May 1
KENTUCKY:
Prosecutor: Daviess Co. sees most death penalties at once in history
Matt Adams, Arnett Baines and Cylar Shemwell are all now facing the death
penalty. All 3 charged with murder.
“We have not had this type of violence in Daviess County at any point in
history that I know of," Bruce Kuegel the Commonwealth’s attorney said.
Kuegel has served as the commonwealth attorney in Daviess county for the past
11 years. He says he doesn’t remember a time when so many murders have
happened.
“We’re at a level now that’s just unheard of," he said. "And it’s staggering to
us.”
He shares that death penalty cases often take a long time to prepare. Baines'
trial is set for March of 2021. Kuegel says there is so much evidence to go
through in these cases.
“We’re in uncharted territory," Kuegel said. "We have never experienced this
many death penalty cases at the same time.”
And while Kuegel is seeking the ultimate penalty in these cases, it doesn’t
always mean death for the defendant. Filing the death penalty adds 2 additional
penalties, life in prison without parole or 25 years in prison before parole is
considered.
To file for the death penalty in Kentucky, the crime must have specific
aggravated circumstances. But for Kuegel, he says it's not something he files
without considering everyone involved.
“You have to be cognizant of the effect that this is having on the families,"
Kuegel said. "And by the same token, you have to look at the effect that it’s
having on the community and what the community expects.”
(source: WFIE news)
TENNESSEE:
Death penalty an option for Middle Tennessee man accused of killing 7
The death penalty could be an option for a Sumner County man accused of the
worst homicide event in Tennessee's last 20 years.
Sumner County District Attorney Ray Whitley says the death penalty is an option
for Michael Cummins, the man accused of killing 7 people in Westmoreland over
the weekend. Among those killed by blunt force trauma include Cummins' mother,
father, and uncle.
Cummins has not been officially charged due to being in the hospital and
waiting on the Medical Examiner's findings. Once he is released, Cummins will
be charged with probation violation. The DA will then use information from the
Medical Examiner to determine other charges.
According to the Medical Examiner's report released on Tuesday, all seven
victims in the Westmoreland killings died from multiple blunt force injuries
and some of the victims also had sharp force injuries.
(source: Fox News)
WYOMING:
Group seeking to eliminate death penalty in Wyoming kicks off effort
The diverse group behind the push to end Wyoming’s death penalty has geared up
for a significant push to pass a bill by the end of the 2020 legislative
session.
The Wyoming ACLU, League of Women Voters, Wyoming NAACP and representatives
from the Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne, Holy Apostles Orthodox Christian Church
of Cheyenne and other religious groups announced their intent to push for a
repeal bill in the 2020 budget session.
“When we continue to allow the laws that allow for the death penalty to exist,
as people were saying, this is being done in our name,” said Sabrina King,
director of campaigns for the ACLU of Wyoming, during a Tuesday news conference
in Cheyenne.
“It’s incumbent on us to ensure that the laws that exist are the laws we feel
are ... are doing the work that we believe in,” King said. “All the people who
are standing here, and all of us who will be working on this over the course of
the next year, are becoming part of a movement that has been going on, frankly,
for decades and centuries.”
The group wants to capitalize on the efforts of the 2019 legislative session
that saw a repeal bill fail 18-12 in the Senate. House Bill 145 was able to
pass out of the House on a 36-21 vote, however.
That type of success surprised supporters and encouraged them to continue to
push the issue into the 2020 budget session.
“We went further with more votes than we’ve had before, and we realized how
much actual support is in the Legislature, and outside, as well,” said
Marguerite Herman, lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of Wyoming. “This is
not just tilting at windmills. We think we have a good chance to get the votes.
We’re going to have to turn some minds and turn some hearts. But we think we
can do it.”
Rep. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, sponsored HB 145, and said Tuesday the success of
repealing the death penalty in Wyoming would hinge on educating not only
lawmakers, but also the state as a whole.
“I think the difference between success and failure is education. I watched
that unfold throughout the session,” Olsen said. “I watched it unfold for
myself.”
Olsen pointed to how his own views evolved on the issue, going from a death
penalty supporter to the lawmaker who sponsored the repeal bill.
He said he was swayed by the financial cost to the state – about $1 million
annually just to have it on the books – by the moral quandary of allowing the
state to take a life, and the fact that more than 160 people have been wrongly
convicted and sentenced to death in the United States before eventually being
exonerated.
“I began to learn that the system was broken. Even if we had failed just one
time and there was one exoneree in the United States, I think the system would
be broken,” Olsen said.
The effort will face a hurdle trying to get a bill passed during the 2020
budget session. A 2/3 vote of support is required for a non-budget bill to get
introduced, something Herman said she believed they’ll be able to muster in the
House.
