Sept. 1
NEW MEXICO:
N.M. Governor Announces Push to Revive Death Penalty
It's time to put capital punishment back on the books in the "Land of
Enchantment," particularly for cop-killers and those convicted of murdering
children, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) announced Aug. 17.
The announcement came less than a week after a New Mexico police officer was
gunned down in Hatch, N.M., while making a traffic stop.
"A society that fails to adequately protect and defend those who protect all of
us is a society that will be undone and unsafe," Martinez said in remarks
e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA.
New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009.
Monsters Among Us
"People need to ask themselves, if the man who ambushed and killed 5 police
officers in Dallas had lived, would he deserve the ultimate penalty?" Martinez
asked.
"How about the heartless violent criminals who killed Officer Jose Chavez in
Hatch and left his children without their brave and selfless dad? Do they
deserve the ultimate penalty? Absolutely," Martinez added.
Martinez said she felt the same way about those who sexually abuse and murder
young children, referencing the notorious killing of Ashlynne Mike, a Navajo
5th-grader who was kidnapped and sexually assaulted before she was killed in
May.
"Does the monster who killed her deserve the ultimate punishment?" Martinez
said. "Yes - absolutely."
The governor is expected to pursue this initiative as part of her legislative
agenda in January.
Pushback From Pro-Death Forces
Although the death penalty is still legal in 30 states, there is a growing
movement to abolish it. In just the past 10 years, 7 states have abolished
capital punishment and the governors of Oregon, Washington, Colorado and
Pennsylvania have temporarily halted executions in those states.
Several weeks ago, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down its death penalty
scheme, saying it gives judges too much discretion to make the actual findings
required to impose death (99 CrL 603, 8/10/16).
Nonetheless, proponents of capital punishment are pushing back and have put
pro-death penalty initiatives on the ballot in three states (99 CrL 541,
7/20/16).
Nebraska voters, in the Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal Referendum, will decide
whether they want to restore capital punishment, just 18 months after their
Legislature narrowly voted to replace the death penalty with life without
parole.
Californians will choose from 2 competing initiatives. One would replace all
death sentences with life without parole, whereas the other would not only
reiterate the state's commitment to the death penalty but would also speed up
the execution process.
A referendum in Oklahoma invites voters to strengthen their commitment to
capital punishment by amending the state constitution to clarify that it isn't
cruel and unusual.
(source: bna.com)
ARIZONA:
New defense team again in death penalty case
A Kingman murder suspect has a whole new defense team in his death penalty
case.
Darrell Bryant Ketchner, 58, is charged with 1st-degree murder and burglary.
His conviction and sentence on those charges were overturned in December 2014.
Prosecutors are again seeking the death penalty, 1 of 2 capital cases in Mohave
County.
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Ketchner's conviction and 75-year prison
sentence for attempted murder and 3 other charges. He is also serving a 15-year
sentence on a separate weapons charge.
Michael Reeves of Phoenix made his 1st appearance Friday as Ketchner's latest
primary defense attorney. Reeves also asked to have Patricia Hubbard, also of
Phoenix, act as his co-counsel in the case, having worked with her in the past.
2 qualified defense attorneys are required in a death penalty case.
Superior Court Judge Rick Williams allowed Hubbard to be appointed co-counsel
in the case and granted Christopher Flores' motion to withdraw as co-counsel.
The judge also tentatively set a status hearing for Nov. 21, barring a conflict
with that date. Ketchner's case is being heard in Bullhead City.
Previous defense attorneys have withdrawn from the case because of
irreconcilable conflicts or lack of communication with Ketchner. With a new
attorney, the progress of the case has slowed to a crawl.
Ketchner attacked his ex-girlfriend, Jennifer Allison, on the night of July 4,
2009, as she sat at her kitchen table with her 18-year-old daughter, Ariel
Allison, at her Kingman home. Ketchner chased Jennifer Allison outside and shot
her in the head as she lay in the driveway.
Ketchner went back inside and allegedly stabbed Ariel Allison 8 times in her
mother's bedroom where she later died. Several other children escaped out a
window. Jennifer Allison survived her wounds.
Justin James Rector also faces the death penalty if convicted of the kidnapping
and murder of 8-year-old Isabella Grogan-Cannella on Sept. 2, 2014 in Bullhead
City.
