arriving at the death sentences for the murders and sentenced him about 4 p.m. to life in prison for the arson.

Court records show that Johnson pleaded guilty in 1996 to manslaughter and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

He was discharged in 2005, a Department of Corrections Web site shows.

(source: The Oklahoman)

KANSAS:

Prosecutor may pursue death penalty in Kansas killings

Adrian Burks is charged with four counts of murder in Kansas

Prosecutors consider pursuing the death penalty

Burks is accused of killing a 3-year-old girl, her mom and two others in a rural home

He is being held on $2 million bail

A district attorney Friday considered seeking the death penalty for a man charged with killing a toddler and 3 others at a Kansas City, Kansas-area home.

Adrian Burks is charged with the murder of a toddler, her mother and 2 others in the Kansas City, Kansas, area.

Adrian Burks, 37, has been charged with four counts of 1st-degree premeditated murder, but prosecutors are now considering capital murder charges that could result in the death penalty if Burks is convicted, Wyandotte County District Attorney Jerome Gorman said.

Gorman said it could be a week before prosecutors decide whether to file new charges.

Among the victims Burks is accused of killing is a mother and her 3-year-old daughter, police said.

Peggy Castleberry, 41, and her daughter, Juanita Castleberry-Bess, were found shot Monday in a rural Kansas City-area home along with homeowner James Warren, 66, and Amanda Remmers, 21, police said in a statement.

Burks is being held in the Wyandotte County, Kansas, jail with bail set at $2 million.

Police apprehended Burks on Tuesday after a 2-state car chase that began in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, and ended in a crash in Kansas City, Kansas, Gorman said.

Along with the premeditated murder charges, Burks also has been charged with felony fleeing and eluding.

Police first suspected Burks after they discovered he had a relationship with one of the victims, Gorman said. Authorities didn't elaborate on what the relationship entailed and who it involved.

Earlier Monday, before the slayings, one of the slaying victims saw Burks attack a man, Gorman said. Burks eventually was charged with aggravated battery in connection with the attack.

Hours after the initial crime, prosecutors allege that Burks then went to the home of the 4 victims and killed them after he had a domestic dispute with 1 of them.

"As far as a motive, obviously, domestic violence is the driving factor in this case," Gorman said Thursday.

He said he was at a loss for a motive for the child's slaying.

"Why a 3-year-old? ... One, we haven't got that far in that case, and 2, I suppose when we get to that point, I still don't think we're going to have a satisfactory answer to why a 3-year-old was killed."

At the time of the killings, Burks was out of jail on pretrial release in a separate case, Gorman said. Prosecutors in Johnson County, Kansas, had charged him with criminal threat and battery over an April incident.

(source: CNN)

IRAN:

Maryam Rajavi warns against execution of detainees----Maryam Rajavi calls for referral of the mullahs’ dossier of crimes to UN Security Council

This afternoon at the mullahs' Friday prayer congregation, Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Iranian regime's Assembly of Experts, described protestors and dissidents in Iran as those who "wage war against God," and said: "It is upon the Islamic leader" to "confront these people until their total annihilation." He added, "In jurisprudence, these people are considered as Mohareb [waging war against God]." He urged the Judiciary to "firmly deal with leaders of the riots in order to teach a lesson to everyone else."

The President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, cautioned the United Nations Secretary General, Security Council, and High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the prospect of execution for the detainees of the recent uprising in Iran, and called for the referral of the Iranian regime's dossier of crimes, in particular as it concerns human rights abuses and export of terrorism, to the UN Security Council. She also urged them to suspend diplomatic relations with the regime and impose comprehensive sanctions against it until a total halt to the crackdown.

She added: Since the ruling religious fascism in Iran has not been able to end the uprising by its cruel massacre of protestors, especially youth, women and students, it plans to execute defenseless prisoners to heighten the atmosphere of terror and fear. Mrs. Rajavi also said: The escalation of the regime’s infighting, in addition to the nationwide uprising of the Iranian people, signals the beginning of the end for the velayat-e faqih [absolute rule of the cleric] regime, and executions, suppression and massacres can no longer preclude the realization of the people’s will for change in Iran.

(source: Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran)

UGANDA:

Human Rights Body Wants Death Sentence for Perpertrators of Torture

Uganda Human Rights commission is advocating for the Death sentence as an extreme penalty to perpetrators of Torture.

The demand is made on the eve of the UN International Day against Torture, its part of a campaign to eradicate torture and on Humanity.

The main thrust of this year's commemoration is advocacy for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture Bill, 2009. The bill which was developed jointly by the Uganda Human Rights Commission and members of Coalition against Torture

It seeks to address some of the gaps in the current legal provisions that deal with torture in Uganda. It is intended to criminalize torture in Uganda, accord torture a comprehensive definition and spell out punishments to perpetrators of torture, the commissions secretary Gordon Mwesigye says.

(source: All Africa News)

TEXAS:

Prosecutors consider death penalty for man accused of killing a Tulia woman ---- Warrant issued to man who drove into Lubbock home

According to the Amarillo Globe News, prosecutors consider seeking the death penalty against a man accused of killing a Tulia woman in November.

Roger Duran, 41, was indicted January 22, by a Swisher County grand jury on a capital murder charge. He is accused of killing Valerie Cross at her Tulia home.

Swisher County's DA said Duran will be represented by the public defender's office out of Lubbock. No trial date has been set.

(source: KCBD News)

****************

ON FILM: Death House Door puts penalty on trial----By Philip Martin

Watching At the Death House Door (Facets, $29.95), a 2008 documentary by Peter Gilbert and Steve James (best known for Hoop Dreams) released this week on DVD, I was reminded of the story of Albert Pierrepoint.

Pierrepoint - portrayed by Timothy Spall in the 2005 film The Last Hangman (also known as Pierrepoint) - served as the United Kingdom's official hangman from 1932 to 1956 and presided at the executions of more than 400 people (including some 200 Nazi war criminals hanged after World War II).

By all accounts, he was extremely precise and methodical, a true professional who dispatched his "clients" with as little ado as possible. He was a mercifully swift worker - rarely did more than 30 seconds elapse between the condemned's arrival on his gallows and execution. (Having done some work for the U.S. Army during World War II, he hated the way the Americans dithered around for 6 or 7 minutes reading lengthy charges while the condemned waited on the trap door.)

Dealing in officially sanctioned homicide gave Pierrepoint a unique perspective on capital punishment. In the end, he became if not an abolitionist at least convinced that the policy had no deterrent effect.

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing," he wrote in his autobiography, "and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people."

Pierrepoint's opinion is unlikely to change the minds of capital-punishment advocates - the issue is an emotional one, highly resistant to any evidence and all testimony. It may take something more dramatic than cold numbers to change anyone's mind about whether the state should have the power of life and death over its citizens.

At the Death House Door starts out as a cinematic portrait of the Rev. Carroll Pickett, a Presbyterian minister whose views on capital punishment were shaped by a "hang 'em high" father, the absence of his murdered grandfather and, years before he worked at the prison, the killing of 2 of his parishioners - civilian library workers - during a 1974 prison siege. Pickett, once described by a Texas newspaper as "27 degrees right of Rush Limbaugh," thought the death penalty was appropriate and effective.

During his 16 years as prison chaplain of the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, Pickett witnessed 95 executions by lethal injection. Like Pierrepoint, he was changed by his experience from capital punishment advocate to opponent.

From the beginning, Pickett was deeply affected by his duties, which required him to provide solace and counsel while at the same time pacifying the condemned so they wouldn't struggle at the end. When Gilbert and James interviewed Pickett, they discovered he had recorded his private thoughts, impressions, doubts and misgivings (there were at least 15 instances where Pickett believed the condemned prisoner was innocent of the crime for which he died) immediately after each execution and archived them on audio cassette tapes. They naturally concluded they had uncovered a rich vein of material.

But we don't really hear much of the tapes, as the focus shifts to the possible wrongful execution of 27-year-old Carlos De Luna in 1989. Pickett was convinced that De Luna was innocent - and, in 2006, Chicago Tribune reporters Steve Mills and Maurice Possley wrote a 3-part series that strongly suggested De Luna was the victim of mistaken identity and a prosecutorial rush to justice.

Gilbert and James had originally set out to document Mills' and Possley's work on De Luna and only became aware of Pickett pursuant to that thread. So the shift between the 2 threads - from Pickett to De Luna's family, from a psychological portrait of amoral evolution to an expose of governmental misconduct - feels a little disconcerting.

Yet if from a filmmaking standpoint the transposition is less than ideal, it makes great sense from a journalist's perspective. When he retired from the prison system in 1995, Pickett announced that capital punishment was "biblically wrong," which was the official position of the Presbyterian Church. He said he had kept his opinion to himself for fear of jeopardizing his job - and forfeiting his chance to minister to the condemned.

Since his retirement, Pickett has become a vocal capital-punishment abolitionist, and as such he is suspect in the eyes of some advocates. But he has seen up close what executions look like. He's convinced the death penalty is no deterrent and in fact, contributes to a cycle of violence: There were 58 prisoners on death row when Texas resumed executions in 1982; now there are more than 400.

(source: Arkansas Online)

KANSAS:

Death penalty sought in double homicide

The state intends to seek the death penalty against Terrence J. Watson for the murders of Taryn Dechant and Ernest Jones Jr., Deputy Attorney General Barry Disney announced Thursday after Watson was bound over for trial at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing.

Saline County District Judge Rene Young found there was probable cause to try the 25-year-old Los Angeles man on a capital murder charge. She set a trial date of Sept. 14, but it is likely to be postponed. Court officials anticipate the trial will last about 3 weeks, including nearly a week for jury selection.

A hearing was set for 9 a.m. Aug. 18 for the judge to hear any motions related to the trial.

In the notice of intent to request a separate sentencing phase to determine whether Watson should receive the death penalty, three aggravating circumstances were listed. Those were:

- More than 1 person was killed

- The crime was committed to avoid or prevent arrest or prosecution

- The victim was killed because he or she was a prospective witness in a criminal proceeding.

Watson is accused of shooting Dechant and Jones, both 22, in the apartment they shared. Their bodies were found Sept. 26.

'The Taryn problem'

During Thursday's preliminary hearing, Anna Hartman, an acquaintance of Dechant, testified about the night before and morning after the murders.

Around 11 p.m. Sept. 25, Hartman's mother took her to the emergency room at Salina Regional Health Center because she hadn't felt well all day.

"I like the hospital," Hartman said. "I always think something's wrong with me. I go there a lot."

In the early morning hours of Sept. 26, Watson and William Ward took her home after a doctor told her she was probably about to have a miscarriage. When she got home, she started smoking meth, and Ward and Watson told her they had "taken care of the Taryn problem."

She said Watson told her he went to Jones and Dechant's apartment and shot them each twice. She said she was told that Ward held the door, but she did not know if that meant the apartment door or building door.

"Will said this could never be talked about, and in the morning I needed to act surprised," she said. "Will said we needed to pray, and I said, 'Absolutely not.' " She said Watson and Ward prayed.

Gonna cry? Do it now

The three of them got in Hartman's car and drove toward Nebraska, she said. During the drive, Hartman said Ward admonished her several times about keeping quiet.

"He said the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead," she said. "He said, 'If you're going to cry, do it now. You can't cry ever again.'"

She said a couple miles outside of Hubbell, Neb., they stopped on a dirt road. Ward and Watson removed two black trash bags from the car and pulled clothing items out of one of the bags. She said two sets of clothing and two beanie hats with eye holes cut in them were burned after gasoline was poured on them and they were lit on fire using lighters and old baby wipes from her car.

A gun was removed from the second bag and thrown into the fire, she said. Ward used a stick to fish out the gun, which was glowing red hot, and handed the stick with the gun on it to Watson, who flung it into the field, she said. She heard it thud on the ground.

