Jan. 24 USA: High Court Eases Path for Inmates to Pursue Lawsuits A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday sided with 3 Michigan inmates by making it easier for them to pursue lawsuits complaining about their treatment behind bars. The Court reversed lower court rulings that had thrown out the prisoners' suits on grounds that all three had failed to exhaust the administrative grievance procedure. Chief Justice John Roberts said the procedural rules that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used in the cases are not required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The law requires prisoners to go through a lengthy administrative grievance process before they may sue in court. Roberts said the Michigan inmates are not required to demonstrate that they have exhausted the administrative complaint procedure. The chief justice said nothing in Michigan prison policy requires that an individual be named in an administrative grievance. The Supreme Court is "not insensitive to the challenges faced by the lower federal courts in managing their dockets and attempting to separate, when it comes to prison suits ..., needles from haystacks," Roberts wrote. But the chief justice added that adopting "different and more onerous pleading rules ... should not be done on a case-by-case basis by the courts." In addition, Roberts wrote, the prison litigation law does not require dismissing the entire lawsuit when an inmate fails to exhaust some of the inmate's claims administratively. With courts flooded by inmate litigation, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a law in 1995 that sought to limit the number of federal lawsuits filed by prisoners over the conditions of their incarceration. Nearly 42,000 civil rights petitions were filed in 1995 before the law took effect. About 24,000 are now filed each year. Some prisoner advocates have expressed worries that the law has led to some legitimate claims being pushed aside because of technicalities. The Supreme Court decision came in the cases of Michigan inmates Lorenzo Jones, John Walton and Timothy Williams on grounds that all three had failed to exhaust the administrative grievance procedure. The cases are Jones v. Bock, 05-7058, and Williams v. Overton, and Walton v. Bouchard, 05-7142. (source: Associated Press) ******************* On wrongful prosecutions, the right engages in selective outrage The contempt heaped on District Attorney Mike Nifong over his handling of the Duke University lacrosse team legal fiasco was predictable. Conservative pundits have had a fine time, luxuriating in the collapse of a stripper's charges that she was beaten, raped and sodomized by 3 of the school's athletes. Right-wing talk shows have depicted the accused as victims of the leftist mob -- the hysterical do-gooders who rush, unthinking, to any place where a black woman claims to have been victimized by a white male, no matter what the evidence really suggests . the liberals, who take special delight in condemning a lineup of elite white male athletes at a socially and academically precious Southern school, before the facts are in. The critics cite, as a prime example, my Male High classmate, distinguished scholar Houston Baker Jr., who was on the Duke faculty at the time and who demanded to know, "How many more people of color must fall victim to violent, white, male, athletic privilege before coaches who make Chevrolet and American Express commercials, athletic directors who engage in Miss Ophelia-styled 'perfectly horrible' rhetoric, higher administrators who are salaried at least in part to keep us safe, and publicists who are supposed not to praise Caesar but to damn the unconscionable . how many?" There is a particular kind of rage on both sides of this argument, which is both understandable and regrettable. But what amazes me is that you don't see the same kind of fury when other people are definitively proven innocent of crimes for which they were sent to prison. Where was the right-wing rage last week when DNA testing showed that James Waller was wrongly convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy in 1982? Where was the indignation when it proved that the white boy's description of his black assailant -- 5-foot-8 and about 150 pounds, with the lower part of his face covered by a red bandana -- didn't apply to the 6-foot-4, heavyset Waller? Where was the outcry against the prosecutors who put him in prison for 10 years, and on parole after that, and made him register as a sex offender, despite discrepancies in the boy's account, and despite the witnesses who said Waller was at his own home when the crime was committed? Where was the condemnation of a process in which, despite all the holes in the prosecutor's case, it took the jury only 46 minutes to convict? Last week, as reported in The New York Times, a new prosecutor shook Waller's hand and told him, "I'm sorry it happened to you, man." And in an act of grace that I can't begin to comprehend, Waller said he wasn't angry, "because the Lord has given me so much." He broke down only once, when telling the judge how his wife, Doris, and their unborn daughter had died in a car crash on the way to a 2001 court proceeding. This is the 12th instance since 2001 in which DNA testing has overturned a Dallas County, Texas, conviction. But, thanks to the Innocence Project and other advocates, similar things are happening across the country. Given the obvious conclusion that wrongful convictions are not uncommon, where is the public outcry against capital punishment? In the years since it was reinstituted, Kentucky has executed two men, but public support for the death penalty has fallen off. According to a University of Kentucky Survey Research Center report earlier this month, 68 % of Kentuckians prefer prison over death for a convicted murderer. Indiana has executed 17 people in that same time period, and the Hoosier death penalty debate was roiled again last week, when state Supreme Court justices stayed the execution of convicted murderer Norman Timberlake. How many