(source: Mohave Daily News)
CALIFORNIA:
California must preserve the death penalty, with some reforms
Stephen Cooper's latest rant against the death penalty in California was off
the mark on many points. He believes Proposition 66, death penalty reform, is
deeply flawed. What Cooper fails to ever mention is that Proposition 66 was
conceived by some of the brightest legal minds in California. It was carefully
written by leading criminal prosecutors, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
and other top legal experts - people who know from experience what's needed to
mend, not end California's broken death penalty system.
Cooper supports Proposition 62, which allows the worst of the worst killers to
be supported for life by California taxpayers - feeding, housing, clothing, and
providing healthcare to these child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial
murderers, and cop killers. Californians do not support this thought process
and each time the idea of repealing the death penalty makes its way to the
ballot, it is defeated. This year seems no different. A recent poll conducted
by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found that 75.7 % of
Californians surveyed support Proposition 66.
Proposition 66 is supported because it makes sense. It provides due process to
the defendants while providing justice to victims and their families. The
centerpiece of Cooper's post is simply wrong. The initiative does not impose a
rigid deadline that must be met in every case. Courts are allowed to go longer
in extraordinary cases. However, Proposition 66 streamlines the system to
ensure criminals sentenced to death are assigned a special appeals lawyer
immediately. It expands the availability of lawyers to handle these appeals. It
limits state appeals to 5 years instead of allowing for these convicted
criminals to file appeal after appeal after appeal. 5 years is generally
sufficient to get through state appeals, even in the most complex cases. This 5
years does not include a later federal appeal. While the DC Sniper and Oklahoma
City Bombing cases are federal cases, they demonstrate that the courts can
thoroughly review capital cases within that timeframe. Proposition 66 reforms
are closely modeled on recent reforms to the federal death penalty system and
show that in practice, Proposition 66 will work.
Additionally, while there are no innocent people on California's death row
(even California's Governor Jerry Brown has stated "there are no innocent
inmates on California's death row"), Proposition 66 will ensure due process by
never limiting claims of actual innocence. Lastly, it reforms death row housing
takes away special privileges, requires killers to work and use their earnings
to pay restitution to victims' families.
Currently, there are 746 killers sitting on California's death row. These
inmates have brutally murdered more than 1000 victims, including 226 children
and 43 police officers; 294 victims were raped and/or tortured. Taxpayers are
housing serial killers like Lawrence Bittaker who kidnapped, raped and murdered
6 women and Cary Stayner who murdered 2 women and 2 teenagers. Sadly, these
killers and others like them continue to sit on death row-sometimes for
decades- leaving the victims' families without the justice they were promised.
These killers and their repetitive appeals are the reason why the No on
Proposition 62 and Yes on Proposition 66 is supported by hundreds of district
attorneys, sheriffs, law enforcement organizations, elected officials, victims'
right advocates, community leaders and an overwhelming Californians.
It's time fix California's death penalty. By doing so, Californians will save
millions of dollars every year. And most importantly, will bring justice to
murder victims and their families that is long overdue.
I urge a "no vote" on Proposition 62 and "yes on Proposition 66."
(source: Anne Schubert, The Hill)
************************
Zafft's alleged murderer may face death penalty
The death penalty is on the table for the man who allegedly murdered Isaac
Zafft, a 27-year-old Winona man, while Zafft was working at a farm in
California just over 2 years ago. On Thursday, prosecutors will decide if they
want to prosecute the man accused of the crime - who also stomped a homeless
man to death in 2008 - as a death penalty case.
In Nevada County, where Zafft was murdered, prosecutors have not tried a death
penalty case for 135 years, and the last recorded execution was in 1881. And,
if Zafft's alleged killer is executed for his crime, he could be the last. In
November, California voters will be asked whether to repeal the death penalty
as a punitive option for those convicted of murder, replacing the possible
sentence with life in prison without parole.
On Monday, July 7, 2014, at around 1 a.m., the Nevada County Sheriff's
Department received a report of shots heard at a rural location in Penn Valley,
Calif., just northeast of Sacramento. Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal
reported that when deputies arrived at the farm, they found Zafft lying on the
ground, suffering from gunshot wounds. He was later pronounced dead.