"Will said, 'Someone's going to find that,' and T (Watson) said, 'I don't care,' " she said.

For your own safety

Kansas Bureau of Investigations Agent Andrew Newsum testified that Hartman's mother, Judy Jakabowsky, took agents to the location in Nebraska she thought the gun had been disposed of, but it was not found. He said the KBI signed an agreement with Jakabowsky to act as a confidential informant so that she would not be identified as the source of the information if the gun was found.

The agreement had nothing to do with tapes Jakabowsky said she recorded of conversations between herself and Watson, he said. He said agents told her several times to stay away from Watson for her own safety.

He said agents interviewed Jakabowsky on about 9 occasions, meeting her at the public library or another public building.

"You have to build trust with people before they will talk to you," he said. "You don't marry your wife on the first date -- at least most people don't."

Threatening text messages

Hartman also testified about an argument she and Dechant had via cellular phone text messages the week before the murders.

Hartman testified that she believed Watson saw the text messages, which included threats to snitch about drug activity involving Hartman.

"I was probably ranting and raving about it all day," Hartman said.

According to testimony on Wednesday, Watson was selling illegal drugs and frequently stayed at Hartman's apartment and conducted drug transactions there.

Hartman was brought to court from prison, where she is serving a 59-month sentence negotiated in a plea agreement on drug charges filed after she was arrested the day the murders were discovered. A plea agreement has also been reached on charges against Hartman connected to the murders, but it is contingent on her truthful testimony at Watson's court proceedings, Disney said.

Attorney Julie McKenna, who represents Watson, said the plea agreement is a "substantial benefit" to Hartman, who will be allowed to plead to aggravated battery, solicitation to commit aggravated battery and aiding a felon instead of 1st-degree murder. Several municipal court traffic cases against her will also be dismissed.

Hartman, who said she and Dechant were both heavy methamphetamine users, testified that Dechant threatened to snitch on her to police because Hartman threatened to report Dechant to the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services for using a belt on her 4-year-old after the child misbehaved at the doctor's office.

Hartman said she responded with a text message saying that Watson said to ask Dechant if she knew what happened to snitches. The response from Dechant was that snitches join witness protection programs.

Kids out through a window

Salina police Lt. Paul Forrester testified that he found Dechant's son and his sister sleeping in their bunk beds after finding their mother murdered in the next room. Forrester said he woke the young children and helped them dress, and then police took them out a window so they wouldn't see the crime scene.

Hartman also described 2 previous incidents between Dechant and Watson. She said Dechant stole Watson's cell phone after he dropped it at her apartment. He got it back after an acquaintance at the cell phone company informed him his missing phone had been activated in Jones' name.

"He said it proved what he'd been saying all along -- that she was a liar and a thief," she said.

She said Watson had purchased guns from acquaintances of Dechant, and that he kept 3 guns he'd purchased at Dechant's apartment. Dechant found a gun that belonged to Watson in her children's toy box and got mad and sold it, she said.

"He brought up that she sold his gun to everyone that would listen," she said.

 (source: Salina Journal)

TENNESSEE:

Gary Cone and the Death Penalty

It has been 27 years since Gary Cone was sentenced to death for murdering an elderly couple. In those years, Cone's case has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court 3 times — in 2002, 2005, and most recently in April 2009.1 (That is almost certainly a record for a criminal defendant.) Although one might think that nearly 3 decades of litigation is enough, Cone III guarantees yet further proceedings in a case that speaks loudly (and poorly) about our criminal justice system.

Cone's Crime

On Aug. 10, 1980, Gary Cone robbed a jewelry store in downtown Memphis, Tenn. Fleeing from the scene, he shot at a police officer and a bystander who tried to impede his escape. He then abandoned his car, in which the police recovered stolen property from a prior grocery store robbery and a sizeable quantity of illegal and prescription drugs. Cone attempted to hijack another vehicle. He tried to shoot the driver of that vehicle and also a hovering police helicopter before running out of ammunition. The next afternoon, still on the run, he gained entry to the home of an elderly couple and beat them to death with a blunt instrument. The husband was 93 and the wife 79. The murders were unspeakably brutal. After ransacking the couple's property, Cone shaved his head, escaped to the airport and flew to Florida, where he was arrested several days later after robbing a drug store.

Indicted for 2 counts of murder and sundry other crimes, Cone raised an insanity defense. At trial, his counsel portrayed him as suffering from chronic amphetamine psychosis attributable to the trauma that he experienced in Vietnam, where he had earned a Bronze star. In rebuttal, the prosecution sought to discredit Cone's defense, painting him as a drug seller, not a user, and a calculating criminal. The prosecution noted that Cone had graduated college with honors after returning from Vietnam and had been accepted to law school after scoring in the 96 percentile on the admission test.

The jury convicted Cone on all counts and sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. That was in 1984.

'Cone I' (2002)

Cone sought state post-conviction relief, raising 51 claims of error. Among them was a claim that his lawyer was ineffective during the sentencing phase of his trial. Counsel, Cone alleged, failed to interview witnesses who could have testified to Cone's good character prior to his Vietnam experience and to give any final argument in the sentencing phase. The ineffective assistance claim was rejected in the state courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court again denied certiorari.

Cone then petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the writ, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. It held that Cone's lawyer was ineffective in waiving his closing argument in the sentencing phase and that the error was so egregious that prejudice could be presumed under the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in United States v. Cronic.2 The Supreme Court granted the state's petition and reversed the Sixth Circuit in an 8-to-1 decision.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist used Cone's case to narrow Cronic 's scope. The Cronic presumption of prejudice, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, applied only where counsel failed entirely to test the prosecution's case. Because Cone's claim was not one of total failure, Strickland v. Washington applied, under which Cone had to show that his lawyer's shortcomings had prejudiced his defense.3 Emphasizing that Strickland requires a reviewing court to indulge a "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," the Court found Cone's lawyer's conduct reasonable. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented from that conclusion.

Cone I is an infamous decision among death penalty opponents. As Justice Stevens demonstrated in his dissent, Cone's lawyer, John Dice, was no Clarence Darrow.4 Worse still, there is reason to believe that Dice may have been suffering from the beginnings of mental illness. Following the verdict, Dice took to walking the streets of Memphis wearing what he said was his old army uniform and talking of his days in Vietnam. Dice had never been in Vietnam. At a post-conviction hearing, Dice's answers were often rambling and incoherent. Asked whether his job was to humanize Cone before the jury, he responded: "That's your view of it…not mine." And asked why death trials are bifurcated, he replied "God only knows." 6 months after the hearing, Dice committed suicide.

'Cone II' (2005)

On remand from Cone I, the Sixth Circuit found another reason to grant the writ. The jury in Cone's case had found four aggravating circumstances, including that the murders were "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind."5 Citing Godfrey v. Georgia, a 1980 Supreme Court decision, the Sixth Circuit held that that aggravator was unconstitutionally vague.6 The Supreme Court granted certiorari and again reversed, this time in a per curiam decision.

Godfrey was the high point of the Supreme Court's effort to check standardless discretion in capital sentencing. There, the Court struck down one of Georgia's statutory aggravating factors—that the offense was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victims—on the ground that it failed to provide sufficient guidance to the sentencing jury. Since Godfrey, however, the Court has held that a "heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravator (what one commentator has called the "standardless standard") can be constitutional where the state court has given it a narrowing construction.7 Thus, a Florida provision was held constitutional where the Florida courts interpreted it to be "directed at the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim."8 Because Tennessee had given its aggravator the same construction as Florida's, and because Cone's murders fit the bill, the Sixth Circuit had erred in granting the writ.

'Cone III' (2009)

Following the Supreme Court's second remand, the Sixth Circuit considered yet another of Cone's claims—that the state had withheld evidence material to his defense. The Sixth Circuit rejected this Brady claim, concluding that it had not been presented to the state courts and therefore was procedurally defaulted.9 Once again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and this time it ruled in Cone's favor.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens first found that the Brady claim had been presented to the state courts and thus there was no obstacle to federal review. On the merits, the majority held that "the evidence suppressed at Cone's trial may have been material to the jury's assessment of the proper punishment," and it therefore remanded to the district court for a "full review."

To understand the Court's ruling, one must recall that at Cone's trial the prosecution had discredited Cone's claim of drug-induced insanity by arguing that he was a dealer not a user. In summation, the prosecutor said: "[t]he only thing we ever had that he used drugs were those drugs in the car and what he told [the expert witnesses]." After Cone's conviction, his lawyers reviewed the prosecution's file and found two categories of previously undisclosed materials: (i) statements of witnesses that had observed Cone in the days immediately before and after the murder describing him as "wild eyed," "weird" and "drunk or high"; and (ii) police bulletins that described Cone as a "heavy drug user."

It was that evidence which the Cone III majority ruled could conceivably have persuaded a jury that drug use had played "a mitigating, though not exculpating, role in the crime."

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented, arguing that the alleged Brady material had "trivial value."

Justice Thomas may have the better of the argument in Cone III . Cone's Brady claim was so frail that his lawyers barely mentioned it in their state post-conviction briefs. That Justice Stevens (the sole dissenter in Cone I ) was the author of Cone III is telling. In a sense, Cone III is a "make up" for Cone I, in which Cone's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was given such short shrift. Cone, who was represented in the Supreme Court by Professors Pamela Karlan and Jeffrey Fisher of the Stanford Law School, may yet get a new sentencing proceeding with the effective assistance of counsel.

Conclusion

The Cone trilogy raises numerous questions about the workings of our criminal justice system, especially in death penalty cases. First, why have death penalty states found it so difficult to provide competent counsel in capital cases? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's observation that she has "yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court…in which the defendant was well represented at trial" may be hyperbole, but there are far too many John Dices representing capital defendants.10

Second, how have we allowed federal habeas law to become such a procedural quagmire that years are spent litigating whether claims are procedurally defaulted or exhausted?

Academics have long bemoaned the "excessive proceduralism" of habeas law, but legislative reforms have succeeded only in creating an even more intricate maze.11

Third, why do Brady claims proliferate in death cases? When the stakes are high, prosecutors seem prone to err on the side of non-disclosure and not transparency.

Finally, and most importantly, can we administer capital punishment fairly and efficiently? The Cone trilogy suggests that the answer is no. The administration of the death penalty has become so complex and costly, so subject to endless litigation, that it makes a mockery of justice.

-------------------

Paul Shechtman is a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School where he teaches Evidence.

Endnotes:

1. The Cone trilogy is: Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002)(Cone I); Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447 (2005)(Cone II); and Cone v. Bell, —U.S.— (2009)(Cone III).

2. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984).

3. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

4. Dow, "Bell v. Cone: The Fatal Consequences of Incomplete Failure," in Death Penalty Stories, Foundation Press 2009, at 411.

5. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2-203(i)(5). The three other aggravators were: (i) Cone had been convicted of one or more felonies involving the use or threat of violence to a person; (ii) Cone committed the murders for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest; and (iii) Cone knowingly created a risk of death to 2 or more persons, other than the victim murdered during the act of murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court set aside the 3rd factor, concluding that Cone's actions the prior day were not sufficiently close in time to the murders; it found the error harmless.

6. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980).

7. Rosen, "The 'Especially Heinous' Aggravating Circumstances in Capital Cases—The Standardless Standard," 64 N. C. L. Rev. 941 (1986).

8. Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 536 (1992). As others have noted, these limiting constructions do little to narrow the class of death-eligible offenders; rather they "appear no less encompassing than the facially vague statutory [provisions]" that they purport to modify. Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, "Sober Second Thoughts: Reflections on Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment," 109 Harv. L. Rev. 335, 373 (1995).

9. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

10. 535 U.S. at 719 n.17.

11. See, e.g., J. Steiker, "Confronting the New Face of Excessive Proceduralism," 1998 U. Chi. Legal F. 315. The principal legislative reform is the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C.A. §2241, et seq.

