Sept. 28



NEBRASKA:

Anthony Garcia trial: Mottas lay groundwork to ask taxpayers to pay for some of defense


Quadruple-murder defendant Anthony Garcia is believed to have paid a 6-figure sum for his defense team - the attorneys who call themselves Team Motta of Chicago.

As his trial got underway Monday, his defense attorneys said he's out of money - and they're laying the groundwork for taxpayers to pay for at least part of the rest of his defense.

Defense attorneys filed a motion Monday asking Judge Gary Randall to declare Garcia indigent. That is a prerequisite before the judge can determine whether taxpayers should help pay legal experts or Garcia's attorneys.

Asking taxpayers to foot the bill is a thorny legal issue.

On the one hand, Garcia is entitled to a vigorous defense.

On the other, Garcia already has paid his attorneys considerable sums. And judges previously have told attorneys in similar positions: It's your contract with your client; plan your defense budget accordingly.

In other cases where the money has run out, legal observers say, judges have advised defendants that Douglas County has a Public Defender's Office and the state has a public advocacy commission that can represent them. Of course, it's too late to appoint the Public Defender's Office for this trial.

Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley, who is not associated with this case, said defendants sometimes are given latitude to get tax money to hire experts if "the well has run dry."

But taxpayers paying for private attorneys? It's rare.

"If they're seeking attorneys' fees and the defendant has paid out a lot already, my experience is the judges won't do that," Riley said.

Garcia's attorneys, Robert Motta Jr. and Jeremy Jorgenson, declined to specify whether they're asking for more money for experts or for their own fees, or both.

The issue got testy Monday as prosecutors were left waiting for defense attorneys for a few minutes after the defense had called a hearing on short notice. After everyone gathered, Judge Randall declined to take up the matter, saying he would have time to sort it out later.

That led to an exchange between the attorneys who have been far more acrimonious than harmonious in the 3-year-old case.

On his way out of the courtroom, Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine blurted: "A joke."

Motta Jr. piped up: "I hope the judge heard that."

Prosecutors and the defense then began the exhaustive and sometimes-exhausting process of trying to pick jurors for the trial, which is expected to last 4 to 6 weeks.

Garcia is charged in the March 13, 2008, slayings of 11-year-old Thomas Hunter and 57-year-old Shirlee Sherman and the May 12, 2013, killings of Dr. Roger and Mary Brumback, both 65.

Here's a sobering fact: Of the 129 prospective jurors, 40 initially said they had heard nothing about the case.

That means 31 percent of prospective jurors had heard nothing about the mysterious stabbing deaths of Thomas and Sherman, the slayings of the Brumbacks 5 years later, the formation of a task force to investigate the slayings and the subsequent arrest of a former doctor.

"I always want to ask, 'What rock have you been living under?'" 1 court official grumbled Monday.

The facts, arguments and issues of the Garcia case will come to light over the next 4 to 6 weeks - a timespan that would make it the longest criminal trial in Douglas County history.

But first comes a weeklong slog of sorting out who can serve on the jury.

In all, the judges and attorneys will conduct 1-on-1 interviews of 108 of the 129 potential jurors. They got through 32 of them Monday. After individual interviews, the attorneys will conduct a general questioning of the entire jury pool before whittling the pool down to 12 jurors and 4 alternates.

"We appreciate the fact that you will be incredibly inconvenienced," Randall said. "Jury service is certainly the most necessary and important of your civic duties. Our entire judicial system would be crippled without the assistance of jurors."

Randall, prosecutors and defense attorneys are exploring 3 critical issues in their 1-on-1 interviews with potential jurors:

-- Length of the trial: Would anything prevent each potential juror from sitting through 4 to 6 weeks of trial?

-- Death penalty: What are prospective jurors' views on the death penalty? In the event of a conviction, would they be able to sit through a death-penalty hearing and vote on whether aggravating circumstances existed to merit the death penalty?

-- Publicity: What have jurors read or heard about the case? More important, can they set those matters aside and decide the case based only on the evidence presented in court?

Judge Randall put the fear of the law into potential jurors Monday.

"Certainly you can find out all sorts of information about a pending case, especially this one," Randall said.

However, the judge admonished jurors to read nothing about the case and to tell no one what specific case they were on; just that they were on jury duty.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)






NEW MEXICO:

Liberal activists to denounce Martinez's death penalty plan


Liberal advocates and some Democratic lawmakers say they will strongly oppose a push by New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez to reinstate the death penalty.

