Jan. 9
MARYLAND:
Md. Gov. O'Malley sees death penalty ban within reach; He also sees
transportation, gun control as priorities
Gov. Martin O'Malley said Tuesday the state Senate is within 2 votes of
approving a ban on capital punishment in Maryland, and the governor underscored
that job creation and transportation funding concerns will be top priorities in
the legislative session.
By most counts, Mr. O'Malley said, 22 of the 24 senators needed to approve a
death penalty ban have expressed a willingness to support a ban in the session
that begins Wednesday.
"And I think it's very possible that there are 2 more senators that would vote
to repeal," Mr. O'Malley added, speaking to reporters after an annual lunch
with Maryland Democrats.
The Democratic governor pushed to repeal the death penalty in 2009. Full repeal
stalled in the Senate, which opted to restrict capital punishment to murder
cases with biological evidence such as DNA, videotaped evidence of a murder or
a videotaped confession.
Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee,
said in an interview this week that repeal is within 1 vote on the committee
and a vote or 2 in the full Senate.
"It's close," said Mr. Frosh, Montgomery Democrat who supports repeal. He added
that he thinks this is a good year to push for it.
Sen. James Brochin, Baltimore County Democrat who is on the Judicial
Proceedings Committee and supports capital punishment, said this week he would
not be changing his position.
"I don't see any reason to repeal the death penalty," Mr. Brochin said in an
interview Monday.
The governor declined to say at this point whether he will make repeal a key
part of his legislative agenda. Still, Mr. O'Malley clearly would like to see
capital punishment banned. There hasn't been an execution in Maryland during
Mr. O'Malley's tenure, which began in 2007.
"I'm confident that eventually it will be repealed," Mr. O'Malley said. "I'd
like to see it repealed sooner rather than later, and if I could help bring
that about that would certainly be a positive thing."
(source: Washington Times)
************************
O'Malley: Vote Close On Death Penalty
On the eve of the start of the 2013 Maryland General Assembly session,
Democrats and Republicans met separately today to plot strategy.
Governor Martin O'Malley was among the speakers at a pre-session luncheon
hosted by the Maryland Democratic Party.
The governor says he's confident the state Senate is within 2 votes of
supporting a repeal of capital punishment in Maryland.
O'Malley spoke to reporters on Tuesday after the luncheon.
The Democratic governor, who supports repeal of the death penalty, says he
thinks it's "very possible" that there are two more senators who would vote to
repeal capital punishment this year.
O'Malley's comments follow similar comments Senate President Mike Miller made a
few weeks ago.
At the time, Miller, who supports the death penalty, told WBAL News that he
believed the repeal was 1 or 2 votes short of passage, and he did not think the
repeal could pass the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Miller did say he would not block a floor vote on a repeal, even if death
penalty opponents use a procedural move bypassing the committee, and bringing
the bill to the floor.
The state's legislative session begins on Wednesday.
(source: WBAL News)
******************
Capital punishment supporter thinks Md. will pass death penalty repeal
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller says he thinks a repeal of the death
penalty will pass in Maryland.
Miller, who supports capital punishment, said Wednesday on WEAA-FM that he will
find a way to get the bill to the full Senate, if Gov. Martin O'Malley gets
enough votes for it.
O'Malley said Tuesday he believes he is within 2 votes in the Senate of banning
it, and he expressed confidence that finding the other two votes was very
possible.
Miller, speaking Wednesday on the 1st day of session, says he believes repeal
will pass the Senate and the House of Delegates. He also said he believes death
penalty supporters will petition a repeal bill to the voters to decide in a
statewide vote.
(source: Associated Press)
COLORADO:
Abolish death penalty in Colo.
Re: "Capital punishment in Colorado: Foes weigh push to repeal," Dec. 26 news
story.
It appears that the Colorado legislature is finally poised to give serious
consideration to ending the barbaric, money-sucking relic of bygone years known
as the death penalty.