(source: New York Law Journal, 6-24-2009)

MARYLAND:

A dishonest delay----Our view: Legislators shouldn't drag out approvals of execution regulations to maintain a moratorium; the governor should commute death sentences instead

After years of dragging its feet, the O'Malley administration has proposed regulations to implement Maryland's death penalty, a necessary step to resume capital punishment after the Court of Appeals ruled in 2006 that the previous regulations had not been properly adopted. For all the time it took to craft them, they are remarkably similar to the old ones; the main changes are restrictions on corrections personnel performing a "cut down" procedure to get access to a condemned inmate's vein to administer lethal drugs; more time for the inmate to spend with his or her family; and a provision for a last meal.

Now the rules go before a joint committee of the Senate and House of Delegates, where we can expect more foot dragging. The panel is led by staunch death penalty opponents who say they're in no hurry to see these rules get implemented.

As much as we would have liked to see the state adopt Gov. Martin O'Malley's legislation to eliminate capital punishment once and for all, delaying the adoption of these regulations as a backdoor means of maintaining a moratorium on executions is the wrong approach. Two lawmakers who head a committee few Marylanders have ever heard of (the Joint Committee for Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review) should not make that kind of decision on their own.

This spring, the General Assembly adopted the most restrictive evidentiary standards for capital punishment eligibility of any state that employs the death penalty. Under the new law, prosecutors may seek capital punishment only if there is DNA or biological evidence in the case, a videotape of the crime or a taped confession by the killer. Those standards go a long way toward making sure the innocent are not put to death in Maryland and, as a practical matter, will greatly restrict the number of executions here (which is already small).

But those restrictions don't apply to the 5 people now on death row. The state's death-penalty foes could take their time moving forward with the regulations, but that would do no good for the people on death row or for the families of their victims.

Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger noted in The Baltimore Sun's story about the regulations that he was an intern in the office he now heads when it was prosecuting Vernon L. Evans Jr., the next man up for execution in the state. "I believe in the old adage, justice delayed is justice denied," he said. He's right about that - the years of delays and appeals and starts and stops in Maryland's use of capital punishment have done nothing but force the victims' families to relive the horrors of the crimes committed by the state's death row inmates. We need some finality here.

Mr. O'Malley plans to review the 5 cases to decide whether to commute the sentences. He should do so quickly, and he should not be afraid to convert them to life without parole. That way the state can start over with a clean slate when it comes to capital punishment and craft a system that reflects the legislature's real concerns about how the old one worked.

After so many years waiting for closure, the families of these 5 men's victims would no doubt be upset by such an action. But it would spare them years more of delays and disappointments before finally being able to bring a tragic chapter of their lives to a close.

The governor may be reluctant for political reasons to commute the sentences. He has been much stingier in his use of pardons than his predecessor, Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., and he seeks to cultivate a reputation as a tough-on-crime executive. He might lose credibility on that score by commuting the sentences. But Marylanders already know where Mr. O'Malley's heart is when it comes to capital punishment - it is one of the few issues on which he has been truly passionate. Citizens will understand if he uses the power of his office to express his values, and they'll know if he compromises his morals to win their votes.

(source: Editorial, Baltimore Sun)

*****************

Why Executions Won't Resume Quickly In Maryland

Earlier this week the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections drafted new regulations for administering lethal injections.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a moratorium on executions in December, 2006, until the new regulations were adopted. That decision came as the court was hearing the appeal of Vernon Evans, who is 1 of 2 men on death row for a 1983 contract killing of 2 employees at the old Warren House Motel in Pikesville.

As the death penalty debate continued in Annapolis over the last 3 years, death penalty supporters have urged Governor O'Malley to issue the new regulations.

Now that the regulations are out, there are 3 reasons why executions won't resume quickly.

1. The regulations must get approval by a joint legislative committee. The Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR Committee) is led by 2 death penalty opponents. Both Democratic Senator Paul Pinsky and Delegate Anne Healey have said they will not rush the review. They note they have concerns about lethal injection, including the 3-drug cocktail used to put inmates to death. That cocktail has not changed with the new regulations. In their appeals Evans attorneys have argued that the cocktail itself amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The regulations also need to be published in the Maryland Register for comment. Both lawmakers have said their review should end by the time the General Assembly begins its new session in January, though Pinsky told me this week that the committee may decide to continue its review next year.

2. Governor O'Malley still must approve these regulations. It's well known that he opposes the death penalty. This week, the governor did not say he would approve these regulations, but he did promise to ensure that, "the death penalty in Maryland is carried out in a manner consistent with state and federal law." If the governor approves these regulations, he would still have to sign new death warrants for the 5 men currently on death row in Maryland. The governor could also decide to commute the death sentences to life. The governor has repeatedly said that he believes the death penalty is morally wrong and does not deter crime.

Like anything else the governor does, politics also plays a role in the process. The governor faces a re-election after failing to get a death penalty ban through the General Assembly. Many of the death penalty opponents believe the governor could have been more forceful this year. These voters could decide not to cast any vote for governor next year if the governor doesn't get a death penalty ban passed. It's not likely that will happen next year. Nor will you see the governor commute death sentences. Democrats are afraid to do anything that makes them appear soft on crime in an election year. A prolonged committee review of the regulations until after next year's election could give the governor and his fellow Democrats the political cover they need on this issue.

3. Even if the regulations are approved, and the governor signs death warrants. There will still be appeals. Many of the legal arguments raised by death penalty opponents remain. Some have already criticized the new regulations. I've been the media witness at 3 executions in my career, including the last one in Maryland when Wesley Baker was put to death in December, 2005. In all 3 cases, the attorneys for the men executed say that once a death warrant is signed, lawyers can file hundreds of appeals, and all they need is for 1 judge, or 1 governor, to issue a last minute stay. Critics say the attorneys throw everything at the wall in this situation and wait to see what sticks.

It's for these reasons, the execution moratorium will remain in Maryland.

(source: Rob Lang, WBAL)

CALIFORNIA:

Lafayette rapist gets 2nd death sentence

A Contra Costa County judge has sentenced a 73-year-old rapist to death for the 1978 murder of a Lafayette housewife whose death remained unsolved for a quarter-century.

The death sentence handed down by Judge John Kennedy Thursday was the 2nd imposed on Darryl Kemp, who was awaiting execution for the 1959 murder of a Los Angeles woman, but that when California suspended the death penalty in 1972.

Kemp, a Los Angeles native, had been out of prison for 4 months when 40-year-old Armida Wiltsey was found strangled to death after she went for a jog at Lafayette Reservoir. The case went cold for decades, until DNA linked Kemp to the murder in 2005.

At the time, he was serving a life sentence for 3 Texas rapes.

(source: Associated Press)

USA:

Anti-Death Penalty Activists to Fast and Vigil for Four Days Outside of U.S. Supreme Court to Mark Historic Court Rulings

Press conference Monday, June 29 at noon on SCOTUS sidewalk

The following advisory is being issued by the Abolitionist Action Committee:

WHEN: June 29 and June 30 from 8:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.

July 1 and 2 - around the clock, 24-hour presence (ending at midnight on July 2)

*** A public rally and PRESS CONFERENCE will be held Monday, June 29 at Noon ***

WHAT: A 4-day, liquid-only fast and vigil to mark the anniversaries of the historical 1972 Furman and 1976 Gregg Supreme Court decisions to involve the death penalty.

WHO: Exonerated death row prisoners, murder victim family members, anti-death penalty activists from around the country, and other leaders of state and national anti-death penalty organizations. Over 50 people participating from 15 different states and several countries.

WHERE: On the sidewalk in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

July 2, 2009 marks the 33rd anniversary of the Gregg V. Georgia decision in which the United States Supreme Court upheld laws written in various states to reinstate the death penalty in the wake of the Furman decision in 1972.

This press conference is part of the Annual Fast and Vigil to Abolish the Death Penalty at the U.S. Supreme Court, wherein anti-death penalty activists will converge on Washington, D.C. from June 29 through July 2 for 4 days of activities commemorating the historic 1972 and 1976 Supreme Court rulings that suspended the death penalty in the United States and later allowed executions to resume. This is the 16th year in a row that the Abolitionist Action Committee will hold its annual Fast and Vigil between the dates of these 2 landmark decisions. Activists, many of whom are fasting the entire 4 days, are traveling to Washington D.C. from across the United States and beyond.

Highlights of this highly visual and interactive annual event include live music and evening teach-ins by death row survivors, murder victim family members, and noted activists and scholars. Please see details at http://www.abolition.org/fastandvigil/schedule.html.

RAIN ALERT: In the event of rain or significant threat thereof, evening events requiring amplification will take part inside the United Methodist Church Building, immediately adjacent (across Maryland Ave. on 1st St.)

The Abolitionist Action Committee is an ad-hoc group of individuals committed to highly visible and effective public education for alternatives to the death penalty through nonviolent direct action.

(source: Abolitionist Action Committee/PR Newswire)

**************************************

Court upholds ban on death-row interviews

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a regulation barring prisoners on death row in the federal system from meeting with reporters. In doing so, a majority of Seventh Circuit judges set a low bar for determining when an inmate's constitutional rights can be infringed upon, over the objections of several dissenting judges.

 The majority opinion in Hammer v. Ashcroft, written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, based its decision heavily upon the concept that the news media has "no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded to the general public," citing Pell v. Procunier. However, in Hammer it was not a reporter, but a prisoner, who asserted a right to interview.

Death row inmate David Hammer sued Bureau of Prisons officials in 2001, after he was denied face-to-face interviews with the media. Between August and December 1999, Hammer participated in 3 interviews at a prison in Terre Haute, Ind. In 2000, he learned the prison had changed its rules and wouldn't allow him to speak in-person to members of the press.

The new rule was implemented after Timothy McVeigh spoke with 60 Minutes in March 2000 about the Oklahoma City bombing. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and former BOP director Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer announced a policy banning federal death row inmates from giving in-person interviews.

Hammer lost by summary judgment in a district court, meaning his case did not get a full trial. But in January 2008 a 3-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit revived the case, saying more information was needed to determine whether the policy was motivated by a valid security concern. The entire Seventh Circuit then decided to review the panel's ruling.

The majority in Thursday's decision said only a "rational basis" was required to justify the regulation, and again cited Pell in asserting that "a no-interview policy is 'reasonably related to legitimate security interests.'"

Hammer contended that the rule was based on content discrimination, which would be forbidden by the First Amendment. Hammer cited Sen. Byron Dorgan's reaction to the McVeigh interview, in which the lawmaker wrote a letter to Hawk-Sawyer saying a convicted killer should be prevented from using television interviews to "advance his agenda of violence." Hammer also pointed to Ashcroft's comments days before the policy was put in place, when he said, "As an American who cares about our culture, I want to restrict a mass murderer's access to the public podium."

The majority decided that even if the motive behind the no-interview rule were suspect, that did not spoil the rule's reasonable connection to legitimate security purposes. In defending that connection, the majority discussed the potential problem of an inmate becoming a "celebrity" as a result of media contact, which makes crime more attractive and allows criminals to encourage others to commit crimes.

The majority dismissed Hammer's assertion that he wanted to talk to the press about "prison conditions, his current professed respect for life, and what he sees as misconduct by guards and wardens." The court said he still had an outlet for those views, because he could converse with reporters by phone or by mail. The majority said problems in the prison system could be revealed to the public when a prisoner filed a lawsuit over them.

A dissent written by Judge Llana Rovner said the government had not done enough to establish a legitimate interest to justify the no-interview policy. Rovner wrote: "[T]oday's opinion holds that a ban on face-to-face interviews in the prison system is justified if a judge can 'imagine' a legitimate basis for its existence, glosses over facts regarding the application of the relevant policies, and concludes with the astonishing proposition that the government may limit a prisoner's access to the media based on its distaste for the anticipated outcome of the prisoner's speech."

