April 11
TEXAS:
GOP Texas lawmaker reintroduces bill to allow death penalty for women who have
abortions
A Republican state lawmaker in Texas has reintroduced a bill that would
criminalize abortion without exception, making it possible for women to be
convicted of homicide and sentenced to death for having the procedure.
Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R) was placed under state protection in 2017
when he first introduced the bill because of the death threats he received, The
Washington Post reported Wednesday.
His bill earned its 1st public hearing this week, and he argued that his
intention is to guarantee “equal protection” for life inside and "outside the
womb.”
He has previously said that his proposal would completely remove access to
abortions and “force” women to be “more personally responsible” with sex.
“Right now, it’s real easy," Tinderholt told the Texas Observer in 2017. "Right
now, they don’t make it important to be personally responsible because they
know that they have a backup of ‘oh, I can just go get an abortion.’ Now, we
both know that consenting adults don’t always think smartly sometimes. But
consenting adults need to also consider the repercussions of the sexual
relationship that they’re gonna have, which is a child.”
The Post called Tinderholt’s bill a clear violation of Roe v. Wade, the 1973
landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
The bill would criminalize abortion and classify it as homicide, which would
make it possible for a woman to receive the death penalty for having the
procedure done. The legislation's language directs authorities to enforce its
requirements “regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court
decision.”
“I think it’s important to remember that if a drunk driver kills a pregnant
woman, they get charged twice. If you murder a pregnant woman, you get charged
twice. So I’m not specifically criminalizing women. What I’m doing is
equalizing the law,” Tinderholt said during a hearing Tuesday, according to
Fox4 News.
Hundreds of people attended the 2-day hearing before the Texas House’s
Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence this week.
Committee members said that it was the 1st time in Texas history that public
testimony was hearing on a measure to hold women criminally responsible for
abortions.
There are 446 witnesses who registered their approval for the bill ahead of the
hearing, the Post reported. The majority of supporters represented faith groups
or local Republican parties.
54 people — including business leaders, women’s rights activists and legal
experts — spoke against the bill.
(source: thehill.com)
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
With a Death Row of 1, New Hampshire Weighs Ending Capital Punishment
Soon after the man who killed his father with a shotgun blast to the chest was
captured, Renny Cushing ran into a friend at the grocery store, who said that
he hoped the culprit would be executed so that Mr. Cushing’s family could find
some peace.
“I didn’t know how to respond,” recalled Mr. Cushing, who is now a New
Hampshire state representative. “I knew he was trying to give me some comfort.”
Mr. Cushing, a Democrat, was then — and is today — a death penalty opponent.
And in the 31 years since his father’s murder, he has become one of the
nation’s leading opponents of capital punishment. But his efforts at repeal in
his home state have always fallen short.
That may soon change: The New Hampshire State Senate is expected to vote on
Thursday morning to repeal the death penalty, after a 279-88 vote for repeal in
the State House last month.
Twice before — in 2000, and again last year — both chambers have voted for
repeal, only to be blocked by a governor’s veto.
This time, backers of repeal are hopeful that 16 of New Hampshire’s 24 senators
will vote their way. That would give the measure the 2/3 majority needed to
override another anticipated veto by the governor, Chris Sununu, a Republican
who is a capital punishment proponent.
If that were to happen, New Hampshire would become the last state in New
England to get rid of the death penalty.
And it would continue a national trend toward fewer executions. 20 states have
now abolished capital punishment, and bills to limit the application of the
death penalty or to repeal it have been introduced in at least 18 states this
year.
With the suspension of capital punishment announced last month in California,
most people in the United States now live in places where the death penalty is
either outlawed or subject to moratoria, said Robert Dunham, executive director
of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit.
In nine states, he added, repeal bills have significant Republican sponsorship
or support. In New Hampshire, too, the debate has not fallen exclusively along
party lines. (The House was controlled by Republicans during the 2000 vote for
repeal, and it was a Democratic governor, Jeanne Shaheen, who vetoed that
legislation.)
In recent years, some Republicans in the state have changed their stances on
the issue and now favor abolishment; some have cited the $5 million it cost to
prosecute and sentence the state’s only current death row inmate as part of
their reasoning for the change. At the same time, some Democrats still back
capital punishment.