The coalition of death penalty foes is scheduled Tuesday to denounce the governor's plan to bring back capital punishment in New Mexico after it was abolished 7 years ago. They are meeting at the Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice to discuss how they will oppose the governor's plan.

Martinez vowed last week to add the issue to a legislative agenda for a pending special session aimed solely at fixing the state's budget shortfall.

The 2nd-term Republican governor says she wants the death penalty as an option for convicted killers of police, children and corrections officers.

New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009 before Martinez took office.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Arguments against reinstating the death penalty


Ive argued against capital punishment my whole adult life. 2 religious leaders in New Mexico have shared some of my same arguments on the Las Cruces Sun-News' editorial page, and I have to offer some additional thoughts, which I hope you will take time to consider.

I won't go into the DNA-proving-innocence argument, which I believe is compelling also, but my biggest objection has long been that we as a society lower ourselves to the level of killers when we perpetuate legal killing.

The message of the death penalty is that we condone judging someone to be expendable and then disposing of them. How is that so different from what a murderer does? How does that help anyone believe killing is not the answer?

My next objection is that capital punishment is itself not a deterrent to crime. If someone is going to commit a crime and pauses long enough to consider the consequences, what is a far greater deterrent is if it is likely a perpetrator is going to be caught. Heaping on the penalties or threatening the "ultimate penalty" is not much of a threat if criminals can reasonably expect not to get caught.

My 3rd argument goes to the injunction in our United States Constitution against "cruel and unusual" punishment. When the methods used sometimes result in people suffering for prolonged periods of time, that is cruel. When the penalty is increasingly rarely used, that makes it unusual.

Instead of heading back down the path of our brutal past, let us instead focus on how we indeed make our lives longer and safer. Let us ensure that those who threaten our bodies or our lives are quickly identified and speedily put on a path that is safer for all of us.

Let us show that we respect life and we want to see violent crime effectively reduced more than we want revenge.

(source: Commentary, Gregory Z. Smith represents District 2 on the Las Cruces City Council and is the mayor pro tem----nmpolitics.com)






IDAHO:

Motions to bar death penalty in police killing case denied


The death penalty is still an option for a man accused of killing a Coeur d'Alene police officer.

The Coeur d'Alene Press reports that Kootenai County District Court Judge Lansing Haynes on Monday denied 2 motions from the defense asking that he not allow the death penalty to be among the potential punishments for 26-year-old Jonathan Renfro.

Renfro is accused of the 2015 shooting death of Coeur d'Alene Police Sgt. Greg Moore.

In a series of hearings that began last week, Haynes has heard arguments from Renfro's defense team as to why their client should not face execution. Arguments have ranged from international law to specifics about the encounter between Renfro and Moore.

Haynes said he will rule on the defense's most recent argument on Oct. 12.

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

California Bishops urge voters to reject the death penalty----Bishops in California and New Mexico have urged voters to resist attempts to reinstate the death penalty


The California Catholic bishops are urging voters to support a November ballot initiative that would outlaw the death penalty.

Proposition 62 would replace the maximum punishment for murder with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"It is time for us to end the death penalty - not only in California but throughout the United States and throughout the world," said Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H Gomez said in a commentary in Angelus, the online news outlet of the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

In New Mexico, the Catholic bishops of that state renounced a call by Republican Governor Susana Martinez for the Legislature to reinstate the death penalty.

They urged state lawmakers to reject the legislation. The death penalty was abolished in the state more than 7 years ago.

In his remarks, Archbishop Gomez noted that the Catholic Church has consistently taught for centuries "that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes," he said. But in recent years, he continued, "there has been a growing consensus that the use of the death penalty can no longer be accepted."

"This consensus is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the teachings of bishops' conferences around the world and in the teachings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis," Archbishop Gomez said.

"On his final visit to our country in 1999, St John Paul called the death penalty 'cruel and unnecessary.' And it is true," he added.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese has established a website about the ballot initiative on the death penalty and church teaching, www.killingisntjustice.org.

By opposing the death penalty, Archbishop Gomez said, people are "witnessing to the sanctity of life," but also are not forgetting "the victims of crime and their loved ones."

"We entrust them to the Father of mercies and we pray that he grant them healing and peace," he said.

"Killing the criminal does not bring justice to the victims," he added.

Archbishop Gomez also said that US society has "a strange appetite for violence. ... We allow children to play violent video games and listen to music that demeans human dignity. For 'entertainment,' we watch movies and shows in which fictional criminals take other people's lives and commit unspeakable acts."