Rovner cited a Supreme Court case largely ignored by the majority, Turner v. Safley, to establish that a rule infringing on a prisoner's constitutional rights must be "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." The "jailhouse-celebrity" concern might not be a legitimate security concern, but rather a "convenient explanation to justify a policy designed to control the speech content of a particular subset of prisoners," Rover wrote.

Rovner was especially troubled by the majority's apparent lack of concern over Ashcroft's comments indicating a belief that American culture is corroded when a death-row inmate's words are broadcast outside the prison. Rovner wrote: "First Amendment jurisprudence is grounded in the idea that the government may not prevent a person, including a prisoner, from speaking merely because it disapproves of the speaker or what the speaker might say."

In arguing that even potentially offensive words from a prisoner's mouth must be protected by the First Amendment, Rovner used Easterbrook's own comments from an opinion he wrote in 1985: "Racial bigotry, anti-semitism, violence on television, reporters' biases ... all is protected as speech, however insidious."

Rovner accused the majority of generously construing Ashcroft's statement to encompass a legitimate interest in preventing criminals from being rewarded for their actions with publicity. The judge wrote that a trial court should have a chance to interpret Ashcroft's words.

Rovner did not call for the no-interview policy to be immediately overturned, but for a trial court to hear more facts and then make a judgment on the "legitimacy of the security rationale."

Judge Diane Wood also wrote a dissent, saying the majority opinion was based on unsupported assumptions, such as that Hammer's had access to uncensored communications with the press by phone and mail.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, urging the court to overturn the trial court's decision.

(source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)

****************************

Biggest defrauders should be subject to death penalty

Joke of the week: Bernie Madoff has asked a judge for leniency at his June 29 sentencing.

What's truly incredible is that isn't a joke. Madoff asked the judge to take it easy on him. I have a much better idea.

How about making the worst of the defrauders and bilkers and scam artists and life ruiners -- people like Bernie -- be eligible for the death penalty? I'm very serious about that.

Let's face it, how many lives did Madoff ruin in his supposed multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme? How many people, including many in South Florida and many who weren't wealthy, lost whatever they had to this creep? And how about the 2 suicides attributed to the scam?

"He didn't pull the trigger, he did take people's lives," said attorney Jerold Reisman, who represents some defrauded investors.

Interestingly, we have a law in many states in the country, including Florida, called felony murder. The Cliffs Notes definition is that you don't have to be the actual triggerman, you just have to be present when a felony is committed and a death results, in order to possibly face 1st degree murder charges and a possible death penalty.

Is that law too severe? Perhaps.

But you could make a case that some people charged with felony murder were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would be real hard to make a case that Madoff's fraud crimes were accidental. Madoff, who pleaded guilty to massive fraud, knew what he was doing, and the lives that would be ruined.

Fortunately for Madoff, my great idea about the death penalty doesn't apply to him or other white collar criminals. Madoff will almost certainly get a life sentence, and will continue to cost taxpayers while he sits in prison.

As these fraud causes become more common, it's time to start looking at the death penalty for the worst of the worst, who ruin countless lives with their greed.

If that's not a deterrent, I don't know what is.

(source: Opinion, Gary Stein, South Florida Sun-Sentinel)

**********************

The proposed restrictions on the use of the death penalty fall short of what is needed: abolition. It is a violation of the sanctity of all human life, arbitrary, discriminatory, and error-prone, not to mention its exorbitant costs compared to life without the possibility of parole. The restrictions do bring the penalty more in line with the stringent requirements in Judaic and Islamic law. Neither religion supports the current administration of the punishment under US standards, although they do in principle. Israel, by the way, has executed only one person since its nation was established in 1947, Adolph Eichmann. Prosecutors in their rapacious quest for another conviction and execution ignore the injustices and moral arguments against capital punishment, as well as the ABA report on the death penalty in the states (October 29, 2007). "Before we punish, we must have justice," past president of American Bar Association.

Robert Baldwin, MD, MA----Author, Life and Death Matters: Seeking the Truth about Capital Punishment, New South Books, Jan 2009

(source: Letter to the Editor, Baltimore Sun)

VIRGINIA:

Suspect seeking execution gets new lawyer

A Charlottesville man facing a capital murder charge in connection with the shooting death of an 11-year-old boy now has 2 local attorneys.

David Baugh, a Richmond-based capital defender, said Thursday that he and the Office of the Capital Defender are no longer representing Waverly "Eddie" Whitlock. Baugh said his motion to withdraw as Whitlock's attorney was granted after a hearing this week.

Whitlock continues to be represented by Michael T. Hemenway, Baugh said Thursday, and now also is represented by court-appointed attorney J. Lloyd Snook III. Both attorneys have offices in Charlottesville.

Baugh's motion, which was filed late last week, noted a conflict of interest between Whitlock and himself that "ethically compels withdrawal," the motion said. Baugh said a judge held a hearing on Wednesday outside of the presence of the commonwealth's attorney before granting the motion. The motion requested the closed hearing if the judge needed specific information about the conflict.

Details about why Baugh requested to be taken off the case have not been made public. The motion said the closed hearing was necessary so that Whitlock's interests, his attorney-client relationship and defense strategy wouldn't be compromised.

Baugh said in court May 20 that Whitlock wanted to take advantage of a plea agreement that would require him to plead guilty to capital murder and other charges in exchange for the death penalty. The agreement reportedly has a clause that would allow Whitlock to rescind his plea if a judge opts for a sentence lesser than death.

Prior to considering the plea agreement, Circuit Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. requested a competency hearing for Whitlock, which was supposed to be scheduled for Friday. Whitlock's competency hearing has been rescheduled to July 17.

Whitlock, 28, has been accused of the fatal shooting of 11-year-old Aziz Damar Booth and of wounding 23-year-old Rueben Lewis III. The shootings took place on June 3, 2008, at 330 Sixth 1/2 St. SW.

(source: Charlottesville Daily Progress)

MISSOURI:

Dennis Skillicorn's widow reacts to the halting of Missouri executions

Just a little over a month after the state ended the life of Dennis Skillicorn by lethal injection, executions are again on hold in Missouri. Incoming Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr. told the The Associated Press yesterday that he didn't expect the Court to schedule any executions while the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals weighs an appeal on behalf of death row inmate Reginald Clemons that questions the constitutionality of Missouri's lethal injection protocol.

The stall is temporary relief for Clemons, who was next up to be executed. But the news is bittersweet for Paula Skillicorn, Dennis' widow. "While this is good news for death row families who will be spared -- at least for a while -- the deep pain and horror that our whole family is suffering, the way the Supreme Court handled this shows once again how capricious and inconsistent the system is when it comes to the death penalty," Paula wrote to The Pitch via e-mail.

The Eighth Circuit, without explanation, granted a stay of execution for Clemons on June 5. Attorneys for Clemons, who was sentenced to death as an accomplice in the 1991 murders of 2 sisters in St. Louis, argue that Missouri's procedures for lethal injection are insufficient.

Missouri's recent history of lethal injections is messy. In 2006, Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. halted executions in the state after Dr. Alan Doerhoff testified that his dyslexia may have caused him to mix up the dosages of the lethal chemicals he administered to dozens of condemned inmates, potentially causing excruciating pain.

To correct future errors, the Missouri Department of Corrections came up with a new lethal injection protocol, but many objectors, including Doerhoff, considered it insufficient. Clemons' attorneys filed an appeal claiming as much, then filed for a stay of execution for Clemons because the 8th Circuit had yet to rule on the pending appeal.

The sad irony for Jennifer Merrigan, Skillicorn's attorney, is that she'd asked the Missouri Supreme Court to halt her client's execution based on the exact same issue: That because Clemons' appeal was still pending in the 8th Circuit, and its outcome would affect all prisoners awaiting execution on death row, no executions should be scheduled until Clemons' appeal is decided.

"The State itself had maintained (in regard to Clemons' appeal) that prisoners who were not plaintiffs to the suit need not intervene in the suit in order to benefit from a positive ruling, because legally a good result for any of the prisoners would benefit all death row prisoners," Merrigan wrote in an e-mail to The Pitch. "In Dennis' case, however, the State turned around and argued the opposite, that Dennis had no right to benefit from the Clemons litigation."

(source: The Pitch)

IRAN:

Iran Rioters Should Be Executed, Cleric Says

A senior Iranian cleric has called for the execution of "rioters" after a disputed presidential election sparked mass protests.

The nation's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, has said it found no major violations in the vote, which it called the "healthiest" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The council had already rejected a call for the annulment of the vote by moderate Mirhossein Mousavi, who has led mass protests.

The former prime minister was declared a distant second in the election behind incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - sparking the, sometimes deadly, unrest.

They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely.

"I want the judiciary to... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," cleric Ahmad Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University.

Iranian state television said on Thursday that eight Basij militiamen were killed by "rioters" during the protests.

Previously, reports said 20 people died in the marches.

Iranian authorities have accused Mr Mousavi of being responsible for the bloodshed, while he insists the government was to blame.

Mr Khatami, an Assembly of Experts member, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.

"They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as mohareb is execution.

Mr Mousavi's supporters planned to release thousands of balloons in tribute to Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman whose dying moments during a demonstration were captured on film.

Mr Khatami said Neda, 26, was killed by the rioters themselves for propaganda purposes.

"By watching the film, any wise person can understand that rioters killed her," he said.

The Times newspaper quoted Dr Arash Hejazi, an Iranian who appeared on the video helping Neda, as echoing opposition claims that the music student was killed by a militiaman.

The Group of Eight foreign ministers, meeting in Italy, said they "deplored" the post-election violence and called on Iran to settle the crisis soon through peaceful means.

(source: Sky News)

GLOBAL:

Ending the Death Penalty for Drug Offenses -- Now Is the Time, Say Human Rights, Harm Reduction Groups

In April, 2 Thai citizens, Sureeya Wuttisat, 45, and Asan Tong, 47, were sentenced to death in Malaysia after being convicted of trafficking about 40 pounds of marijuana. The sentence may be an outrage, but it is not a fluke. At least 16 countries in Asia apply the death penalty for some drug offenses, and an equal number in the rest of the world, including the United States, do, too.

Death sentence is passed against a woman who was immediately executed with 3 other people on drugs charges. (UN International Anti-Drugs Day, 6/26/03) sina.com.cn via Amnesty International web site)Today is the United Nations' International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, and in recent years, China has taken to marking it by executing drug offenders. This year, China got off to an early start, killinging 6 people for drug offenses yesterday. Last year, Indonesia joined China in the gruesome festivities, as it, too, put drug offenders to death.

This year, a consortium of human rights and harm reduction organizations are using UN anti-drug day to challenge the resort to the death penalty for drug offenses. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Harm Reduction Association, and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) have joined together to call on Asian governments to end the death penalty for drug offenses.

The groups say they do not know how many people are sentenced to death or executed because many countries in the region do not make available information on the death penalty. But a perusal of the archives of the anti-death penalty group Hands Off Cain shows that so far this year, a minimum of 69 people have been executed for drug offenses and 14 more sentenced to death.

If these publicly available accounts accurately reflect who is being sentenced to death or executed and where, Iran is by far the leading drug war executioner. (Reports from China, the other likely drug execution leader, are rare.) So far this year, Iran has executed at least 59 people for drug offenses, with China reporting 8, and Saudi Arabia 2. During this same period, 7 people have been sentenced to death for drug offenses in Malaysia, 6 in China, and one in Vietnam.

The executions and death sentences come even as the world moves toward restricting or abolishing the death penalty. Last year, only 25 countries carried out executions. And they come despite any evidence that they have any impact on drug trafficking or consumption. As the UN itself noted in 1988, 1996, and 2002, "research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."

Counties using the death penalty for drug offenses are also violating UN human rights standards. The UN holds that the death penalty should be imposed only as an "exceptional measure" for "the most serious crimes" where "there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life."