State Senator John Reagan, a Republican who favors repeal, said he had long
believed that the government’s primary role was to keep people safe, and that
the death penalty was part of that.
His views changed, though, because “the more and more experience I had with
government, I concluded that the general incompetency of government didn’t make
them the right people to decide life and death.”
But it is Mr. Sununu who remains the principal opponent to abolishing the death
penalty, and who, according to supporters of repeal, has continued to urge
Republican colleagues to reject the legislation.
“Governor Sununu will always stand up for law enforcement and the families of
crime victims,” said Benjamin Vihstadt, his spokesman, who said that
representatives of the governor’s office had met with people on both sides of
the issue. But Mr. Cushing said Mr. Sununu had avoided meeting with the
relatives of victims who see the issue the same way Mr. Cushing does.
“The governor has positioned himself as saying he’s vetoing the repeal of the
death penalty because he cares about law enforcement and victims, but he’s
refused to meet with murder victims’ family members who oppose the death
penalty,” Mr. Cushing said.
The debate over capital punishment has simmered in New Hampshire for decades,
though the state hasn’t executed anyone in 80 years. The state’s only death row
inmate — Michael Addison, 39, who was convicted of murdering a police officer —
has no execution date. What’s more, the state does not actually have an
execution chamber at this point. (State law authorizes lethal injection as the
means of execution, with hanging as a backup option.)
Asked how the state would proceed with Mr. Addison’s execution if it ever came
to that, a Corrections Department spokeswoman said: “We have worked with our
legal counsel on draft policies and procedures that have not yet been
finalized. If an execution order is enacted then we would finalize the policies
and move forward.”
Yet Mr. Addison’s fate has taken on an outsize role in the legislative debate,
serving as a rallying point for opponents of repeal, including state law
enforcement associations.
The legislation is not retroactive, and would not affect Mr. Addison’s case.
But opponents of repeal say passage of the legislation would nevertheless make
it more likely that a judge would be inclined to reduce his sentence. Laura
Briggs, the widow of the officer killed by Mr. Addison, told a legislative
committee last month that she worried that a vote to repeal would almost
inevitably lead to the commutation of Mr. Addison’s sentence.
“The person that killed my husband was smirking in court. He had no interest in
feeling remorseful,” Ms. Briggs said. She added that her husband had also
believed in capital punishment. “It’s about protecting our society from evil
people that do evil things.”
The debate has evoked powerful emotions on both sides. State Representative
David Welch, a Republican, said he changed his mind to favor repeal after his
wife died two years ago, causing profound grief and prompting him to be
baptized.
“The victim’s family goes through grief similar to what I went through,” Mr.
Welch said in a recent speech. But “when that inmate is put to death, there’s
another family going through the grief, and they’re innocent.”
(source: New York Times)
FLORIDA:
Escambia County woman remains in prison for beating, burning a teenager to
death
An Escambia County woman who was convicted of beating and burning a teenager to
death in 2012 is remaining in prison.
Tina Brown was convicted in June for killing 19-year-old Audreanna Zimmerman.
The court records revealed the jury recommended Brown for the death penalty.
Channel 3 News had a crew in the courtroom when the judge's decision was
delivered at that time.
"The defendant, Tina Brown, is hereby sentenced to death in the matter
subscribed by law for 1st-degree murder for Audreanna Zimmerman."
In 2017, Brown filed a motion for post-conviction relief saying her attorneys
were "ineffective" and jurors were biased.
Last week, Circuit Judge Gary Bergosh reviewed Brown's arguments and found them
insufficient.
Trial Judge Gary Bergosh issued a 100 plus page order in the case of Tina
Brown, who was asking for a new trial based in ineffective council in her
original trial.
The judge denied her motion and now that order is also now subject to appeal.
(source: WEAR TV news)
ALABAMA----stay of impending execution is denied
Man facing execution for pastor's sword-and-dagger slaying
A man convicted of the sword-and-dagger stabbing death of a pastor is set to
become the 2nd person executed in Alabama this year, barring a last-minute
stay.