California's bishops also have urged voters to say no on Proposition 66, which would amend state law in an attempt to speed up the judicial review of death penalty cases. "Any rush to streamline that process will inevitably result in the execution of more innocent people," the bishops have said.

They have urged voters to support Proposition 57, which would increase parole and good behaviour opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allow judges to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.

In the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Office of Public Policy and Social Concerns is in overdrive promoting the Catholic Church's call for the death penalty repeal.

By mid-September, more than a dozen parishes had formed and trained voter outreach and registration teams.

"Many of our people don't know, if you ask them, what these propositions are about," said Julio Escobar, coordinator for the archdiocese's restorative justice programme.

He and colleagues Lorena Melgarejo and Carolina Parrales met with the archdiocesan Council of Priests in early September to seek support from pastors for educational outreach visits to parishes and schools which would include after-Mass voter registration.

"The Jubilee Year of Mercy presents a key opportunity for us to respectfully engage and educate parishioners and help them vote according to their values," Escobar told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper.

Results of a survey of Californians released September 16 showed that more than half of voters oppose the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty.

The San Francisco Archdiocese planned to continue voter registration until the deadline of October 24 and parish educational outreach until the Sunday before election day.

"As California citizens, we have an opportunity to make our voices heard on behalf of the inviolability of human life and for rehabilitation over retribution," San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J Cordileone said in a September 20 column in the archdiocesan newspaper.

He recalled being part of a delegation of California bishops who three years ago paid a pastoral visit to San Quentin State Prison.

"We had the opportunity to meet with a number of the inmates on death row, hearing their stories, learning of the misfortunes in their lives, and becoming sensitised to their deep spiritual yearnings and innate desire for God," he said. "The experience put a human face on a tragic human condition that we very comfortably can - and usually do - completely ignore."

"This experience also highlights the challenge we as a society face in determining how we can foster peace in this increasingly violent and complicated world. The answer is certainly not by inflicting more violence" through capital punishment, he added.

In New Mexico, the Catholic bishops said Martinez's efforts to see the death penalty reinstated were irresponsible. "(We) applauded the state Legislature for the progress that was made when we ended the morally untenable practice of the death penalty on March 18, 2009," they said in a September 19 statement.

"This repeal of the death penalty was a milestone, moving New Mexico from a culture of violence to a culture of peace, justice and love."

"There is one seamless teaching on God's gift of life that must be protected from conception in the womb to natural death," they said. "It is always tragic and sad when a member of the community is murdered. These senseless acts must be prevented by calling for systemic change in society beginning with our youngest children. Crime can be prevented, and this is done by an investment in social capital."

In 2009, in lieu of the death penalty, the state of New Mexico "created life in prison without the possibility of parole," the bishops noted. "This renders a perpetrator harmless to society."

(source: Catholic Herald)




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

Critics doubt California has enough lawyers for death penalty speed-up


With cases taking 2 decades or more to wind their way through the appeals process, both supporters and critics of California's death penalty agree the system is broken. But opponents of Proposition 66, the November initiative aimed at speeding up executions, argue that proposed changes to shorten the timeline for appointing lawyers and filing petitions are convoluted and unfeasible.

During a meeting with The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board on Tuesday, they were particularly critical of a provision expanding the pool of lawyers eligible to take on death penalty appeals. Currently, sentences are appealed directly to the California Supreme Court, which assigns lawyers to defendants from state-funded agencies like the Office of the State Public Defender or, if none are available, private attorneys who meet certain qualifications.

Given the enormous backlog of cases, even that can take years. So in order to make lawyers available to defendants upon their sentencing to death, Proposition 66 would allow the courts to also appoint attorneys who are qualified for the most serious non-death penalty appeals. Those lawyers would have to accept the appointment in order to remain eligible to receive other non-death penalty cases in the future.

There are approximately 400 death row inmates currently awaiting counsel for their appeal or some other legal challenge to their sentence. Natasha Minsker, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of California's Center for Advocacy and Policy, said there are simply not enough private attorneys willing to take on the cases for the low compensation provided, especially given the time crunch Proposition 66 would impose on preparation.

"They would just have to do this full time, which is not practical for most people" she said.

Death penalty opponents have presented a fix to move inmates through the system more quickly: an increase in funding for public defense agencies so they can hire more attorneys. Lawmakers have repeatedly rebuffed the proposal, they said.

"It is the simple - expensive, yes - but it is the simple and direct way to get the California Supreme Court to have the number of lawyers they need to deal with death penalty cases," said Michael J. Hersek, director of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which represents death row inmates in nonprocedural challenges.