Building on a campaign to end the death penalty for drug offenses by the IHRA's HR2 (harm reduction and human rights), ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the IHRA are using UN anti-drug day to appeal to Asian governments to:

Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on "moratorium on the use of the death penalty";

Commute all death sentences, including for drug offenses;

Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the death penalty for drug offenses;

Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;

Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the administration of justice in death penalty cases; and

Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.

"The problem with the death penalty for drug offenses is that it plainly violates international law," said Human Rights Watch's Rebecca Schleifer. "The UN rapporteur has made it clear that the death penalty for drug offenses violates international human rights law."

In many countries with the death penalty for drug offenses, Schleifer noted, judicial processes are faulty and due process is lacking. In some of them, including Malaysia and Singapore, the death penalty is mandatory in some drug cases, again a violation of international standards for fair trials.

Not only does the death penalty for drug offenses not deter potential offenders, it works against reducing the harms of drug use, Schleifer said. "Our work has found time and time again that excessive punishments and repressive drug law enforcement actually drive people away from life-saving health services," she observed.

"The movement against the death penalty is one that has been long fought and one that is clearly moving in the direction of international abolition," said IHRA's Rick Lines, the author of a 2007 IHRA report on the death penalty for drug offenses. "Yet for many years, the specific issue of the death penalty for drugs has been largely invisible, both within the drug reform movement and the anti-death penalty movement. But now we are seeing a shift in that, with many more people and organizations speaking out, not only on the basis that the death penalty for drugs violate international law, but also that it epitomizes an enforcement-centered approach to drug policy that is a failure in every respect."

Today's joint statement is significant, said Lines, because it brings together major international human rights and harm reduction organizations. "This shows the potential of the death penalty issue to build bridges and working relationships between these two important movements," he said. "That will only enhance the prospects for policy and legislative change. Clearly, no government is likely to change policy before people start making those demands. We now hear those demands becoming louder and more focused."

"Government attitudes do change," said ADPAN's Andrew de Cruz, citing the abolition of the death penalty in Burundi and Togo in the last few weeks, Vietnam's reduction in the number of death penalty offenses, and changes in death penalty practices in China. He might well have also cited Iran, which despite its high number of drug executions, has hinted that it wants to reduce executions overall.

"For these changes to continue it is important to ensure we convey the messages that the death penalty violates human rights and that it does not help deter crime," de Cruz said. "When it comes to drug offences, we can make further arguments that the death penalty for drug offenses is illegal under international human rights law, and that it has actually been counterproductive to policies known to help prevent some of the harmful health consequences of drugs to individuals and societies."

Applying pressure to individual countries is only part of the campaign, said Schleifer. "We would like all of the UN human rights agencies as well as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to speak out definitively against the use of the death penalty as a violation of international law," she said. "Last year, UNODC came close when it talked about asking states to reconsider the use of the death penalty for drug offenses, but we would like to see them step up and recognize what international law says."

Last year, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, Schliefer noted. "We would like to see the UN repeat that," she said. "Not just the General Assembly, but also UNODC joining publicly."

The campaign against the death penalty for drug offenses is well underway, but it still has a long way to go. If you are reading these words on UN anti-drug day, you know that the ritual state murders to mark it have already begun.

(source: Drug War Chronicle)

CHINA:

China executes 20 for anti-drug day

At least 20 people were executed, an equal number condemned and hundreds put on trial as China marked a global anti-drug day with stark warnings of rising illicit drug use, state press said Friday.

The executions and trials took place throughout the nation in recent days, Xinhua news agency reported, with six convicted traffickers executed in Beijing alone on Thursday.

June 26 marks the UN's International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, a date when China has traditionally executed and sentenced convicted drug traffickers to illustrate its resolve in fighting the scourge.

Among those sentenced to death was a Nigerian man identified by Xinhua as Osonwa Okey Noberts, who was convicted by a court in southern China's Guangdong province of trafficking nearly six kilograms (13.2 pounds) of heroin.

Other cases of international smuggling included a Chinese man convicted and sentenced to death in Beijing for trafficking 197 grams (7 ounces) of methamphetamine from North Korea, the China Daily reported.

2 ethnic Koreans were also being tried for smuggling the drug into China from the isolated nation, it added. Their exact citizenship was not given.

Meanwhile, police in China's westernmost region of Xinjiang this week destroyed six tonnes of heroin, opium and hemp smuggled in from Afghanistan and Pakistan and valued at 300 million yuan (44 million dollars), Xinhua said.

Courts across China handled more than 14,000 drug-related cases between January and May, up 12 % from the same period last year, the report said, citing judicial authorities.

Nearly 6,400 people have been convicted of drug crimes and received sentences ranging from five years in jail to death over that period, it said.

"There is a growing trend toward making (illegal drugs) on the mainland instead of smuggling... from abroad," the China Daily quoted Zhang Jun, vice head of the Supreme People's Court as saying.

"There are more cases of smuggling and trading of chemical raw materials for drug production."

State media reports cited authorities saying "designer" drugs such as methamphetamine, ecstasy and ketamine were emerging as a new and dangerous segment of the drug market.

The drugs were gaining popularity among newly affluent young Chinese who viewed the use of such substances as a status symbol.

(source: Agence France Presse)

THAILAND:

Death sentence for ex-senator upheld

The Appeals Court on Friday upheld the lower court's death sentence for former Bangkok senator Sukhum Cherdchuen for masterminding the murder of Chulalongkorn Hospital doctor Nicharee Makarasarn in 1996.

The court also upheld the life imprisonment sentence given to 3 gunmen hired by Sukhum to kill Dr Nicharee on Oct 25, 1996.

The Criminal Court on July 7, 2004 sentenced Sukhum to death.

3 hired hitmen were also given death but their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment because they confessed.

Sukhum and Dr Nicharee had a legal conflict over school management, land purchase and used car and motorcycle dealings.

(source: Bangkok Post)

PAKISTAN:

On Death Row

Sarabjit Singh may have committed the crimes for which he was sentenced to death, but he is now in jail and as such poses no danger to Pakistan or the well-being of its citizens. What then will be accomplished by executing Mr Singh, who has spent nearly 20 years in prison? Taking the life of a murderer will not bring back those he has killed, nor has it been demonstrated that the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime. Indeed, does the state have the right to take a person’s life?

Issues of morality aside, the death penalty has no place in a country where police officials and even judges can be bought or intimidated, where the wealthy can get away with murder and where the poor are implicated in crimes they did not commit. Personal vendettas come into it, as does the incompetence of an unprincipled police force which often considers its job done so long as an arrest — any arrest — can be officially recorded. Pakistan is also a country where torture is the preferred method of extracting 'confessions'. Against this backdrop, the scope for miscarriage of justice is huge and chances are high of innocent people being put to death.

While dismissing Sarabjit Singh's review petition of his sentence on Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that 'no ground has been made out in the case warranting a review' 'Is this is surprising given that Mr Singh’s lawyer failed to attend Wednesday’s hearing as well as the one preceding it? True, the same verdict may have been issued even if the convict’s counsel had bothered to show up. But one thing is clear: his absence certainly did not help Sarabjit Singh’s appeal in any way. Hope for Mr Singh now lies in presidential clemency, a gesture that would not hurt relations between Pakistan and India.

Court rulings are based on the law as it exists and it is up to the government to introduce new legislation. In June last year the prime minister proposed that capital punishment be abolished and death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Then, in October 2008, it was reported that the law ministry would soon present a final draft in this connection, enabling the government to fulfil its pledge and do away with the death penalty. But little or nothing has been done and more than 7,000 prisoners are still languishing on death row. Their lives, and that of Sarabjit Singh, ought to be spared.

(source: Editorial, Dawn)

TOGO:

TOGO ABOLISHES THE DEATH PENALTY, SETTING AN EXAMPLE FOR THE WHOLE OF AFRICA IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST VIOLENCE

The parliament of Togo unanimously abolished capital punishment and commuted existing death sentences to life imprisonment. "It is a historic step in that area of the African continent and indicates a method of fighting violence, improving security, preventing divisiveness and promoting a true and profound process of national reconciliation without resorting to the death penalty and respecting human life, even the life of an adversary or someone believed to be guilty of a crime. It is the basis for ending violence and quick vendettas on the level of civil society as well. The fact that the Togolese parliament decided unanimously should be considered an example to Africa and the rest of the world", said Mario Marazziti, coordinator of the Community of Sant'Egidio's worldwide campaign against the death penalty. It is the result of a long effort on the part of Togolese civil and political authorities as a necessary step in the process of national reconciliation. The Community of Sant'Egidio supported and closely followed the legislative process through dialogue with public opinion and congratulates the leaders of Togo for the exemplary courage this step could represent for the entire African continent.

The develpment had been expected since May 25th, when the Togolese Attorney General Kobou Biossey Tozoun solemnly announced during the fourth International Congress of Justice Ministers organized by the Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome that the death penalty would be abrogated in his country sometime during the next few weeks. The "Togolese case" thus became an important element of analysis and discussion about alternative methods of justice and security during the talks in Rome.

Today that pledge has been fully honored in this land of Western Africa, where no execution has taken place in 30 years and where respect for life and human dignity is being asserted, even in the face of serious crime, together with a rejection of justice seen as violence and vendetta. The Community of Sant'Egidio expresses the hope that the example of Togo, like that of Gabon on the eve of the vote in favour of a universal moratorium in the United Nations General Assembly, may encourage other African and other countries to take the same path towards abolition shortly.

The Community of Sant'Egidio has for some time developed close relations of friendship with Togo, having actively supported the recent process of national reconciliation. The renewed dialogue of the government with opposition forces, civil society and donor countries has cleared the way towards democracy and respect for fundamental human rights.

The restored climate of détente created the premises for the development of the abolitionist process, which had already received fresh impetus in December 2008, when the government announced for the first time a draft bill eliminating the death penalty from the penal code, deeming capital punishment to be "humiliating, degrading and cruel" as well as "irreparable and incompatible" with the decision of the country to opt for “a justice system which limits judicial mistakes, corrects, educates and guarantees the rights of people":

The Community of Sant'Egidio recalls the relevance of the 4 congresses of justice ministers held during the past 5 years. These meetings constitute a concrete and operational basis for developing a strategy for abolishing the death penalty in Africa and in the rest of the world. Its elimination in Togo represents the most recent outcome, while in other African countries similar steps in the same direction are expected shortly.

Sant'Egidio rejoices for this extraordinary success in Togo and recalls the work done day after day by its African communities against capital punishment and for alleviating the wretched conditions in which so many men and women are subjected to in the prisons of the continent.

The Community pledges all necessary support for the fulfilment of the abolitionist movement in Africa and all over the world.

(source: Sant'Egidio)

MASSACHUSETTS:

Patrick's anti-death penalty conviction remains strong

Gov. Deval Patrick refused to budge from his anti-death penalty stance yesterday despite the "horrifying" beating that left a little boy clinically dead as lawmakers vowed to push to bring back capital punishment.

"I don't support the death penalty, and I fully understand as a parent the instinct to want to . . . I think you know what I’m trying to say, or trying not to say," Patrick said. "But I think that public policy has to be made with greater care. I've had enough up-close experience with the death penalty to be deeply skeptical."

Patrick called the brutal beating of 7-year-old Nathaniel Turner, allegedly at the hands of his father in Worcester, "horrifying."

But he said his own "up-close" experience defending a prisoner facing capital punishment strengthened his anti-death penalty position.

Rep. James R. Miceli (D-Wilmington), who was besieged with calls and e-mails in support of a death penalty bill he plans to file today, said Patrick shouldn't stand in his way.

"I'm very sincere about this, and I’m going to be tenacious about it," Miceli said. "Clearly we're going to get this thing moving."

Miceli and several other lawmakers are behind a renewed push to reinstate the death penalty after the Turner case left stunned citizens across the state demanding justice in online comments, on talk shows and in calls to lawmakers.