46-year-old Christopher Lee Price is scheduled to receive a chemical injection
Thursday evening, sentenced to death for the killing of pastor Bill Lynn. The
57-year-old victim was slain during a Dec. 22, 1991, robbery while preparing
Christmas gifts at his home.
Prosecutors said Lynn was at his Fayette County home, getting toys ready for
his grandchildren, when the power was cut. Lynn went outside to check the fuse
box when he was killed, according to court filings.
Lynn’s wife, Bessie Lynn, testified she was in an upstairs bedroom watching
television when she heard a noise. She said she looked out a window and saw a
person dressed in black in a karate stance, holding a sword above her husband’s
head. Lynn, a minister at Natural Springs Church of Christ, had returned home
with his wife from a church service before the slaying.
Bessie Lynn said she went outside to help her husband, but two men ordered her
back in the house and demanded money and any jewelry and weapons they had.
After being arrested, Price initially told police it was an accomplice that
killed Bill Lynn. An autopsy showed that Lynn had been cut or stabbed more than
30 times.
After Lynn’s conviction in the killing, a jury recommended a death sentence by
a vote of 10-2.
A second man, Kevin Coleman, pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life
in prison.
In last-minute legal filings, attorneys for Price have sought to stay execution
plans over Price’s request to be put to death by nitrogen hypoxia. His
attorneys argued that the state was planning to execute Price with a drug
combination that has been linked to problematic executions while agreeing to
execute other inmates by use of nitrogen hypoxia.
Although Alabama last year authorized nitrogen as an execution method, it has
not developed a procedure for using it or carried out any death penalty using
the gas.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday declined to halt Thursday’s
execution plan. The appellate judges said Price did not have an equal
protection claim because all death row inmates had an opportunity to select
nitrogen as their preferred execution method after the law was approved, but
that Price missed the deadline for making a selection.
According to the state, some 48 of the more than 170 inmates on death row have
elected to be put to death by nitrogen hypoxia. As states have had trouble
obtaining lethal injection drugs, Alabama in 2018 authorized nitrogen hypoxia
as an alternative for carry out death sentences. Proponents of the change
argued nitrogen would be readily available and hypoxia would be a painless way
to die.
If carried out, the execution would be Alabama’s 2nd this year.
In February, Alabama executed inmate Dominique Ray for the 1995 murder of a
15-year-old girl.
(source: Associated Press)
MISSOURI:
It’s time to give capital punishment a death sentence
The state of Missouri should repeal the death penalty.
5 members of the Missouri Legislature agree with me and have introduced bills
to either scale back executions or ban them outright.
State Sen. Paul Wieland (R-Imperial) is one of them. He introduced Senate Bill
32 for a full repeal of capital punishment. It’s the 5th straight year he’s
sponsored such legislation.
Numerous Senate and House capital punishment bills have come and gone since
2012, which tells you misgivings about state-sponsored death linger in the
minds of our Jefferson City lawmakers.
And well they should. The case against it has become compelling, resulting in
movement on this issue nationally.
Last October, Washington became the 20th state to abolish the death penalty and
the seventh in the last 15 years. In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom
imposed a moratorium on capital punishment, a reprieve for the state’s 737
death row inmates. His move was mostly symbolic because legal challenges have
held up executions in California since 2006, but it sent a message. “I think if
someone kills, we don’t kill (them),” Newsom said. “We’re better than that.”
In fact, 10 other states with the death penalty haven’t executed anybody in
more than a decade, including New Hampshire (last one was 1939), Kansas (1965),
Wyoming (1992), Colorado and Oregon (1997), Pennsylvania (1999), Montana,
Nevada and North Carolina (all 2006) and Kentucky (2008).
Nationwide, courts are issuing fewer death sentences, dropping from 295 in 1998
to 42 last year. Executions nationally peaked at 98 in 1999; last year there
were 25.
Here in Missouri, the pace also has slowed dramatically. Since the U.S. Supreme
Court reauthorized capital punishment in 1976, ruling it does not violate the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, our state has put 88 people to death, all
by lethal injection.
We executed 16 people in 2014-2015, but only 2 since then. The last was Mark
Anthony Christeson on Jan. 31, 2017.
We can debate whether the slowdown reflects general moral qualms or just legal
and practical obstacles. I think it’s both. But in the meantime my thinking has
changed 180 degrees on this issue.