Hersek said the center only has 34 attorneys on staff, and unsuccessfully sought a budget increase for 10 more last year. He questioned why the proponents of Proposition 66, which include many prosecutors, wouldn't add a provision guaranteeing more money for counsel.

"I suspect they won't do it because when you give people lawyers in a timely manner, they get to the substance of the issues at hand," he said. "On the substance of the cases, they often lose."

(source: Sacramento Bee)

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

Man Sentenced to Death for Double Execution for Financial Gain


A man was formally sentenced by Orange County Superior Court Judge John Conley on Sept. 23 to receive the death penalty for using a firearm to murder his neighbor for financial gain and murdering the victim's friend in an effort to derail the investigation by framing the 1st victim.

Daniel Patrick Wozniak, 32, of Costa Mesa was found guilty by a jury on Dec. 16, 2015, of 2 felony counts of special circumstances murder with sentencing enhancements for committing multiple murders and murder for financial gain. The sentencing enhancement for the personal discharge of a firearm causing death was also found true. The jury recommended the death penalty on Jan. 11, 2016.

This case was investigated by the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) and was prosecuted by Senior Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy of the Homicide Unit.

Circumstances of the Crime

Prior to May 21, 2010, Wozniak plotted the murder of his neighbor, 26-year-old Samuel Herr, who lived in the same apartment complex, with the intention of stealing the victim's substantial savings. On the afternoon of May 21, 2010, Wozniak lured Herr from their Costa Mesa apartment complex and drove him to the theater facility at the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. Wozniak was familiar with the theater because he had previously acted in plays at that location.

Once inside the theater, Wozniak murdered Herr by shooting him twice in the head with the intention of stealing the victim's savings. He then left Herr's body in the theater and stole the victim's ATM card, wallet, and cell phone.

Later that evening, Wozniak used Herr's cell phone to text message Herr's friend, 23-year-old Juri "Julie" Kibuishi. Wozniak was acquainted with Kibuishi and was her "friend" on Facebook. Wozniak pretended to be Herr in the text messages and arranged for Kibuishi to come to Herr's Costa Mesa apartment. Shortly after midnight on May 22, 2010, Kibuishi arrived at Herr's apartment. Wozniak met her at the door of Herr's apartment and lured her inside into the bedroom, where he murdered her by shooting her twice in the head. Wozniak then partially removed Kibuishi's clothing to stage the crime scene to appear as though the victim had been sexually assaulted.

On the afternoon of May 22, 2010, Wozniak returned to the theater, cutting off Herr's clothes and dismembering the victim's body by removing his head, left arm, and the lower portion of his right arm. He left the victim's torso and legs in the theater and took the dismembered body parts to discard them in El Dorado Park Nature Center in Long Beach, a large nature reserve with trails and 2 lakes.

At approximately 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2010, officers from CMPD discovered Kibuishi's body upon responding to a call regarding a possible murder from Herr's father, who had gone to the Costa Mesa apartment to check on his son. Herr's whereabouts at that time were unknown and he initially became the primary suspect in Kibuishi's murder.

Following the 2 murders, Wozniak gave Herr's ATM card to a 17-year-old acquaintance and instructed the minor to withdraw money from the victim's account at various ATMs in Long Beach. Costa Mesa detectives investigating the case learned of the ATM withdrawals and arrested the minor after observing him using the victim's bank card. In all, $2,000 was taken from Herr's bank account.

Based on information learned through the ongoing investigation and the arrest of the juvenile, Wozniak was arrested for the murders of Herr and Kibuishi on May 26, 2010, at Tsunami restaurant in Huntington Beach. Wozniak was at dinner celebrating his bachelor party in anticipation of his upcoming wedding, planned to take place in Long Beach that Friday, May 28, 2010.

CMPD detectives discovered Herr's body on May 27, 2010, at the base. A search for Herr's dismembered body parts at El Dorado Park Nature Center was conducted by CMPD with assistance from the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), FBI, search and rescue personnel from Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties, and investigators from the Los Angeles Coroner's Office (LACO). The victim's head and parts of his left arm, which were decomposed and scavenged by animals, were found over the next 2 days.

On May 27, 2010, Wozniak was transported from the jail to Western Medical Center to be treated for self-inflicted head injuries and was released back to the jail on May 29, 2010. The Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) charged the defendant on May 28, 2010.

Herr and Kibuishi were both students at Orange Coast College and Herr was a military veteran.