The 3 suspects - Finley Byrdette Fultz, 27; Daniel Louis Devencenzi, 31; and
Nathan Robert Philbrook, 33 - have been charged with murder in the 1st degree
in the course of a robbery. Fultz, who prosecutors allege pulled the trigger,
also faces charges of personal use of a firearm, personal discharge of a
firearm, and personal discharge of a firearm causing death.
According to Nevada court reports, in 2008 Fultz pled guilty to voluntary
manslaughter for stomping a homeless man who was sleeping in a park to death in
Reno, Nev. News reports stated that witnesses heard Fultz and another man
yelling "white pride" as they murdered the sleeping black man. The victim,
James Beasley, 55, died in a hospital shortly after, and Fultz said that he
never meant to kill him. Fultz was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with the
possibility of parole. He was granted parole and released in 2013.
When Fultz was sentenced in late 2008, a Nevada resident wrote in an online
forum: "This was a senseless crime that could very well be repeated in 4
years."
Almost a year and a half after he was released, prosecutors allege that Fultz
fatally shot Zafft.
Nevada County District Attorney Clifford Newell, who is prosecuting the case,
said that currently his office is deciding whether it will prosecute the case
as a death penalty case. "We've charged it with that potential," he said.
Newell said that he hopes to decide whether to prosecute it as a death penalty
case by Thursday.
California is 1 of 31 states in the nation where the death penalty is legal.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, there were
743 inmates in California sitting on death row. Since 1976, there have been 13
executions in the state, and the last execution took place in 2006 after
Clarence Ray Allen was convicted of a triple murder and conspiracy to murder 8
witnesses. In California, a man or woman could receive the death penalty for
treason against the state, perjury causing the execution of an innocent person,
train wrecking that leads to someone's death, or murder in the first degree. If
a suspect is convicted of murder in the 1st degree, he or she could face a
potential sentence imprisonment for 25 years to life, life imprisonment, or the
death penalty.
However, there are some challenges to prosecuting a death penalty case. Newell
said that death penalty cases tend to take longer, additional staff members
have to help with prosecution and defense, a better record of court proceedings
have to be kept, and defendants may have two trials with two different juries.
"There are a lot of rights for the defendants that have to be observed and
safeguards to make sure the process is clean and they get an absolutely fair
trial," he said.
Fultz and Devencenzi are currently in custody in Nevada County. The third
suspect, Philbrook, is currently in custody in the state of Nevada, awaiting
extradition on California Governor Jerry Brown's warrant. Newell said the
extradition process takes time, and he expects that Philbrook will be
transported to Nevada County within the next 2 weeks, although he hopes that he
arrives at the end of this week. "We've taken it very seriously," he said.
Newell added that a lot of resources and money have been spent, including
working with other district attorneys and authorities in Ohio to bring Fultz
into custody. "It was a huge undertaking" and it was the right thing to do for
the Zafft family, Newell said.
Zafft was a 2005 graduate of Winona Senior High School, an honor student and an
Eagle Scout. Family and friends remember him as an adventurous and kind young
man who had a love of traveling and meeting new and different people. "As a
dear friend to so many, his passing was heart breaking," friend David Kruger
said. "He was murdered, and as hard as it is not to focus on that inhuman act,
his friends will always keep a bit of his kindness and humor in our hearts."
(source: Winona Post)
USA:
Another case against the death penalty
Back in 1991, a teen-age girl was wearing gold earrings at a Philadelphia
railway station. 2 men approached and demanded the earrings. The girl tried to
run, but was caught. The earrings were jerked off, and she was shot to death.
James Dennis, then 21, was convicted of the murder, largely on eyewitness
identification. Police never found the gun, earrings or other physical evidence
against him. He claimed he had been elsewhere at the time of the murder - yet
he was sentenced to death.
Last month, the Third Circuit federal court ruled that Dennis was railroaded by
prosecutors who hid evidence that would have freed him. The court ruling said:
"Evidence suppressed by the prosecution - a receipt corroborating Dennis's
alibi, an inconsistent statement by the commonwealth's key eyewitness, and
documents indicating that another individual committed the murder - effectively
gutted the commonwealth's case against Dennis."
Now, after a quarter-century in prison, the accused man will go free or face
another trial. Thank heaven, death sentence appeals drag out interminably, or
Dennis might have been put to death long ago for a crime he apparently didn't
commit.