For many years I walked that tightrope of moral contradiction, opposing
legalized abortion while supporting the death penalty. My justification was
brutally simple: Abortion takes innocent human life; capital punishment ends
guilty human life.
If only we could be so sure of the latter.
The leading objection to the death penalty is the potential innocence of those
convicted. More than 160 death row inmates have been released since 1973 after
new evidence exonerated them. A major scientific study in 2014 concluded that
nationwide, the probable innocence rate among those sentenced to death is 4.1 %
– one of every 25 convictions.
“A surprising number of innocent people are sentenced to death,” said Samuel
Gross of the University of Michigan Law School, lead author of the study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He noted that
with an actual exoneration rate of about 1.6 %, “It tells you that a lot of
them (innocent inmates) haven’t been exonerated. Some of them no doubt have
been executed.”
Newsom finds that unacceptable: “I cannot sign off on executing hundreds and
hundreds of human beings, knowing – knowing – that among them will be innocent
human beings.”
The Supreme Court in Washington state unanimously struck down capital
punishment for a different, but related, reason – the inequities in our systems
of justice.
“The death penalty is unequally applied – sometimes by where the crime took
place, the county of residence, the available budgetary resources at any given
point in time, or the race of the defendant,” wrote chief justice Mary
Fairhurst. “Our capital punishment law lacks fundamental fairness.”
Numerous studies have shown that death sentences slant disproportionately based
on the races of the defendant and victim. Odds of conviction are highest for
black defendants with white victims. Of the 310 people executed since 1976 for
an interracial murder, 290 were blacks convicted of killing whites.
A key rationale for capital punishment is that it reduces crime. Here,
statistics don’t help much. A major project of the National Research Council,
reviewing 35 years of studies on the “deterrence effect” of the death penalty,
concluded that all that research “is not informative about whether capital
punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.” The
studies the NRC looked at, it said, “reached widely varying, even contradictory
conclusions.”
It’s worth noting, however, that the region of the U.S. with the highest murder
rate (6.4) per thousand population in 2017, the southern states, accounts for
80 % of executions since 1976.
Add to this 2 other reasons for abolition: cost and botched procedures.
Death rows are the most expensive real estate in America, with spending for
trials, appeals and petitions typically running 2 or 3 times higher than for
life sentences. Colorado law professor Michael Radelet, meanwhile, has compiled
a detailed list of 51 botched executions in the U.S. since 1982. Try reading
the whole list (just Google it) without getting sick.
And finally, in the court of public opinion, support for capital punishment is
declining. A 1996 survey found 78 % in favor and only 18 % opposed. In 2015,
that split was 56/38, according to the Pew Research Center. And clear
majorities of the public are troubled by the risk of executing the innocent (71
%) and believe the death penalty doesn’t deter serious crime (61 %).
I fully supported the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in
2001. I believed that if anybody deserved it, he did. The evidence for his
conviction was overwhelming.
But as Gov. Newsom said, we are better than that.
Retribution cheapens justice. We should leave the ultimate punishment to God.
(source: Gordon Bess, myleaderpaper.com)
NEBRASKA:
Nebraska death-row inmate's post-conviction motion sat idle for 2 years after
judge retired
A Nebraska death row inmate's case raising constitutional claims has sat idle
for more than 2 years, following a Scotts Bluff County judge's retirement.
In 2004, a jury there found Jeffrey Hessler guilty for raping and killing
15-year-old Heather Guerrero after he abducted her while she delivered
newspapers, and he got a death sentence.
On Friday, a federal judge asked for an update on where Hessler's motion for
post-conviction relief stood in state court, because his federal court case has
been stayed since 2015 so that issues raised in it could be handled first.
U.S. District Judge David G. Kays' request led to a status hearing by phone
Tuesday in Scottsbluff.
According to court records, the state's motion to dismiss Hessler's motion for
post-conviction relief has been pending since District Judge Randall Lippstreu
retired Feb. 28, 2017.
Both sides had submitted briefs prior to his retirement, but there was no
decision.
District Judge Andrea Miller, who was appointed to succeed the retired judge in
November 2017, wasn't made aware of the pending motion to dismiss. But,
according to court records, she will make a decision on the briefs that
previously were submitted.