will be subjected to irretrievable justice, before we decide to end the death penalty .. how many? (source: Column, David Hawpe; Courier-Journal) **************** Capital punishment: Carry out with respect----Well, the monster is dead. Another monster, that is. Adolf Hitler chose to take his own life rather than look into the faces of so many people who despised him. Saddam Hussein apparently had no qualms about that because he went to the gallows hoodless. Hussein must have felt that the best defense is a good offense. He faced his courtroom accusers with anger, scorn and contempt. For all that, it didn't do him any good. What's amazing about the trials of Hussein and the other defendants was how little time the whole process took compared to the United States judicial system. On Nov. 5 he was sentenced to death, on Dec. 26 his appeal was rejected and two days later he was executed. During the entire procedure, the Iraqi Special Tribunal was in charge. They heard the evidence, they set the execution date, they saw to it that it was carried out. In the United States, capital punishment has become something of a sideshow. Between the time the criminal is apprehended, charged, assigned an attorney, requested repeated continuances, had the appeals run out and finally had the sentencing date set, years, decades have passed. He or she has often outlived the family members of the victim. The rights of the accused for a speedy trial has become nothing more than words on paper. When finally the execution date is set, usually months in advance, every special interest group has time to make protest signs, and set up camp around the penitentiary. Television cameras are mounted on trucks, live feed is sent to television and the Internet and, once the deed is done, there are either shouts of happiness or tears of anguish from the demonstrators. Whether capital punishment is a deterrent, is warranted or is even moral will be debated long after Hussein has turned to dust. What is a concern is how poorly the whole process is being handled both here and in other countries. The theory that it's more cost-effective to put to death individuals who are a real danger to society and fully beyond redemption is not valid. By the time the guilty has occupied a cell on death row for a decade or more while the state pays his legal fees and his court appeals run their course, millions of dollars have been spent. But that's just money. What some fail to understand is how dehumanizing the whole thing is. Even though in the United States executions are not recorded for public display, they've certainly been recreated for movies and television. The presence of cell phones at Saddam's execution provided the world with a window into something that should have been done quickly, humanely and secretly, no matter which monster is being eliminated. Because of that there are people - adults and children - who are deeply disturbed by what they saw. "I can't get it out of my mind," one woman told me. "I even see it in my dreams." Unlike the movies, we cannot pretend it was all just an act. If capital punishment continues to be a legal option, so be it. But for everyone's sake - the family of the victims, the family of the prisoner, the prisoner and the public, it must be done with some modicum of respect for a life that lost its way. (source: Column, Gretchen Mayer, Mansfield, works at the American News and is a member of the American News Editorial Board. Her column appears occasionally on the Viewpoints Page; Aberdeen News) ********************* Justice is not justice without a strong defense It is axiomatic that the degree of justice a criminal defendant receives often depends upon the degree of legal competency the defendant can afford to buy. It frequently comes to this: Persons accused of crimes - even heinous, capital offenses involving murder - almost certainly fare far better in the court system if they can afford an experienced attorney, or attorneys, to represent them. And conversely, those who cannot pay for a silk-stocking defense and must depend upon a court appointed, possibly underpaid or unpaid attorney, frequently receive inadequate representation. This is no great revelation. Georgia has attempted to address this in recent years with the establishment of a system of defense attorneys across the state whose function is to provide competent representation for those accused of serious crimes but are indigent. Still, the problem remains widespread, particularly in capital-case crimes in which courts are likely to issue a death sentence. An investigation by McClatchy newspapers, published in The Telegraph, reviewed 80 recent death-penalty cases in Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Georgia, and found: . "In 73 of the 80 cases, defense lawyers gave jurors little or no evidence to help them decide whether the accused should live or die. The lawyers routinely missed myriad issues of abuse and mental deficiency, abject poverty and serious psychological problems. . "By failing to investigate their clients' histories, lawyers in these 73 cases fell far short of the 20-year-old professional standards set by the American Bar Association." Their performances also appear inconsistent with standards that the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated several times. Let us be perfectly clear: We do not object to a death sentence when the defendant has had a fair trial and has been given an opportunity to present a defense that speaks to both aspects of a capital trial; the trial itself and the penalty phase in which the jury must decide whether the defendant will live or die. Just because a defendant has been convicted of a capital crime does not preclude the legal responsibility of presenting evidence showing what may have played a part in the defendant's actions. America's system of jurisprudence requires that for jurors to make an informed judgment, they must hear all sides of the story. Too many times, the investigation found, attorneys have been unable to present these factors simply because the court system