Pro-death penalty activist Dudley Sharp said lawmakers face an uphill battle because of Patrick's veto power. He said a push from legislative leadership could give the bill a boost, though.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (D-Winthrop) and 5 other representatives in leadership have all voted to reinstate the death penalty in the past. DeLeo did not return repeated calls for comment yesterday.

House Public Safety and Homeland Security Chairman Michael A. Costello (D-Newburyport) said he doesn't believe leadership would ask lawmakers to vote either way on this issue.

"This is a personal decision for everyone," said Costello, who doesn't support the death penalty.

As a lawyer working for the NAACP in 1987, Patrick defended a convicted cop killer on death row in one of his most famous cases, which resulted in the death penalty being upheld and the murderer put to death in Georgia in the electric chair. He argued then that the death penalty is unconstitutional, pointing to a study showing blacks convicted of murder received the death penalty more often than whites.

(source: Boston Herald)

EGYPT:

Court confirms death sentence for Tamim's killer

An Egyptian court ratified on Thursday the death sentence of an Egyptian real estate mogul and his associate who were convicted in the killing of a Lebanese pop star. Hisham Talaat Moustafa, who is also a former ruling party lawmaker, was convicted of paying a retired Egyptian police officer $2 million to kill 30-year-old Suzanne Tamim, while she was in Dubai in July. Moustafa and Tamim were lovers.

Moustafa was sentenced to death May 21 and after consulting with Egypt's grand mufti, the judge ratified the verdict Thursday.

In death penalty cases in Egypt, the judge must seek the opinion of the grand mufti, the country's highest religious authority. However, his opinion is not legally binding.

The case captivated Egyptians as it involved a member of an elite often viewed as above the law.

The hit man in the case, Mohsen al-Sukkary, was also sentenced to death for murdering Tamim, and was slapped with an additional 10-year sentence for possession of weapons. The judge also ordered confiscation of the $2 million.

Thursday's ratification was expected and the Mufti's approval of the death penalties did not come as a surprise.

The case has drawn a media frenzy in Egypt and throughout the Middle East.

Earlier Thursday, the Cairo court building was encircled by dozens of black-clad security forces. Moustafa and Sukkary arrived in 2 separate prison vehicles and were placed in the caged-off area for suspects, with a partition between them.

Moustafa, who appeared in plain clothes, and Sukkary, in a prison white jumpsuit, did not react to the judge's pronouncement.

Their lawyers said they will appeal within 60 days.

(source: The Daily Star)

SAUDI ARABIA:

War on drugs to continue: Official

Col. Abdullah Al-Qahtani, acting director of the Drug Combating Department in Jeddah, said yesterday Saudi Arabia will continue its campaign against drug smugglers and traffickers.

"Saudi Arabia is a permanent partner of humanity in combating this poison," Al-Qahtani said in a statement on the occasion of World Anti-Drugs Day today. "We'll use all means to prevent illicit trade of drugs."

Al-Qahtani said the Kingdom shares the feelings of the international community on the need to combat drugs. Saudi Arabia is one of the 1st signatories to the 1987 United Nations agreement to fight illicit drugs. "Drugs not only affect the individuals who abuse them but also the community in which they live," he said.

Lt. Nasser Al-Zahrani, director of preventive affairs at the department, said his organization would conduct a series of programs during school holidays this summer to enlighten the public on the harmful and dangerous effects of drugs.

"We'll make use of all media, including print and electronic media, to enlighten the public against drugs during the summer holidays," Al-Zahrani said.

Drug peddlers are generally given stiff sentences and risk being put to death for repeated offenses. The Kingdom deals with drug abuse as a sickness and provides free rehab treatment to addicts at its Al-Amal hospitals.

Saudi Arabia applies capital punishment on drug traffickers on the basis of a ruling by the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars in 1986. The scholars defined drug trafficking as a socially corrupting offense for which capital punishment may be applied in accordance with Shariah.

(source: Arab News)

JUNE 25, 2009:

ALABAMA:

Alabama death penalty a crime

Adam Liptak's June 8 story in The New York Times, "Death penalty case reveals the blemishes in Alabama's courts," hit the nail on the head. But our attorney general and governor refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem.

The American Bar Association study on the death penalty in Alabama (Oct. 29, 2007) found that it was fatally flawed, but Attorney General Troy King says he has not studied the report. Gov. Bob Riley says the death penalty is the law and he wants to uphold the law.

They both scoff at the obvious bias, arbitrariness and frank racism that exist in the death penalty's administration, and will not release the cost data.

King also refused my invitation to a public debate on the issue. His office said, "The attorney general does not 'apply' the death penalty," and the Department of Corrections is the one that carries it out."

This is a rather trite, dismissive and misleading response.

ROBERT A. BALDWIN, M.D.

Birmingham

note: The writer is author of the book, "Life and Death Matters: Seeking the Truth about Capital Punishment."

(source: Mobile Press-Register)

KANSAS:

Burks Charged In Quadruple Murders, Could Face Death Penalty

The Wyandotte County District Attorney charged Adrian Burks, 37, with shooting and killing 4 people, including a 3-year-old little girl. Burks was charged with 6 felonies, including 4 counts of 1st-degree murder.

Burks was involved in a relationship with one of the 4 people he's accused of shooting and killing on Monday.

"I'm aware of a relationship. I'm not going to comment on the extent of the relationship or nature of relationship. But it was that relationship that led us to Adrian Burks in the 1st place, that led us to begin looking at him," district attorney Jerome Gorman said.

Although Gorman would not identify which victim, friends said 21-year-old Amanda Remmers was Burks' girlfriend. Gorman said it doesn't explain why the others, 66-year-old James Warren, 41-year-old Peggy Castleberry and 3-year-old Juanita Denea Castleberry Bess, were also shot and killed.

"Obviously domestic violence is the driving factor in this case," Gorman said. "We haven't gotten that far in that case, and I suppose when we get to that point, I don't still think we're going to have a satisfactory answer for why a 3-year-old was killed.

Gorman said because more than 1 person was killed, Burks may face capital murder charges, opening the door for prosecutors to seek the death penalty. But the father of the murdered 3-year-old, Jesse Bess, said he would rather see his daughter's killer rot behind bars.

"I want him to suffer, I want him to stay in jail," Bess said. "In fact, I want my daughter's picture in his cell so every day when he wakes up, he knows what he did. That's what I want."

Burks is also a suspect in a March homicide, but Gorman said he hasn't been charged in that case because Burks was also shot in that incident. Burks claims he acted in self defense.

A fund has been set up for the toddler killed. Here is the information for donations:

Juanita D. Castleberry Bess Memorial Fund Brotherhood Bank and Trust 7354 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66112

(source: fox4kc)

**************************

State will seek the death penalty

Deputy Kansas Attorney General Barry Disney read a notice of the state's intent to seek the death penalty against Terrence J. Watson after he was bound over for trial on capital murder charges Thursday afternoon in Saline County District Court.

The 25-year-old Los Angeles man's preliminary hearing concluded with District Judge Rene Young ordering Watson to stand trial, which was set to start at 9 a.m. Sept. 14 but is likely to be postponed. Court officials anticipate the trial will last about 3 weeks, including nearly a week for jury selection.

In the notice of intent to request a separate sentencing phase to determine whether Watson should receive the death penalty, 3 aggravating circumstances were listed. Those are:

— More than one person was killed

— The crime was committed to avoid or prevent arrest or prosecution

— The victim was killed because he or she was a prospective witness in a criminal proceeding Watson is accused of shooting Taryn Dechant and Ernest Jones Jr., both 22, in the apartment they shared. Their bodies were found Sept. 26.

Earlier Thursday in Saline County District Court, Anna Hartman testified about an argument she and Dechant were having via cellular phone text messages the week before Dechant and her fiance, Jones, were murdered.

Hartman testified that she believed Watson saw the text messages, which included threats to snitch about drug activity involving Hartman.

Hartman's testimony came in the 2nd day of a preliminary hearing for Watson. According to testimony given Wednesday, Watson was selling illegal drugs and frequently stayed at Hartman's apartment.

(source: Salina Journal)

OKLAHOMA:

Chad Lansford-Barela ordered to trial in Cushing triple homicide

A Cushing man is being ordered to stand trial on 3 counts of 1st-degree murder.

Chad Lansford-Barela is charged in the February shooting deaths of 27-year-old Douglass Peck; 21-year-old Albert Sernas and 19-year-old Elizabeth Hueser.

Prosecutors say the will seek the death penalty.

A Payne County judge on Wednesday rejected the claim that Barela was illegally arrested in Stillwater by Oklahoma State University police and ordered him to return to court Aug. 7 for arraignment.

Police say Barela confessed to the killings and said he shot Peck and Sernas because they had given information to police on an earlier case and he shot Hueser because she witnessed the killings.

(source: The Oklahoman)

USA:

Holder pushes for hate-crimes law; GOP unpersuaded

Bill would expand scope of federal protection against hate crimes

Eric Holder says hate crimes against certain groups, such as Hispanics, on the rise

Republicans on Senate panel dispute assertion of increase in hate crimes

Some religious groups worry law could be used to criminalize speech

Attorney General Eric Holder stepped up his call for the passage of federal hate crimes legislation Thursday, arguing that the federal government needs to take a stronger stand against criminal activity fueled by bias and bigotry.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been a vocal proponent for tougher laws regarding hate crimes.

He also sought to assure opponents that such a bill would not allow Christian clergy to be prosecuted for outspoken opposition to homosexuality.

Holder made his remarks during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently considering the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The bill would allow the Justice Department to provide assistance to state and local authorities in the prosecution of hate crimes while also expanding federal protection against hate crimes to cover disability, gender and sexual orientation.

"Hate crimes victimize not only individuals but entire communities," Holder said.

"Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. ...," he said. "The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice."

The attorney general argued that recent numbers "suggest that hate crimes against certain groups are on the rise, such as individuals of Hispanic national origin."

Specifically, he said, more than 77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly 1 hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade."

In light of such statistics, he said, it was one of his "highest personal priorities ... is to do everything I can to ensure this critical legislation finally becomes law."

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee disputed Holder's assertion that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of hate crimes. They also questioned the need for federal involvement in the prosecution of violent acts -- traditionally a function of state and local governments.

They pointed to FBI figures showing a slight decline from 7,755 hate crimes reported in 1998 to 7,624 in 2007, the most recently compiled statistics.

It is "important to know (if) we have a problem of significant numbers of (hate crime) cases ... not being prosecuted in state and local governments," said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee.

"Murders occur all over America every day. Robberies, assaults, rapes, burglaries occur every day, and those are handled by our state and local jurisdictions. ... They do a pretty good job."

When pressed, Holder acknowledged he had no hard evidence of trends showing the problem getting worse, nor that states are not prosecuting cases based on their own state hate crimes statutes.

The attorney general insisted, however, that the issue should be viewed more broadly.

"It seems to me this is a question of conscience," Holder argued. He emphasized that the bill is designed to give special protections to groups that historically have been victims solely based on who they are.

Holder added that while state and local governments generally do a good job prosecuting violent crimes, there is nevertheless a need for the federal government to serve as a "backstop" on occasion, particularly if localities lack the resources for an effective investigation or prosecution.

"There are instances where the (federal) government needs to come in," he said.

He also asserted that any federal hate crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

"It is the person who commits the actual act of violence, who would be subject to this legislation, not the person who is simply expressing an opinion," Holder said.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

The attorney general has been a vocal proponent of federal hate crimes legislation since his tenure in the Clinton Justice Department. Last week, in a speech on civil rights, he cited 3 recent fatal shootings in calling for stricter hate crimes laws.

"The violence in Washington, Little Rock and Wichita reminds us of the potential threat posed by violent extremists and the tragedy that ensues when reasoned discourse is replaced by armed confrontation," he said.