This case illustrates why the death penalty is barbaric and unfair - a savage
remnant from medieval times. It's capricious, hitting poor suspects and
minorities who can't afford expensive defense lawyers.
Nearly all modern democracies have halted executions. It's shameful that
America remains an exception. Even so, many U.S. states - including West
Virginia, hurrah - stopped killing prisoners. Many others still have death laws
on the books, but don't use them. Executions today still occur in harsh
Southern states, like Texas.
Even places that still have the death penalty have trouble getting the drugs
for lethal injection or coming up with an alternative as people grow
increasingly uncomfortable with taking life.
Eventually, we hope the death penalty will be banned all across America.
Goodbye and good riddance.
(source: Editorial, Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail)
*****************
Judge Gergel orders secret hearing on explosive evidence in Dylann Roof case
Federal Judge Richard Gergel has ordered ordered that a pretrial hearing to be
held Thursday on potentially explosive evidence in the Dylann Roof death
penalty be closed to the public and press.
"This instance is one of those rare cases where Defendant's Sixth Amendment
right to a fair trial outweighs the public's and the press' First Amendment
right of access," wrote Gergel in a 10-page order released around 5:30 pm
Wednesday.
Gergel ruled after an earlier public hearing in which he indicated evidence to
be discussed Thursday is so controversial, it could taint prospective jurors'
ability to be fair far more than any other information already made public in
Roof's widely publicized and sensational church shooting case.
The evidence concerns information that federal prosecutors may possibly want to
introduce at trial, and that defense lawyers want to exclude, according to
court filings. However, the court filings do not reveal the nature of that
evidence.
Roof, 22, of Columbia, faces the death penalty in a federal trial that begins
in November in Charleston. He is charged with killing 9 parishioners at the
Charleston AME "Mother" Emanuel church in downtown Charleston in June 2015.
A 33-count federal indictment charges Roof with 12 counts of committing a
federal hate crime (nine counts of murder and three attempted murders) against
black victims, 12 counts of obstructing the exercise of religion resulting in
death and nine counts of the use of a firearm to commit murder.
Earlier Wednesday, 2 attorneys representing Charleston media outlets argued to
Gergel that he should keep Thursday's hearing open. They said later they
expected Gergel to rule against the public and press, but they had no regrets.
"These are important Constitution issues that need to be raised to keep the
awareness of the public and the court that we have public courts in this county
- and if you are going to close a court proceeding, it ought to be drastic and
rare," said Jay Bender, who represented the Post and Courier. Carl Muller
represented WCBD-TV.
Bender added that Gergel obviously "thinks there is something that if it were
made public, it would prejudice beyond repair all potential jurors."!
Keeping Thursday's hearing about potential evidence closed will protect the
jury pool and help ensure a fair trial, Gergel told the media lawyers on
Wednesday as they argued that Thursday's hearing should be open to the public
and press.
The evidence "has not yet been publicly disclosed."-- Federal Judge Richard
Gergel
Gergel repeatedly told Bender and Muller that if the evidence can be admitted
to trial, he will make it public as soon as possible after Thursday's hearing.
He will also release a transcript of Thursday's hearing at the appropriate
time, he said.
Closing a court is extremely rare, Gergel acknowledged, but the evidence to be
discussed at Thursday???s hearing is uniquely sensitive and "has not yet been
publicly disclosed," the judge said. "This is one of those matters that ...
leaves us no choice."
Closing the courtroom could create "widespread suspicion that a blanket is
being thrown over truth, and justice is being pushed aside by canny lawyers and
the court."
In a written argument to Gergel, Muller argued that "closing the courtroom"
also could undermine Roof's right to a fair trial "by creating widespread
suspicion that a blanket is being thrown over truth, and justice is being
pushed aside by canny lawyers and the court."
Gergel told Bender in court that as much as he values the public's right to
attend trials and hearings, "I am equally committed to the rights of the
parties and the defendant to a fair trial."
Already, Gergel said, he is allowing 3 weeks to question prospective jurors
before Roof's Nov. 7 death penalty trial.
Questioning will focus on whether jurors can be fair-minded, he said.
Repeating that any evidence he reviews and decides can be admitted to trial
will be made public, Gergel said, "The whole community has a right to know -
it's a question of when."
(source: thestate.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