In 2016, Hessler had asked to be taken off death row because a 3-judge panel
and not a jury sentenced him to death for Guerrero's murder.
His motion cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier that year that struck
down part of Florida’s system because jurors didn’t play a great enough role in
determining whether defendants were sentenced to die.
In Florida, a jury had considered evidence before making a recommendation on
whether the death penalty was appropriate, but the decision ultimately fell to
a judge. In January 2016, the nation’s high court found that sentencing scheme
violated the Sixth Amendment.
Nebraska has a similar method: A jury must determine whether certain
aggravating circumstances alleged by the state existed to make the case
eligible for the death penalty, then a 3-judge panel weighs mitigating factors
before making a decision.
(source: Lincoln Journal Star)
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Deadline set for death penalty decision in SD murder case
The Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office must disclose by April 30
whether it intends to seek the death penalty if 2 Rapid City men are convicted
of their alleged roles in a murder, a judge ruled Tuesday, April 9.
Andre Martinez and Cole Waters, both 19 years old, are each charged with aiding
and abetting 1st-degree murder, commission of a felony with a firearm, aiding
and abetting 1st-degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder.
They each pleaded not guilty to all charges Tuesday at the Pennington County
Courthouse in Rapid City, the Rapid City Journal reported.
If found guilty of aiding and abetting 1st-degree murder, they could face the
death penalty or life in prison.
At a previous court proceeding, a prosecutor said Martinez and Waters hatched a
plan to rob another teenager. During the robbery on Feb. 26, Waters allegedly
held a gun to the head of 17-year-old Emanuel Hinton, of Box Elder, and pulled
the trigger.
(source: The Mitchell Republic)
***********************
Jurors Thought a Gay Man Would Enjoy Prison. So They Sentenced Him to
Death----The Supreme Court may decide if LBGT discrimination is the same as
racial discrimination.
When Charles Rhines, a gay man, was convicted of the murder of Donnivan
Schaffer in January 1993, the jurors at his trial in South Dakota were tasked
with deciding whether he would serve life in prison without the possibility of
parole, or death. During deliberations, some jurors wondered if life in prison
would be punishment at all, suggesting that years in a men’s prison might not
be a hardship for a man who is gay. The jurors sentenced him to death.
Rhines’ lawyers have filed a petition to the US Supreme Court, asking the
justices to review his case, especially since the high court has weighed in
recently on racial discrimination in juries. But Rhines’ case presents a new
question: Should juries be able to discriminate against the LGBT community?
“Just as the Constitution does not permit a person to be sentenced to die
because of his race, it should not permit a person to be sentenced to die
because of his sexual orientation,” the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund said in an amicus brief supporting Rhines’ petition.
“Just as the Constitution does not permit a person to be sentenced to die
because of his race, it should not permit a person to be sentenced to die
because of his sexual orientation.”
In 1992, Rhines used a key to enter a donut shop that he’d previously been
fired from in Rapid City, South Dakota, to steal cash. The robbery turned
deadly when he was interrupted by Schaefer, a former coworker. Rhines stabbed
Schaefer 3 times, killing him. At the 1993 trial, the jurors sent the judge a
note. In it, they said that in order to consider what “life in prison without
parole” really meant, they needed to know what life in prison would be like for
a gay man like Rhines. They wondered if he would be able to “create a group of
followers or admirers” or “brag about his crime to other inmates…or young men,”
or if he’d have a cellmate and be allowed conjugal visits. “It’s just so clear
in this case that the jury was considering gay bias in their deliberations,”
says Shawn Nolan, one of Rhines’ attorneys. “And the court ought to correct
it.”
The Supreme Court has a mixed record on cases involving discrimination based on
sexual orientation. In 2015, the court ruled in favor of same-sex couples who’d
argued that marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal
protection under the law. But in 2018, the court ruled that a Colorado baker
who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons did
not discriminate against the couple.
The Supreme Court has dealt with racial bias in the death penalty before. In
Buck v. Davis, a 2017 case, the court overruled a black inmate’s death sentence
after it found that a Texas jury was told that black defendants are more
dangerous than white ones. In Texas, jurors can only sentence a defendant to
death if they can prove that he will be a danger to society.