At the sentencing on Sept. 23, 4 members of the victims' families delivered emotional victim impact statements pursuant to Marsy's Law. The statements in their entirety are available at www.orangecountyda.org by selecting "Reports" under the "Reports" pull-down menu.

For their assistance in the investigation, CMPD and OCDA thanked the FBI, LBPD, Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, LACO, Orange County Coroner's Office, and Ventura County Sheriff's Department.

Defense Argument

According to City News Service, Conley last Friday denied a defense motion for a new trial and refused to dismiss the death penalty as a potential sentence based on claims of government misconduct in the case. Conley also criticized Wozniak's attorney, Scott Sanders, for filing a 132-page motion during his arguments that morning.

Noting that he had denied Sanders' motion for a delay in sentencing 2 days earlier, the judge asked, "Isn't this just an attempt through the back door to get the continuance you wanted?"

Sanders explained that his filing was a response to prosecutors' criticisms of the defense attorney and that he was told to file it if he wanted. Conley ruled that the filing be "stricken," but it will be part of the record for an appeal.

Sanders again argued that the Orange County Sheriff's Department engaged in misconduct in the handling of jailhouse informants, particularly Fernando Perez, who heard Wozniak make incriminating statements.

But Perez was never a witness in the trial, since Wozniak had already confessed to Costa Mesa police and Perez's information was redundant, Murphy argued previously.

Sanders also argued that Murphy has made "inconsistent" arguments in the separate cases against Wozniak and his fiancee at the time, Rachel Buffett, who was charged as an accessory after the fact and is awaiting trial. The defense attorney quoted a police lieutenant as saying that Buffett should have been charged with murder.

Conley said that while there was evidence that Buffett may have known about the murders. there wasn't enough evidence to show she did anything to help Wozniak kill the victims.

Mother's Statement

Following is the victim impact statement from Kibuishi's mother, June:

"First of all, I would like to thank you, Your Honor, for everything you have done for us and the Herr family. We believe you handled this case in a very fair manner and we truly appreciate you keeping the victims' families as a priority to bring this case to closure.

"Also, we are truly thankful for Mr. Matt Murphy and all of the members of the DA office for your efforts and support throughout this painful experience. "I need to ask Your Honor for permission to address the next message to Mr. Wozniak for the 1st and last time.

"On May 22, 2010, you took my beautiful, caring, loving daughter's precious life to cover up your heinous and planned crime for the pathetic reason of wanting money for your wedding and honeymoon. You took advantage of my daughter's kindness and care for her friend. You knew she would help her friend Sam and you took her precious life just to be used as a decoy. You took her precious life to cover up the crime you just committed. You took her precious life and then you disgraced her by pulling off her pants!!!

"To you, my daughter was just a decoy ... nothing else. You had absolutely no other reason to take her away from us.

"She was 23 years old, full of dreams and motivation to pursue her career in the fashion industry. She was the sunshine of our family with so much energy and so much love. She always brightened up our life with her goofiness and lots of music. She introduced me to so many great music that she made a CD for me that I still listen to in my car while I drive coming home from work, crying out her name, just by myself.

"She would always be there for not only her friends but for her brothers and sister and of course for her dad and mom ... all her loving family. I still remember the day our entire family rushed to the hospital to meet my 1st grandson, Julie's oldest brother's 1st baby, Julie's 1st nephew. I will never forget her expression on her face when she held her nephew for the 1st time. She was overwhelmed with joy becoming Auntie Julie ... That was 6 months before you took her away from us.

"Her grandfather passed away in 2012. Unfortunately, he was not able to see this day to come. Until he joined his 1st granddaughter in heaven, he kept saying over and over that JULIE SHOULD NOT GO BEFORE ME. He never stopped saying that until he took his last breath. "Julie's grandmother, who is 88 years old now, still cries looking at her photo. She cries when she hears Julie's name, telling me how much she truly wished to see her first granddaughter, Julie, in her wedding dress, becoming a bride ... which was of course my dream too.

"I know from the bottom of my heart that she would be a beautiful bride. And definitely she would be the most loving mother.

"BUT ALL OF THAT WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED because you just wanted to use her precious LIFE to cover up your crime.

"Our family came from Japan more than 30 years ago. We worked hard, raising children, hoping they would grow up with an open mind, accepting variety of cultures and races in this beautiful country, and I wanted them to learn that no matter what race you are, what language you speak, the most important thing in this world is to become a GOOD HUMAN BEING with a GOOD HEART.

"And I am very proud to say that all of them grew up to be the most loving, caring, and responsible adults with common courtesy and common sense that has been lost these days. Being a mother, I want all of my children to always be happy no matter what they do for their life or where they live in this world.