made doing so impossible. Justice isn't just permitting a strong prosecution. The foundation upon which it is based also requires a strong defense. Without both, there is no justice. (source: Macon Telegraph) ARIZONA: Warden among 14 employees disciplined after inmate's death The warden of a state prison in Florence was among 14 Arizona Department of Corrections employees disciplined after the death of an inmate last year. The DOC said John Ontiveros' last day was Jan. 16 and he has applied for his retirement benefits. He was warden of the Eyman Complex and had worked for the DOC since September 1986. An internal investigation into the Sept. 7 slaying of William Harris concluded that prison guards and other officials made mistakes that led to the prisoner's death, according to a DOC report released Tuesday. Harris, who was serving a 3-year sentence for a drug charge, was found on the ground with a 9-inch metal shank sticking out of his chest after he was moved into a cell with Michael Gaston, who was serving a life sentence for killing a man over a car loan. Harris had resisted moving into the cell because he feared for his life, according to the report. After moving him, a guard later noticed the two inmates shaking hands and believed they would get along, the report stated. But less than 2 hours later, Harris' bloody body was found with a blanket wrapped around his head. Harris was flown to a Phoenix-area hospital where he was pronounced dead. Gaston was eventually charged with first-degree murder and could face the death penalty if convicted. At the time of the killing, Gaston was attempting to join a white-supremacist prison gang, according to the report. The report said human errors included a variety of mix-ups, from not filing proper forms on inmate classifications in a timely manner to simple mistakes on the forms. In addition, the report said Gaston may have been improperly allowed on a work detail, which might have enabled him to have access to materials he could use to fashion a weapon. The DOC said 1 employee was fired over the incident, 1 was demoted, 4 were suspended, 3 received written reprimands, 1 resigned and 2 retired while 2 other employees still are awaiting disciplinary measures. (source: Associated Press) KENTUCKY: Inmates claim lethal injection violates federal drug laws 3 Kentucky death row inmates claim in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that lethal injection violates federal laws because a doctor doesn't obtain or administer the drugs. The inmates claim the federal Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act require a doctor to buy and prescribe sodium thiopental, which is considered a controlled substance and is one of the 3 drugs used in an execution. American Medical Association guidelines bar doctors from taking part, directly or indirectly, in executions. Kentucky requires doctors to follow AMA ethical guidelines. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said the inmates are using a different tactic than most to challenge lethal injection. "This is untested because the death penalty is so unique," Dieter said. "The death penalty is the only place where we use drugs to kill people." The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Frankfort is the latest by death row inmates Thomas Clyde Bowling, Ralph Stevens Baze and Jeffrey DeVan Leonard. Bowling and Baze challenged lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment in a 2004 lawsuit. Leonard is on his final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rebecca DiLoreto, head of the post-trial division director in the state Department of Public Advocacy, said the suit is the first to challenge how the state purchases and uses sodium thiopental. "When you look at the process ... it causes you to ask where did the drugs come from and were they obtained legally," DiLoreto said. Baze, Bowling and Leonard are asking U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell to declare that having someone other than a licensed doctor inject sodium thiopental violated federal law. The 3 men are also asking for an injunction stopping the state from using the drug unless a doctor administers it. Trained Corrections staff in Kentucky administer the drugs at executions. The Department of Corrections oversees the purchase of the drugs, but it is unclear who purchases them because much of the execution protocol is kept secret, DiLoreto said. "That makes it difficult to know if the state is in compliance with the federal statutes," DiLoreto said. Vicki Glass, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Attorney General's Office, declined to comment on the suit. The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a challenge by inmates in 1985, saying the Food and Drug Administration had not approved the drugs used in lethal injection for use on humans and were not enforcing a ban on the chemicals' use. The high court ruled the FDA has a right not to enforce regulations. The inmates also claimed lethal injection amounted to cruel and unusual punishment - an argument that has resurfaced in other cases in recent years. Since that ruling, the courts have become more receptive to challenges to lethal injection and the chemicals used in executions, Dieter said. "It's a new day that we're in because more is known about the science of these things," Dieter said. Kentucky has not declared a moratorium on executions but has not scheduled any since the 2004 lawsuit. Bowling and Baze have received several stays of execution because of the court challenges. He was sentenced to death for killing Edward and Tina Earley and shooting their 2-year-old son outside the couple's Lexington dry-cleaning business in 1990. Baze was convicted of killing Powell County Sheriff Steve Bennett and deputy Arthur Briscoe during an attempted arrest in 1992. Leonard, who is also known as James Earl Slaughter, was condemned to death for the January 1983 murder of Esther Stewart who owned a consignment store in Louisville. Kentucky has 40 death-row inmates, including 11 that have been there for more