Since 1968, Colorado has executed one person. The article in the Dec. 26 Denver
Post noted that the death penalty annually costs Colorado taxpayers $1.5
million. It also quotes Attorney General John Suthers as saying that there are
times we need the death penalty "for the safety of the people."
Mr. Suthers never explains how executing one person in the last 45 years, at a
cost of approximately $50 million, has made our state safer. Spending tens of
millions for one execution seems like the most preposterous waste of money
imaginable, especially when one considers the law enforcement programs which
could have been funded with those scarce dollars.
Mr. Suthers simply resorts to the time-tested tactic of whipping up hysteria
over truly heinous crimes and offering a "solution" to the problem which
involves the government spending more millions to kill people. There is not one
shred of evidence that the per capita murder rate in Texas, which executes
someone almost every 2 weeks at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, has
been affected in any way by the regular imposition of the death penalty.
No one disputes the fact that the system currently in place as mandated by the
U.S. Supreme Court makes the death penalty far more costly than life without
parole. Mandatory appeals consume resources, as do penalty phase trials, which
almost always involve complex testimony from psychologists, neurologists and
other specialized professionals, all of whom must be paid by taxpayers, as no
one facing the death penalty has the resources necessary to hire their own
lawyers. The public foots the bill for the prosecutors, the defense attorneys
and all of the experts testifying on both sides.
When Jared Loughner pleaded guilty in Arizona for the Gabby Giffords shootings
and was sentenced to life without parole, the nightmare of court appearances
ended for all of the remaining victims. They would not be forced to testify at
trial, they would not have to endure endless appeals with the fear always
lurking in their minds that he would get a new trial and they would once again
be forced to relive the nightmare on the witness stand. He will be incarcerated
forever, and the victims can focus on healing and not on a court case which
will never end.
Nathan Dunlap has been on Colorado's death row for 20 years. Edward Montour's
death sentence was reversed and he is back for a new trial 10 years after the
crime. Even if he is again sentenced to death, 30 years will have passed
between the crime and the punishment and millions of dollars will have been
wasted.
It is time for the legislature to stop pouring money down this barbaric drain.
As any responsible law enforcement officer will tell you, killing people is not
the solution to crime in our society. The death penalty in Colorado should be
abolished.
(source: Guest Column; David A. Lane is an attorney with Killmer, Lane &
Newman, LLP, in Denver.----The Denver Post
TENNESSEE:
New dialogue needed on death penalty
In an article in the Jan. 5 Tennessean titled, "State pursues new death penalty
drug," the issue of Tennessee's problematic lethal injection protocol is
revisited.
The article notes that the state's stock of 1 of the 3 drugs used in the
current protocol was seized by the federal government over questions about the
legality of how the drugs were obtained. Now, the state says it is pursuing
alternative drugs but won't say much more.
As is often the case, the article has a tendency to frame the discussion in
terms of simply taking a side, including quotes from me and quotes from those
"on the other side." But this polemical approach to the issue does not get us
very far and does not address the concerns that we share.
Every one of us wants murder victims' families to be given legal finality after
the horror of losing a loved one to murder. We want these devastated families
to have all the mental, emotional, spiritual and financial support they need to
begin to move forward. We want those who commit these heinous crimes to be held
accountable and not to be able to harm anyone else. We want a justice system
that is fair and accurate, not for some, but for all. These are things we all
want for our communities and for our state.
The problem is that the death penalty is a distraction from achieving these
goals, taking the focus off of the victims and their families and putting it on
securing this particular punishment for a handful of perpetrators that takes
more than 20 years to be carried out.
This system wastes millions of dollars that could be much better spent
supporting crime victims and their families, on more resources for law
enforcement and on access to more mental health treatment and drug treatment,
which would do far more to make us safe than the use of the death penalty.
Never mind that the 142nd death row inmate to be exonerated was just released
in Florida in December after spending 13 years on death row. Since 1973, 142
people have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death only later to be
released (including 3 in Tennessee) when evidence of their wrongful conviction
came to light - and those are only the ones we know about. Yet even with the
real risk of executing an innocent person, Tennessee is willing to spend even
more time and money to find another way to execute individuals who have already
been on death row for decades.