"On that day of May 22, 2010, my heart was ripped apart. I felt an indescribable amount of pain hit my body when I found out what happened to my baby. WHY???? WHAT DID SHE DO TO YOU???? HOW COULD YOU DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO MY BABY??

"Still to this day, those questions have not been answered. But all I know is that my daughter was the most caring friend who did what she knew that she should do to help Sam, which I am very proud of...

"6 years and 4 months, I sat behind you every time I came to court. Seeing you coming out, smiling for the cameras and audience, enjoying being the center of attention. Did I ever see any remorse? NO, not even once. Your behavior these last 6 years and four months convinced me that you're not worthy of being called a human being. You show no remorse and you show no guilt for taking my beautiful, loving daughter Julie away from us.

"Our family has gone through so much these past 6 years. Not only did we endure this emotional, painful roller coaster, we suffered many physical illnesses most likely caused by the surge in stress in all of our lives. We battled 2 cases of cancer and my father suffered a heart attack ... and left us to join his loving 1st granddaughter.

"We've had to sacrifice so many work days to attend these frustrating hearings. In the end, the only thing holding us together is the love from our family and all our loving friends.

"Your Honor, being a mother, I truly believe that if there was any heavier sentence than the death penalty in this world, HE would be the one to deserve it for what he had done to my daughter Julie and Sam.

"There is no word to describe our pain and anger and frustration we have been going through. That will never heal or go away until I reunite with my daughter someday.

"No matter what, my Valentine baby daughter Julie will never ever come back to us. The only thing our family can do is to try to move forward one step at a time. In order to do that, we have waited for this day to come for more than 6 years so that we can at least close this most horrible chapter of our lives, and I am sure my daughter and my dad up in heaven are always watching over us ... both of them waiting for this day to come."

(source: rafu.com)

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

End the Death Penalty


To the Editor:

Semon Frank Thompson's essay, "What I Learned From Executing 2 Men" (Sunday Review, Sept. 18), revealed a further reason to put an end to the ultimate punishment. The death penalty is a broken system carried out by human beings that no amount of reform can repair.

Study after study demonstrates that it is imposed in a racially discriminatory manner and that it does not have any additional deterrent value than the punishment of life without the possibility of parole. The death penalty has been imposed erroneously in at least 150 cases.

Mr. Thompson's essay compels us to consider the collateral harm suffered by those who must carry out executions. Indeed, we are all harmed by state-ordered killings when no reliable study has demonstrated that there is any benefit to society.

This November, California voters have an opportunity to put an end to a failed and irrational system by supporting Prop 62. California would then join 20 other states and the District of Columbia in moving us to be, in Mr. Thompson's words, "a healthier society."

RACHEL VAN CLEAVE

Dean, Golden Gate University

School of Law

San Francisco

(source: Letter to the Editor, New York Times)






WASHINGTON:

Serial killer Robert Yates still fighting sentencing error


One of Spokane's most notorious murderers is again headed to the state Supreme Court, but it's unlikely he'll ever be a free man.

Robert Yates is asking the high court to grant him a new sentencing hearing for 2 murders he committed in 1975. The consecutive 20-year sentences were calculated incorrectly, he claims, because the 2 murders occurred before the state revised its sentencing guidelines in 1981.

That's the same argument he made in 2014 - and the court said in a 7-2 opinion he is technically correct. But, the court said, that doesn't mean he can have those cases thrown out.

Under his 2000 plea agreement, Yates pleaded guilty to 13 counts of aggravated murder and 1 count of attempted murder in Spokane County Superior Court. He's also on death row from 2 convictions in Pierce County.

"Yates agreed to a sentence of 408 years in prison, and he should have been sentenced to a minimum of 408 years with a potential extension to a life sentence," Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority in 2014. "Given the reality of the human lifespan, there is no difference between those 2 sentences."

Yates previously asked to withdraw 2 guilty pleas, a request the Supreme Court denied. Now he's asking to be resentenced under the new guidelines.

An appeals court forwarded the case on Tuesday, but Spokane County deputy prosecutor Brian O'Brien said he expects the Supreme Court to dismiss it. The same argument, O'Brien said, should result in the same action: none at all.

"These death penalty lawyers will file anything, anywhere for their clients," O'Brien said. "Really, they just keep filing stuff, and it doesn't matter how important it is."

Yates' attorney, Jeff Ellis, is the director of the Oregon Capital Resource Counsel, a Portland-based firm that represents death row inmates.