Holder was referring to the shooting death of a security guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, allegedly by a self-avowed white supremacist; the shooting of 2 U.S. soldiers in Little Rock, Arkansas, allegedly by a man prosecutors say was targeting the U.S. military for its treatment of Muslims; and the slaying of a doctor who ran a women's clinic in Wichita, Kansas, allegedly by an abortion opponent.

(source: CNN)

KENTUCKY:

Court rejects new trial in double murder case

A Kentucky death row inmate condemned for the rape and murder of 2 Louisville high school students in 1984 lost his bid for a new trial Thursday after the state Supreme Court ruled a judge properly handled a DNA testing issue.

The Kentucky Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Victor Dewayne Taylor is not entitled to a hearing, even though prosecutors may have violated a court order in testing and destroying DNA samples from his case. Taylor sought a new trial after a judge declined to grant him a hearing following the tests.

Taylor, 49, was convicted in 1986 of sodomizing and killing 17-year-old Trinity High School student Scott Nelson and his friend, 17-year-old Richard Stephenson, after the pair became lost looking for a football game Sept. 29, 1984. A co-defendant, George Ellis Wade, 46, is serving a life sentence for his role in the slayings.

A circuit judge issued an order aimed at preventing any testing of slides of DNA samples in Taylor's case until the method of testing could be resolved. Prosecutors tested one slide anyway. The results in Taylor's case, the 1st returned since Kentucky started allowing DNA tests for some death row inmates, were inconclusive.

Taylor, who is being held at the Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville, contended that both slides should have been available for testing and, because they weren't, he was entitled to a hearing and possibly a new trial. A circuit judge turned down his request for a hearing.

The justices rejected Taylor's argument.

"Taylor cannot establish under the statute that even if he had both slides available for DNA testing under his preferred method, that he would have been able to establish anything more than a mere possibility - as opposed to the reasonable probability required under the statute - of exculpatory evidence," Justice Mary Noble wrote for the court.

Taylor's attorney, assistant public advocate Thomas Ransdell, said no decision has been made about whether to request a rehearing before the high court. Shelley Catherine Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Attorney General's office, declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but said prosecutors are pleased with the ruling.

Since Taylor's test results were returned in 2008, at least 2 other inmates have also received inconclusive results and have appealed their cases to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Kentucky's law allows condemned inmates to request genetic testing of evidence in cases that predate the use of DNA testing. Taylor's attorneys sought the DNA tests to determine if Taylor or Wade raped the student before the killings. Wade is serving a life sentence at East Kentucky Correctional Institute in West Liberty after being found guilty of murder, but acquitted of sodomy.

The case became known as the "Trinity Murders," picking up its name from where Nelson and Stephenson went to high school.

Wade told police that it was Taylor who pulled the trigger, though he did not testify at trial. Taylor's lawyers, in court filings, now say Wade would testify that Taylor wasn't present at the killings.

(source: Associated Press)

CALIFORNIA:

Serial rapist sentenced to death for 1978 Lafayette reservoir killing

For the second time in his 73 years, Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death for committing rape and murder — this time for killing 40-year-old Armida Wiltsey at the Lafayette Reservoir in 1978.

Kemp, who was serving a life sentence in a Texas prison for multiple rapes in 2002 when DNA linked him to Wiltsey's long-unsolved slaying, first received the death penalty in 1960 for the rape and murder of Los Angeles nurse Marjorie Hipperson.

When capital punishment was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s, Kemp was paroled. He had been out of prison for four months when on Nov. 14, 1978, he attacked the Lafayette mother on a jogging path and killed her by either strangulation or suffocation.

Defense attorney David Headley argued Thursday that Kemp will more likely die of natural causes than execution, given the long delays surrounding California executions and Kemp's advanced age and poor health.

"Many millions are going to be spent to move along a process that has no chance in culmination," he said after numerous, unsuccessful attempts to convince Judge John Kennedy to commute Kemp's pending sentence to life in prison.

Headley and co-counsel Larry Barnes argued at trial that Kemp, a Los Angeles native with normal childhood, suffers from brain damage and a mental disorder that compels him to rape, and that the killings were the unintended consequences of Kemp's dangerous method of subduing his victims by cutting off their air supply.

A Contra Costa County jury in December convicted Kemp of first-degree murder and recommended death.

Just as he did at trial, Kemp sat motionless, hunched in his wheelchair with head down and eyes closed behind dark sunglasses during Thursday's 3-hour hearing.

It was not until court was adjourned that Kemp showed he was conscious, raising his head and turning to his attorneys with open eyes.

"Is that it?" he asked.

(source: Mercury News)

TEXAS:

2 suspects freed in Texas yogurt shop murder case

Facing new DNA evidence, a judge on Wednesday ordered the release from jail of 2 suspects awaiting retrial in the 1991 rape and murder of 4 teenage girls at an Austin yogurt shop.

Michael Scott, 35, and Robert Springsteen, 34, were convicted in the death of one of the girls, Amy Ayers, 13. Scott was sentenced to life in prison, and Springsteen was originally sent to death row.

However, both convictions were overturned on appeal, and at Wednesday's hearing state District Judge Mike Lynch ordered them released on personal recognizance bonds pending their new trials.

New DNA tests on evidence from the victims – using technology not available in 1991 – revealed the presence of an unknown male. Defense attorneys say that proves Scott's and Springsteen's innocence. Prosecutors insist the DNA does not exonerate them as suspects and both still face capital murder charges.

Conditions of their release include staying in Travis County and avoiding contact with witnesses or the victims' families.

Lynch's order came during a hearing for Scott's retrial, which was scheduled for July 6. Prosecutors asked that the trial be delayed until 2010 while they try to determine the source of the DNA.

Although Springsteen had not yet been scheduled for retrial, the judge ordered both men released and they walked out of the Travis County Jail about 5 hours later.

Scott held hands with his wife, Jeannine, and hugged her but didn't speak to reporters. Springsteen said, "I'd like to thank God, my family and my attorney for this opportunity. Thank you."

Ayers; Eliza Thomas, 17; and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison, ages 17 and 15, were bound, gagged and shot in the head at the "I Can't Believe It's Yogurt" store where two of them worked. The building then was set afire.

Springsteen, Scott and 2 other men were arrested in 1999. Charges against the two others were dropped, and they are not implicated by the new DNA test.

Scott and Springsteen were tried separately in 2001 and 2002. The convictions were overturned because in each case, the defense had been unable to cross-examine the co-defendant about his purported confession.

Springsteen, who was 17 when the girls were killed, had been sentenced to death, but the U.S. Supreme Court later banned execution of defendants who were juveniles at the time of the crime.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said investigators have conducted at least 100 new DNA tests and need more time to keep testing. She said the DNA evidence doesn't exonerate Scott and Springsteen and suggested a previously unknown 5th suspect participated with them in the crime.

(source: Associated Press)

******************

Jury struggling in wrongful conviction case

A federal judge ordered jurors to resume deliberating today after the jury indicated Wednesday that it was at an impasse in the case of George Rodriguez, who sued the city of Houston for $35 million for its role in his wrongful conviction.

A Houston Police Department crime lab analyst gave false testimony in Rodriguez's 1987 trial, and Rodriguez was imprisoned for more than 17 years before DNA evidence exonerated him.

The jury of 5 women and 3 men sent U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore a note Wednesday afternoon, after about 6 hours of deliberations. The panel said it is at an impasse on the question of whether, as police chief, Lee. P. Brown was deliberately indifferent to the lack of training and supervision in the crime lab and the chance a violation of someone’s constitutional right to a fair trial would result.

To get to this point, the jury had to already find that the crime lab employee's testimony played a substantial role in Rodriguez’s conviction and that the city had an official policy or custom of allowing the crime lab personnel to be inadequately trained and supervised.

If the jury can agree that Brown was indifferent to the constitutional risks, it has 2 more questions to address.

It has to decide if the problems with the lab were "the moving force" behind the violation of Rodriguez's rights and, if so, how much the city should pay Rodriguez.

(source: Houston Chronicle)

********************

Death penalty considered in slaying

Prosecutors are considering seeking the death penalty against a man accused of killing a Tulia woman in November.

Wally Hatch, 64th District attorney, said Wednesday his office likely will seek the death penalty against Rogelio "Roger" Duran, 41. Hatch said he hasn't filed the required paperwork with the state because his office is waiting for some information, including lab work.

Duran was indicted by a Swisher County grand jury on a capital murder charge Jan. 22. He's accused of killing Valerie Cross, who was in her 50s, on Nov. 22 in her home in the 700 block of Northeast First Place.

Hatch said Cross was sexually assaulted, which is why prosecutors filed capital murder charges.

He said he couldn't release many details about how Cross died because it might jeopardize the case.

No trial date has been set. He said the public defender's office out of Lubbock is slated to represent Duran.

Cross's daughter, Chandra White, said Wednesday she's requested authorities seek the death penalty.

"Not only did this man take my mom," she said, "he took my best friend. He took my everything."

She remembers the November day when she and Tulia police found her mother dead.

They had gone to the home to check on Cross. White's nephew squeezed through the window and discovered his grandmother - White's mother - lying on the floor.

Authorities forced their way in and found Cross's body along with blood and wads of hair throughout the home, White said.

She said police told her Cross was beaten to death. White said Cross' official cause of death was blunt trauma to the head.

Duran was immediately named a person of interest in the case. He was dating Cross at the time of her death, White said. He was arrested Nov. 24 in Hale County, authorities said.

White said Duran and Cross met 3 months to the day before Duran allegedly killed her. Cross was working as a counselor, Duran was a motivational speaker.

"He charmed her from day one," she said. "(He) treated my mom like a queen. I never, never would have expected this. He was supposed to be this very Christian man."

However, the week before Cross's death, Cross told White that Duran was getting jealous. Duran told Cross the two would never spend a Thanksgiving together, White recalled.

Days later, Cross was found dead.

"He shows no remorse whatsoever," she said. "I want to know what my mom's last words (were)," White said, "and why he killed her."

(source: Amarillo Globe)

CALIFORNIA:

Couple May Receive Death Penalty in Child's Death

A report from the Temecula Valley News in Fallbrook, California indicates that a former Lewis County couple, Raul Sarinana, 42 and his estranged wife, 32-year-old Cathy Sarinana, are expected to receive the death penalty during a sentencing hearing on Friday in Riverside County Superior Court before Judge Paul Zellerbach. The 2 were convicted of 1st degree murder and torture in the death of Ricky Morales. Jurors recommended the death penalty. According to the prosecution, the Sarinanas were responsible for the beating death of their 11-year-old nephew on Christmas Day 2005. Months earlier, the Sarinanas allegedly killed older brother Conrad in a Randle, Washington mobile home.

While detectives were investigating Ricky's death, Conrad's body was found encased in concrete poured into a trash can stored outside the couple's Corona residence. The boys had been sent to live with their aunt and uncle after their father was deported to Mexico and their mother was jailed in Los Angeles on an assault charge. Cathy Sarinana's attorney, Patrick Rosetti, has submitted a motion requesting that his client's death sentence be reduced to life in prison without parole. Lewis County, Wash., Prosecuting Attorney Michael Golden has not decided whether to take the case to trial in that state. He will be attending the sentencing in Riverside on Friday, a spokeswoman for his office said.

(source: KELA News)

**********************************

Death penalty urged in 2 slayings in '06----Jury opts for execution for liquor store killings

After deliberating about 2 hours, a jury decided yesterday that Jean Pierre Rices should be sentenced to death for the execution-style slayings of 2 people during a 2006 liquor store robbery in El Cajon.

The El Cajon Superior Court jury had been asked to decide whether Rices should be executed or sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole in the shooting deaths of Heather Mattia, 22, the store's co-owner, and clerk Firas Eiso, 23.

Rices, 27, sat quietly and had no reaction when the verdict was read.

He is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 21.