than 2 decades. The state has executed 2 men since reinstating the death penalty in 1976, and only 1 by injection: Eddie Lee Harper in 1999. (source: Associated Press) **************** Death penalty shouldn't be used in the state The Daily News, in a Jan. 9 editorial, argues that the "Death penalty should be kept in Kentucky." I believe the editorial missses the point when it states, "Abolishing the death penalty puts more value on the lives of the murderers than it does on their victims." Opponents of the death penalty are making a decision about what they do in response to someone who murders; they choose not to imitate the murderer's heinous behavior, but to punish severely by life in prison, to demonstrate they do value the life of the victim and their own lives, by putting a violent person in a secure prison where he or she loses his or her freedom forever. In 1965, the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission published a 17-page study on capital punishment. In that study, the commission found that the death penalty is of little value as a deterrent for capital crimes, and that social, cultural and economic factors are more influential in homicide rates than the application of the death penalty. Since the death penalty was reestablished in Kentucky in 1976, more than $100 million has been spent in judicial, prosecution and defense costs to prosecute capital cases. More than 50 % of the capital convictions have been reversed because of egregious errors. The 2 executions have not made us safer. With a sentence of life without parole, we can remain safe without death as a penalty and use this funding for the many critical needs in Kentucky. It is important to note that all major Christian denominations - because of their belief in God and human dignity - call for the abolition of the death penalty. I agree with that Christian perspective and believe the time has come to admit the failure of a public policy that results in the killing of fellow citizens, some of whom could be innocent. Charles J. Bussey Bowling Green (source: Letter to the Editor, Bowling Green Daily News) TENNESSEE: A mother still seeks justice Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has determined Tennessee death row inmate Paul House is almost certainly innocent, Gov. Phil Bredesen has been unwilling to exonerate him. But that didn't stop the governor's office from inviting the condemned man's mother to attend last weekend's inauguration. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has determined Tennessee death row inmate Paul House is almost certainly innocent, Gov. Phil Bredesen has been unwilling to exonerate him. But that didn't stop the governor's office from inviting the condemned man's mother to attend last weekend's inauguration. The Tennessee Coalition To Abolish State Killing is reporting on its website that Joyce House received an invitation to Bredesen's swearing-in and inaugural ball. Hoping to finally meet the governor face to face, Ms. House bought a new dress and headed to Nashville for the event. Unfortunately, however, there was no such meeting, and instead it looks like Joyce House will have to keep sending letters, pleading with the governor to spare her son's life. A spokeswoman from Bredesen's office told the Scene for a Dec. 7 article, "It's the governor's policy to let it remain in the courts until all judicial remedies have been exhausted." It's now been seven months since the Supreme Court ruled "no reasonable juror" would convict Paul House given the evidence that's surfaced since his trial. (source: Nashville Scene) NORTH CAROLINA: Executions' constitutionality at issue Lawyers for 2 death row inmates scheduled to be executed soon will ask a Wake Superior Court judge today to halt executions and hold hearings to determine whether the state's method of lethal injection is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed late Monday by lawyers for Marcus Robinson, who is scheduled to die Friday, and James Thomas, whose execution is set for Feb. 2. The lawsuit names Theodis Beck, Secretary of the N.C. Department of Correction, Warden Marvin Polk, an unnamed physician and executioners as the defendants. A hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. today at the Wake courthouse. The inmates' lawyers have raised concerns that the three-drug protocol used to execute inmates leave them awake but paralyzed and unable to express pain. The lawyers argue the state's method fails to provide an anesthesiologist, who could ensure the inmate is adequately sedated before the fatal drugs are injected. State law requires that a doctor be present at executions, but last week, the N.C. Medical Board passed a policy forbidding doctors to do anything other than be present. A prison spokesman declined to comment about the litigation. However, Polk, the warden of Central Prison, where death row is located, filed an affidavit this week as part of a separate lawsuit in federal court that challenges the state's method of lethal injection. Polk stated in his affidavit that a physician, a nurse and a paramedic are present in an observation room next to the execution chamber. The nurse watches a brain wave monitor to ensure the inmate is adequately sedated and the paramedic observes a heart monitor. The doctor is merely present, Polk wrote. Noting the medical board's new policy, Polk said if anything goes wrong during an execution, he can halt the procedure and ask the doctor to intervene. The execution could then be rescheduled. Also Tuesday, 30 state legislators sent a letter asking Gov. Mike Easley to halt executions, citing a similar move by Florida Gov. Jeb. Bush last year and moratoriums in eight other states. They also announced plans to introduce a bill to establish a legislative study commission to evaluate the state's method of lethal injection. (source: News & Observer)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA, ARIZ., KY., TENN., N.C.
Rick Halperin Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:33:40 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