"It is our position that correcting an unlawful sentence to make it lawful is important, even if there is no practical difference," Ellis said in an email. "... I fully acknowledge the total sentence will still far exceed my client's lifespan."

(source: Spokesman-Review)






USA:

Suspect in Xerox robbery could possibly face death penalty


Richard Wilbern, the suspect in a 2003 robbery at the Xerox Federal Credit Union in Webster could possibly be put to death. A murder related to a bank robbery qualifies Wilbern for the federal death penalty. The US Attorney and FBI investigators will be speaking about the investigation at a news conference Wednesday morning.

Wilbern was arrested on Tuesday and was arraigned on homicide and robbery charges. Wilbern shot one man and killed 52 year-old Xerox employee Raymond Batzel. Joseph Doud, who was 28-years-old at the time survived.

One possible motive is because he was fired from Xerox. He sued the company for discrimination in 2000 claiming he was harassed because he's black. However, the case was dismissed.

Raymond Batzel's sister Diana Powers and his 89-year-old mother will be at the news conference. His mother has told News10NBC she was afraid she would "never live to see this day."

(source: WHEC news)

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

Rep. Tom Reed: Death Penalty For Drug Dealers


In Elmira (N.Y.), a local congressman wants the death penalty to apply to drug dealers.

Southern Tier Republican Tom Reed is proposing a bill that would give federal prosecutors more penalties to push for when drug dealers' users die of an overdose, including life in prison and capital punishment.

Reed says he made the proposal after several roundtable discussions with people in his district. He's running for re-election against Democrat John Plumb.

(source: WGRZ news)

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

Roof federal death penalty jury screening goes quickly in Charleston


Getting an initial pool of 700 qualified potential jurors to sit on the Dylann Roof death penalty trial is going faster than expected and likely will be finished Wednesday.

"Hopefully, we will wrap up this phase tomorrow," U.S. Judge Richard Gergel said just before court let out Tuesday afternoon.

Of the 700 potential jurors who pass initial screening in this, the 1st in-court phase of jury selection, 12 will eventually be selected as jurors, along with six alternates.

A 2nd, far more intensive phase of jury selection will begin Nov. 7. At that time, Gergel will question prospective jurors using material from both prosecution and defense lawyers.

Between now and Nov. 7, the 700 potential jurors will fill out detailed questionnaires seeking their opinions on various matters, including whether they are open to imposing the death penalty. Any juror who is opposed to the death penalty in all cases will automatically be disqualified.

Jurors excluded at this phase of jury screening are those who cannot serve for reasons such as health, child care duties or essential work duties. The trial, including the death penalty phase if needed, might last 3 or 4 weeks or more. It likely will not begin until late November or December.

Roof, 22, a self-proclaimed white supremacist from Columbia, is charged with federal hate crimes in connection with the June 2015 killings of 9 African-Americans at the "Mother" Emanuel AME church in downtown Charleston. Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Evidence in the case indicates that Roof, who was arrested the day after the Emanuel shootings, was hoping to ignite a race war.

The courtroom has only 80 seats, and Judge Richard Gergel has allowed a sketch artist and one pool reporter, from The Post and Courier of Charleston, in the courtroom to provide in-court coverage.

The pool reporter wrote Tuesday that Roof was dressed in striped jail garb, and at times poured water into cups for himself and his attorneys. On occasion, the defendant appeared to analyze a list of prospective jurors.

1 of the pool members, a middle-age black man, clutched a leather-bound Bible as he listened to Gergel warn the group not to do independent research on the case and not to tell their spouses about the experience.

Only 1 person, a white woman from Johns Island, told the judge she could not participate because she runs a business and cares for her wheelchair-bound husband.

The phase of juror selection that begins Nov. 7 will be much different. Each individual potential juror will be questioned at length to weed out those with biases toward Roof's guilt or innocence, and to keep only those who are open to imposing the death penalty. It can easily take more more than an hour to examine each potential juror.

In the 2015 death penalty trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the intensive juror questioning phase to produce a death-qualified jury took about 8 weeks.

(source: myrtlebeachonline.com)

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

Sampson jurors could hear his whole life story


In the upcoming death-penalty trial of Gary Lee Sampson, jurors will hear that he carjacked 2 people in Massachusetts more than a decade ago, that he tied them up, and that he brutally stabbed them to death. They will hear that he strangled a 3rd man in New Hampshire before pulling a knife on another in Vermont.

But the jury will also hear about Sampson's troubled life - that he suffers from mental illness, that he was diagnosed at age 7 with dyslexia, that his parents grew up poor, and that his father frequently disapproved of him.