A few weeks later, the court ruled in favor of Miguel Pena-Rodriguez, a Latino
man, who was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment. He pleaded
guilty, but 2 jurors later told his lawyers that another juror had made racist
statements about his likely guilt. Most states have a no-impeachment rule,
which means jurors cannot testify about what was said or occurred during
deliberations. When the case reached the US Supreme Court, it ruled in the
defendant’s favor and established that racial discrimination is the only
exception to the no-impeachment rule. But in March 2019, the Supreme Court
declined to hear the case of Keith Tharpe, a black man who had argued that a
case against him was tainted by a white juror who wondered if black people even
had souls.
(source: motherjones.com)
ARIZONA:
It just got a bit tougher to get the death penalty in Arizona
For a person to be sentenced to death, Arizona law requires proof of at least 1
aggravating circumstance and the determination that the sentence is the most
appropriate punishment.
Wednesday, Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law legislation that eliminates 3 of the
possible aggravating circumstances, potentially limiting how many people will
qualify for a death sentence.
But supporters of the bill have said prosecutors don't use those three factors
very often anyway, and opponents say the new law doesn't go far enough toward
restricting the use of the death penalty.
Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, introduced the legislation. The Senate passed
the bill unanimously; a few Democrats in the House opposed it.
Arizona's last execution took 2 hours
Currently, there are 115 people on death row in Arizona. The most recent
execution was Joseph Wood in 2014.
Wood killed his estranged girlfriend Debra Dietz and her father Eugene in
Tucson in 1989. His botched execution took nearly 2 hours and required 14 more
doses of death drugs than called for in the department’s protocol.
Arizona is among 30 states that still have a death penalty, according to the
Death Penalty Information Center, which provides information on capital
punishment.
Democratic lawmakers have in the past introduced bills in Arizona to eliminate
it, but Republican legislative leaders never put them up for a vote.
New law may have limited impact
Under the new law, the Arizona death penalty statute will decrease from 14
aggravated circumstances to 11.
The law will eliminate:
The defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in
addition to the person murdered.
The offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of
moral or legal justification.
The defendant used a “remote stun gun” during the crime.
In February, Rebecca Baker, a legislative liaison for the Maricopa County
Attorney’s Office, spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the bill. She
said the office had discussions about which factors it used the most when
prosecuting cases and how the statute could be more sustainable for the future.
According to Baker, the three circumstances have proven to historically not be
the most persuasive factors when prosecuting death penalty cases.
Phoenix lawyer Susan Corey spoke at the House Judiciary Committee meeting about
her concerns with the bill. In 2017, Corey asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review Arizona’s death-penalty statute.
“Aggravating factors are designed to identify those most deserving of the death
penalty,” she said.
She said the legal defense community believes the bill is a step in the right
direction toward restricting the death penalty sentence. But she said changes
still need to be made to the state statute overall.
(source: The Arizona Republic)
NEVADA:
Push to ban death penalty expected to fail in Nevada
One Nevada lawmaker who backed a bill (AB149) to end capital punishment said
Wednesday that the measure is not expected to cross the finish line this
legislative session.
Assemblyman Ozzie Fumo said the bill is likely to die in committee because it
will not receive a hearing within the next two days, failing to meet a
legislative deadline.
Fumo, a Las Vegas defense attorney who has represented death row inmates, said
he is baffled the committee did not consider the legislation. The Democrat said
he thought the measure had a good chance of moving forward due to strong
Democratic majorities in each chamber.
Legislators who supported ending capital punishment cited costly appeals.
"We spend millions of dollars defending these people and the state pays for
it," Fumo said, arguing that some Republicans as well see banning the death
penalty as fiscally responsible.
State Sen. James Ohrenschall sponsored a similar bill in the Senate, but he
expressed doubt on Wednesday that the measure would receive a hearing in the
next two days and continue on in the legislative process. The state has not
carried out an execution since 2006.
Ohrenshall said that fact has taken some of the urgency out of moving forward
with a ban on capital punishment in Nevada.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of
Nevada both expressed disappointment that the push to ban capital punishment
did not go further this session.