Superior Court Judge Lantz Lewis has the option of following the jury's recommendation or setting it aside in favor of sentencing Rices to life in prison without possibility of parole. Judges rarely go against a jury's recommendation in capital cases.

Rices pleaded guilty in October to 2 counts of 1st-degree murder and admitted that he shot Mattia and Eiso during a robbery at Granada Liquor Store on Broadway.

Relatives of the victims wept in the courtroom gallery as the verdict was read. They declined to comment outside court.

A co-defendant, Anthony Miller, 23, also was charged in the slayings.

A separate jury deadlocked Monday on whether Miller was guilty of 2 counts of murder, and a mistrial was declared. Miller is scheduled to go to trial again Sept. 28.

Miller has said he was in a car in the store parking lot when the shots were fired.

Both men were in court at the same time before Lewis, with one jury deciding whether Miller was guilty of murder and another deciding whether Rices should be executed.

Deputy District Attorney Glenn McAllister said outside the courtroom that he was very pleased with the jury's decision.

"The jury quickly realized that Mr. Rices is a very dangerous person," McAllister said. "He deserves the death penalty."

The prosecutor earlier told the jury that Rices' criminal history helped justify the death penalty in this case. McAllister said Rices had been convicted in a robbery and a carjacking in 1999, 2 bank robberies in July 2006, and the slashing of a jail guard's face and torso in August 2008.

Rices' defense attorney, Mark Chambers, said he was disappointed with the jury's decision and didn't think the death penalty was appropriate.

Chambers said a more fitting punishment would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

During the trial, Chambers told the jury that Rices' mother was a drug-addicted prostitute who taught him to steal when he was a toddler on the streets of Los Angeles.

Chambers has previously said that Rices became a ward of Los Angeles County, and during the next 13 years, was placed with 2 sets of relatives and in half a dozen group homes.

(source: San Diego Union-Tribune)

***********************

SF federal jury considering rare death sentence

A federal jury has begun deliberating whether a convicted killer is San Francisco should be put to death.

If the jury sentences Dennis Cyrus to die, it'd be the 1st death penalty meted out in San Francisco since 1948. That's when 2 Alcatraz Prison inmates were executed for killing 2 guards during an escape attempt.

The 25-year-old Cyrus was convicted in May for 3 gang-related slayings in the city in 2002.

(source: Associated Press)

PENNSYLVANIA:

Upper Darby man gets life in prison for cabbie's slaying

A Delaware County jury decided tonight to spare the life of the Upper Darby man convicted in the 2007 Christmas Eve killing of a taxi driver.

Ramir Steve, 20, showed no reaction as the jury foreman read the decision to sentence him to life in prison with no parole. On Monday, he was found guilty of first-degree murder, robbery, and possession of firearms without a license for killing Gregory Cunningham, 42, of Clifton Heights.

"There is no winner in the outcome of this tragedy, only two families who have lost their son and brother," the Cunningham family said in a prepared statement. "We will harbour no ill will toward the Steve family, and will continue to pray for them as well as Ramir."

Cunningham's body was found in a walkway between two buildings of the Park Lane East Apartments in Upper Darby, hours after he was dispatched to the 7400 block of Rogers Avenue, where Steve lived.

A company dispatcher testified a man came on the taxi radio saying he had just killed Cunningham.

"I am happy for the Cunningham family that they have the beginning of closure," said James Halligan, assistant district attorney.

During the penalty-phase arguments yesterday, Halligan said Steve's history of felony convictions as a juvenile needed to be taken into consideration. He outlined a string of burglaries and arsons Steve committed beginning at age 12.

Defense experts testified that Steve was suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and had an antisocial personality disorder and brain damage.

Steve, who has an identical twin, was born prematurely after a difficult pregnancy and may have been deprived of oxygen. He had learning disabilities and needed special education services in school, said Phyllis Pautrat, a clinical social worker.

The death penalty, defense attorney Robert M. D'Agostino said in his closing arguments, should be there "for the worst of the worst."

"There is a human side of Ramir, there is something there worth saving," said D'Agostino. In Pennsylvania, D'Agostino said, life means life in prison and Steve will not see the outside walls of a prison again.

(source: Philadelphia Inquirer)

MARYLAND:

Md. Releases Rules That Could Restart Executions

Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration issued new regulations yesterday that could clear the way for Maryland to resume executions by lethal injection, effectively ending a 2 1/2 -year moratorium on capital punishment.

The regulations were delayed for months while O'Malley (D) pushed unsuccessfully to abolish the death penalty. The General Assembly agreed instead in March to tighten evidence standards in capital cases. The manual, written by corrections officials, must be approved by a 20-member legislative committee that is split between supporters and opponents of capital punishment.

The committee's Senate leader, Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's), a death penalty opponent, said yesterday that he is "in no hurry" to call for a vote.

"We may even put a hold on these," Pinsky said. "At the same time, I know the legislature has spoken."

If the committee, which reviews administration regulations, does not act within a review period of about 3 months, O'Malley could put the procedures into effect.

"These new regulations mark an important step in ensuring that the death penalty in Maryland is carried out in a manner consistent with state and federal law," O'Malley said in a statement.

The manual is the first public document to lay out execution procedures since Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978. The biggest change is that the new regulations require medical personnel who inject the lethal combination of drugs into an inmate's veins to find an alternative to the arms if those veins are too scarred to accept a needle.

The change was prompted by a lawsuit by Vernon L. Evans Jr., who said his arms were so scarred by drug use that he would be harmed when the 3 lethal drugs were administered. Evans is one of five inmates on Maryland's death row.

Other changes in the manual requested by the state's public defender's office include allowing the corrections chief to grant an inmate's request for a special last meal; allowing the inmate to choose which of his attorneys he wants to witness his execution; and allowing family members to visit as late as 3 hours before the execution instead of 4.

The procedures also prohibit the state from using a medical procedure known as a "cut down" to guide the needle to a hard-to-locate vein. A cut down allows the inmate's skin to be cut, a method used in several states that has been criticized as antiquated and as causing the prisoner pain.

Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions, called the document's public release "a step" toward making executions more humane.

"In Maryland it's always been a very secretive process," she said. "Now we can see what they say they're going to do and analyze it carefully."

(source: Washington Post)

************************

Maryland moves toward resuming executions----O'Malley reluctantly approves new protocols for carrying out death penalty

Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration took a reluctant step Wednesday toward resuming executions in Maryland after the governor failed earlier this year to persuade the General Assembly to outlaw capital punishment.

The state issued revised protocols for lethal injections, which O'Malley had postponed as he sought to build support for a repeal in the legislature. The governor, a Roman Catholic, had made it a personal crusade to end the death penalty. A de facto moratorium has been in place since December 2006, when the state's highest court ruled that the protocols had been improperly developed.

The new protocols largely mirror death-penalty procedures that had been used by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services but had not been formally adopted through the regulatory process, which also includes public review. Some changes include extending the time death-row inmates spend with family before being executed, and allowing them to order a special last meal.

But it's unlikely that an execution will be carried out for months or even years.

The regulations must be vetted by a joint legislative committee that is co-chaired by two staunch death penalty opponents, who could delay final approval of the regulations and are likely to hold public hearings. Death penalty foes plan to raise concerns about the drug cocktail used for executions and the presence of medical personnel.

And while O'Malley has said he would uphold the law despite his personal misgivings, he plans to review the cases of the 5 prisoners on death row before signing their death warrants, and he could decide to commute their sentences. The death-row inmates also may continue their appeals.

"This is the 1st step toward restarting the machinery of death in Maryland, which is unfortunate," said Cindy Boersma, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which opposes the death penalty. "But to the extent this is moving forward, it's moving forward the way it should - with the opportunity for public review and comment."

Death penalty supporters hailed the promulgation of new regulations. Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger said the move "puts the death penalty in Maryland back on track" so that the sentences of the 5 death-row inmates can be carried out. He said Vernon L. Evans Jr., whose case prompted the state's de facto moratorium, could be the next to become eligible for execution. Shellenberger was a law student in the Baltimore County prosecutor's office in the 1980s when Evans was convicted.

"I truly believe in the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied," Shellenberger said. "All of the inmates on death row have had numerous appeals, and there's no question of their guilt."

The use of the death penalty has been severely restricted by compromise legislation approved by the legislature this year and signed by O'Malley, a Democrat. Under the bill, prosecutors can seek the death penalty only when they have DNA or biological evidence, a videotape of the crime or a video-recorded confession by the killer.

In a statement, O'Malley called the new statute "one of the most restrictive death penalty laws in the nation." He said the new regulations "mark an important step in ensuring that the death penalty in Maryland is carried out in a manner consistent with state and federal law."

O'Malley ordered the drafting of new execution protocols last May after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that procedures such as those used in Maryland were acceptable. At the same time, a commission established by the General Assembly and partially appointed by O'Malley was convened, held hearings and recommended in November an end to capital punishment. The commission cited racial bias and the possibility of an innocent person's being executed.

O'Malley had hoped the commission's recommendation would give his repeal effort impetus this year, but it died in the Senate, which instead approved the limitations on the death penalty.

The regulations now go before the joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review, which can put them on hold for more in-depth study. Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, a Prince George's County Democrat and co-chair of the panel and a death penalty opponent, said, "There's no big rush" to expedite the process. "We don't want to get this done ASAP," he said.

The regulations also are published in the Maryland Register for public comment.

The regulations ban the use of the "cut down" procedure, during which executioners cut into the vein to insert the lethal chemicals. They also reduce from four hours to three hours the time before an execution that visitors, excluding attorney and clergy, must leave the prisoner. And they allow the prisoner to request a last meal other than what the prison cafeteria is serving that day, at the discretion of prison officials.

Among objections likely to be raised are concerns about pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the muscle system, as part of the lethal injection. Jane Henderson, director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions, said the chemical renders inmates unable to communicate pain or whether the anesthetic is working.

"It serves one purpose and one purpose only: to make it look like a peaceful death," Henderson said.

She also raised concerns about a requirement that certified medical personnel find alternative injection locations if an inmate's arm veins are unusable because of past drug usage or other reasons. She said it would clearly violate ethical guidelines for doctors and nurses to be involved.

Pinsky and co-chair Del. Anne Healey, a Prince George's County Democrat who also opposes the death penalty, said they would give the regulations thoughtful consideration. Healey said that ultimately the governor has the authority to move the new protocols forward but that the committee can slow the process and draw public attention to the issue.

"I'm going to do everything that I can to make sure that the rights of the people who are convicted and under penalty of death are honored, and that these regulations do not violate their human rights," she said.

(source: Baltimore Sun)

*********************************

Let's be honest about the death penalty

After years of dragging its feet, the O'Malley administration has proposed regulations to implement Maryland's death penalty, a necessary step tor resume capital punishment after the Court of Appeals ruled in 2006 that the previous regulations had not been properly adopted. The main changes are restrictions on corrections personnel performing a "cut down" procedure to get access to a condemned inmate's vein to administer lethal drugs, more time for the inmate to spend with his or her family and a provision for a last meal.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can expect ... more foot dragging? The rules now go before a joint committee of the Senate and House of Delegates that is led by staunch death penalty opponents. They say they're in no hurry to see these rules get implemented.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no hurry to see Maryland resume executions. I wish the legislature had voted for the ban on capital punishment that Gov. Martin O'Malley has proposed for the last few years. What we're left with instead is the most restrictive capital punishment statute in the nation in terms of the level of proof required to support a death sentence. But those restrictions don't apply to the 5 people now on death row. The state's death penalty foes could take their time moving forward with the regulations, but that would do no good either for the people on death row or for the families of their victims.

Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger said in today's story by Laura Smitherman that it's time to move forward; "I believe in the old adage, justice delayed is justice denied," he said. He's right about that -- the years of delays and appeals and starts and stops in Maryland's use of capital punishment have done nothing but force the victims' f