This new conversation about the death penalty should not be simply about taking
a side in a tired debate. Instead, it should be about listening to one another
and working together to determine how best to facilitate healing and support
for victims??? families after the horror of a homicide has occurred, and how to
work together to create smart policies that prevent such tragedies from
happening in the first place.
(source: Guest Column; The Rev. Stacy Rector is executive director of
Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty----lohud.com)
ARIZONA:
Ruling: U.S. judges can suspend some death-row appeals
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in an Arizona case that federal judges
have the discretion to decide whether court proceedings should be suspended for
death-row prisoners who are mentally incompetent.
Ernest Gonzales was sentenced to death for the 1990 murder of Darrel Wagner,
who interrupted Gonzales while he was burglarizing Wagner's Phoenix home.
While on death row, Gonzales lapsed into madness and could no longer
communicate with his attorneys, who then asked that legal proceedings be
stayed. A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix determined that Gonzales did not
have to be mentally competent and able to talk to his attorneys for the issue
in question because it could be determined from the court record.
The attorneys appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which took
their side.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and
argued the case in front of that court.
The high court ruled unanimously that District Court judges have such
discretion and that the proceedings need to be stayed only when the prisoner's
input is necessary and if the prisoner could be restored to competency for the
purpose of the hearing.
"This is an important victory," Horne said in a news release. "Under the
now-vacated 9th Circuit Court ruling, criminals facing the death penalty could
drag out the appeals process almost indefinitely on grounds that had no bearing
on the merits of the case. The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court will
result in swifter justice being carried out."
But Dale Baich of the Federal Public Defender's Office countered Horne's
statement. "Even though the court did not think an indefinite stay was
appropriate, it did leave room for the District Courts to temporarily stay
habeas proceedings if the prisoner could assist the attorney with a particular
claim and it is shown that the prisoner could regain competence," Baich said.
"The decision will not have a big impact. Out of the more than 700
death-penalty habeas cases pending nationally, the prisoner's competency to
assist counsel is an issue in about a dozen cases."
(source: The Republic)
USA:
Supreme Court narrows avenue for death row appeals
2 death row inmates were not entitled to a delay of their federal appeals on
the grounds that they were incompetent to assist their lawyers, the Supreme
Court said on Tuesday.
In a unanimous ruling against inmates Ernest Valencia Gonzales and Sean Carter,
the court also said federal judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals of state
criminal convictions in the hope that the defendants might eventually become
competent enough to help out.
Justice Clarence Thomas said defense lawyers are "quite capable" of reviewing
cases without their clients' help and can identify arguments or state court
errors that can be raised on appeal.
He said a district judge who believes an incompetent defendant could
substantially aid in his defense should examine the likelihood that the
defendant will regain competence.
In contrast, "where there is no reasonable hope of competence, a stay merely
frustrates the state's attempts to defend its presumptively valid judgment,"
Thomas wrote.
Gonzales was convicted by an Arizona jury in the stabbings of 2 people in front
of their 7-year-old son during a burglary. 1 of the victims died.
Carter was found guilty by an Ohio jury of the rape and stabbing death of his
adoptive grandmother.
Dale Baich, who works in the federal public defender's office that represented
Gonzales, noted that Supreme Court decision left room for federal courts to put
some appeals on hold. A prisoner's competency to assist counsel is an issue in
roughly 1 dozen capital cases pending nationwide, he said.
A lawyer for Carter was not immediately available to comment.
Thomas said the federal appeals courts that put both cases on hold erred in
relying on two federal statutes to find that defendants must be competent.
A requirement of competency also does not flow from a defendant's right to
counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he wrote.
The court also said it was "unwarranted" to extrapolate a definitive rule based
on a 1960s case involving an incompetent death row inmate that it put on hold
for nearly three decades. That case ended when the prisoner died.
The cases are Ryan v. Gonzales, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 10-930; and Tibbals v.
Carter, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-218.
(source: Reuters)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