Holly Welborn, policy director for the ACLU of Nevada, said there are issues of
racial disparities in the way a person receives a sentence for capital
punishment.
"Governmental sanctioned death is one of the biggest intrusions on liberty that
a person could experience," she said. "And death at the hands of the state is
something that we have argued as being contrary to the Eight Amendment --
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."
(source: Associated Press)
CALIFORNIA:
Golden State Killer: California prosecutors to seek death penalty
Prosecutors in California will seek the death penalty if they convict the man
suspected of being the notorious “Golden State Killer”.
The move comes less than a month after the California governor, Gavin Newsom,
announced a moratorium on executing any of the 737 inmates on the nation’s
largest death row. But Newsom’s reprieve lasts only so long as he is governor
and does not prevent prosecutors from seeking nor judges and juries from
imposing death sentences.
Prosecutors from four counties in the state briefly announced their decision
one after another on Wednesday during a short court hearing for Joseph
DeAngelo, jailed as the suspected “Golden State Killer”.
DeAngelo was arrested a year ago based on DNA evidence linking him to at least
13 murders and more than 50 rapes across California in the 1970s and 80s.
He stood expressionless in an orange jail uniform, staring forward from a
courtroom cage, as prosecutors from Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Orange and
Ventura spoke.
Although prosecutors from six counties were in court for the four-minute
hearing, charges in those four counties include the special circumstances that
could merit execution under California law.
DeAngelo’s attorney, the public defender Diane Howard, did not comment.
DeAngelo, 73, has yet to enter a plea and his trial is probably years away.
Prosecutors wouldn’t comment after the hearing, but the Orange county district
attorney, Todd Spitzer, said several prosecutors and family members of murder
victims planned a Thursday news conference to denounce Newsom’s moratorium.
An announcement from Spitzer’s office said victims’ families “will share their
stories of losing their loved ones and how the governor’s moratorium has
devastated their pursuit of justice”.
“These are horrific crimes,” Newsom said in a statement. “Our sympathies are
with the victims and families who have suffered at the hands of the Golden
State Killer. The district attorneys can pursue this action as is their right
under the law.”
California has not executed anyone since 2006, but Newsom said he acted last
month because 25 inmates have exhausted their appeals and court challenges to
the state’s new lethal injection process are potentially nearing their end. He
endorsed a repeal of capital punishment but said he could not in good
conscience allow executions to resume in the meantime knowing that some
innocent inmates could die.
He also said he is exploring ways to commute death sentences, which would
permanently end the chance of executions, though he cannot act without
permission from the state supreme court in many cases.
Voters narrowly supported capital punishment in 2012 and 2016, when they voted
to speed up executions by shortening appeals.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation legal director, Kent Scheidegger, said
prosecutors’ decision made sense despite Newsom’s moratorium.
“It’s a perfect example of a killer for whom anything less would not be
justice,” said Scheidegger, who is fighting in court to resume executions. “I
think it’s entirely appropriate for DAs to continue seeking the death penalty
in appropriate cases, because the actual execution will be well down the road
and the governor’s reprieve won’t be in effect by then. Something else will
have happened.”
(source: The Guardian)
*****************
Attorneys to seek death penalty if East Area Rapist suspect convicted
The man accused of being the East Area Rapist and the Golden State Killer
appeared in court Wednesday.
Joseph DeAngelo, 73, is charged with 13 counts of murder, with many additional
special circumstances, as well as 13 counts of kidnapping for robbery in 6
counties, officials said.
Prosecutors from 5 California counties appeared in court and said that if
DeAngelo is convicted, they will seek the death penalty.
The crimes happened in Sacramento, Contra Costa, Orange, Santa Barbara, Tulare
and Ventura counties between 1975 and 1986, investigators said.
DeAngelo's charges were announced in Orange County last August. District
attorneys from several California counties, including Sacramento County,
announced last year that the case will be tried in Sacramento.
"On behalf of at least some of the victims of the Golden State Killer, we are
thrilled with the decision to seek the death penalty," said Ron Harrington,
whose brother and sister-in-law were victims of the Golden State Killer.
Newlyweds Keith and Patty Harrington were killed in 1980.
(source: KCRA news)
_______________________________________________
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