Such bits of information are known as mitigating factors, and Sampson's defense team hopes to present an unprecedented 238 such points to the jury charged with deciding whether Sampson will be sentenced to life in prison, or death. Mitigating factors are meant to explain a defendant's actions and guide a jury away from a death sentence.

Jury selection continues this week.

As US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin explained to potential jurors earlier this month, a mitigating factor can be "anything that suggests that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is more of an appropriate sentence than death."

Sorokin will ultimately decide how many mitigating factors can be presented to the jury on the verdict slip. But in the meantime, the number of factors being proposed by Sampson's defense are leading to questions in the case about what exactly constitutes a mitigating factor, and whether jurors should be asked to consider so many of them.

"It's an everything but the kitchen sink strategy, hoping one juror will seize on one factor and find it to be mitigating," said George Vien, a lawyer who prosecuted Sampson in his 1st death-penalty trial 13 years ago.

Prosecutors argued that some of the factors "have nothing to do with Gary Lee Sampson's background, record, character, or the circumstances of Sampson's offenses, and thus are not relevant to the individualized sentencing decision the jury must make regarding Sampson," according to previously sealed court records.

Sampson was sentenced to death in 2004, but a judge later threw out the sentence after finding that 1 of the jurors lied during jury selection. Prosecutors are again seeking the death penalty in the new trial about to get underway. The trial could last 10 weeks, and jurors will hear not only testimony about Sampson's crimes, but also from the families of his victims, and about violent incidents he's been involved in prison.

The defense is expected to argue that Sampson suffers from mental illness, and that his condition was exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse and years spent in solitary confinement in prison.

Among the mitigating factors the defense hopes to present: That Sampson suffered head injuries as a child that contributed to brain damage; that he did not know the alphabet by age 7; that his father, a war veteran and an alcoholic, was frequently ashamed of Sampson and physically disciplined him; that he was beaten up by peers but did not fight back; that his mother married at age 18 and was subservient to his father; that he suffered anxiety and abused drugs as a teenager; that his time spent in isolation in prison before the killings worsened his mental health; that he is divorced and never had a relationship with his children; that he wants love and wanted to be loved; that in the days before the carjackings, he was abusing alcohol and crack cocaine; that he suffers from illnesses including cirrhosis of the liver; that making art helps him cope with prison life.

George Kendall, a New York-based lawyer who has worked on hundreds of death penalty cases, including for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lengthy list of factors appears to be "communications strategy," a way for the defense to connect with the jury and respond to the list of reasons prosecutors cite in requesting the death penalty.

"What you hope to do is package the case in a way that the jury accepts it," he said, adding that the defense team likely determined that the longer list, the better the package.

Vien, the former prosecutor, cautioned against listing common life occurrences that jurors would not consider to be serious mitigating factors.

"The problem is some of these factors are arguments that aren't going to have much substance to them, and the lawyers who put those arguments forward risk losing credibility among those jurors," he said. "I feel it's always better to go with fewer, more solid arguments, than several arguments which won't have much merit."

The proposed 238 mitigating factors would be the most ever presented to a jury, according to data compiled by the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel, which tracks federal capital punishment cases. The majority of cases list anywhere from 20 to 40 factors. In Sampson's original trial in 2003, jurors reviewed 17 factors. Jurors who sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death last year considered 21.

The federal case with the most mitigating factors presented to a jury, 160, was that of John McCluskey, who was convicted in 2013 in New Mexico of the carjacking and murder of an Oklahoma couple.

He was sentenced to life in prison after the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on a sentence.

One of McCluskey's lead lawyers, Michael Burt, also represents Sampson in his new sentencing trial. Last year, federal prosecutors asked Sorokin to force the defense team to reduce the number of proposed mitigating factors, and called the lengthy list a "strategic attempt to confuse the jury by impermissibly skewing the weighing process in Sampson's favor."

Sampson's lawyers lashed out, saying the Supreme Court has referred to mitigation as "potentially infinite" and as having "virtually no limits."

While rejecting some of the government's claims, Sorokin asked the defense to trim the list - the number was reduced earlier this month to 238, from 308 - and the judge suggested that the definition of mitigation will be reexamined as the trial progresses, and before a final verdict slip is presented to jurors.

"The court does not consider this definition to be boundless as Sampson urges," the judge said. "Rather, the information presented to the jury may be properly and constitutionally limited by notions of relevance in the context of this case."

(source: Bosston Globe)


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to