“We’re thinking 2020 does actually have a good chance. There’s a lot of time
before the budget is taken up, which sucks up all the air in the room. There’s
a period during which I think there’s a little bit of time to discuss some
fairly substantive issues,” Herman said. “We’re committed to pursuing it until
we succeed. We’re not looking at this as an intermediate stop, but it may turn
out to be.”
Even though the 2020 budget session only lasts about a month, Herman said the
effort would benefit from all the discussion and education that occurred this
past session.
Since 1976, Wyoming has only executed 1 person: Mark Hopkinson, who was put to
death in 1992. One inmate, Dale Wayne Eaton, had his death sentence overturned
in 2014.
(source: Wyoming Tribune Eagle)
NEVADA:
Defense lawyers challenge Nevada death penalty law
Lawyers defending a man in a capital murder case are challenging Nevada's death
penalty law using an unusual argument.
They want a judge in Las Vegas to declare capital punishment unconstitutional
because they say the 2 most powerful Democrats in the state Legislature killed
discussion about 2 measures that aimed to repeal it.
A court filing last week on behalf of Alonso Perez argues that because Senate
Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson are
deputy Clark County district attorneys, they made sure the death penalty repeal
bills never got a hearing.
Perez's assigned lawyers allege that amounts to improper interference in the
lawmaking process by the 2 career prosecutors who serve as part-time
legislators.
Cannizzaro and Frierson didn't immediately respond on Monday to messages about
the lawsuit.
(source: Las Vegas Sun)
********************
Lawyers in murder cases ask judge to kill death penalty
Lawyers defending a man in 3 murder cases want a judge to declare capital
punishment unconstitutional in Nevada after the two most powerful Democrats in
the state Legislature, who also work as prosecutors, killed measures that aimed
to repeal it.
A court filing on behalf of 27-year-old defendant Alonso Perez argues that
because Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Jason
Frierson are deputy Clark County district attorneys, they made sure the death
penalty repeal bills didn't get a hearing.
Perez's assigned lawyers, led by JoNell Thomas, alleged improper interference
in the lawmaking process by the 2 career prosecutors who serve as elected,
part-time legislators.
Cannizzaro declined Tuesday to comment. Frierson didn't immediately respond
Monday and Tuesday to messages about the court filing in one of three capital
murder cases pending against Perez.
Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson also didn't respond to claims that
as the employer of Cannizzaro and Frierson, he has "direct authority over the
legislative leadership" and "indirect authority over his subordinates."
Perez's lawyers want the judge to order Wolfson to turn over copies of any
emails, memos and telephone records between supervisory prosecutors and
prosecutors serving in the Legislature.
They say they expect the records to show that Cannizzaro and Frierson were told
to deny hearings and votes concerning capital punishment.
The 22-page court filing, dated April 25, asserts "the death penalty in Nevada
is invalid because the legislative process ... has been compromised due to
prosecutorial interference and dominance in Nevada's Legislature."
Assemblyman Ozzie Fumo and state Sen. James Ohrenschall, both Democrats,
sponsored the bills that would have eliminated the death penalty. Fumo declined
to comment about the lawsuit. Ohrenschall did not immediately respond to
messages.
Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, has said he opposes the death penalty except in
extreme circumstances. His spokeswoman, Helen Kalla, declined to comment about
the new death penalty challenge.
Nevada lawmakers re-established capital punishment in the state in 1977 and
directed that executions should be by lethal injection. Nevada currently has 77
inmates on death row. The most recent execution was in 2006.
The state recently moved to the forefront of the death penalty debate when the
lethal injection of a twice-convicted murderer who said he wanted to die was
called off twice — in late 2017 due to challenges of a 3-drug combination never
before used in the U.S., and in July 2018 after drug companies sued to block
their products from being used.
The inmate at the center of those cases, Scott Raymond Dozier, later killed
himself in prison.
Perez faces separate murder trials next year in slayings in August 2015. The
court filing on his behalf raises multiple objections to the death penalty in
Nevada, including the cost compared with life in prison, concerns about racial
disparity, and an expansion since 1977 in the list of aggravating circumstances
that allow prosecutors to ask juries to impose death.
Thomas is due to make arguments in the case on May 15 before Clark County
District Court Judge Douglas Herndon.
(source: Associated Press)
CALIFORNIA:
1 Month Later, Strong Emotions About California's Execution Moratorium
1 month into California’s moratorium on executions, the historic action by
Governor Gavin Newsom (pictured) is drawing high praise from exonerees, mixed
reviews from victims’ families, and unusually personal condemnation from
political adversaries. Kirk Bloodsworth — the 1st former death-row prisoner
exonerated by DNA evidence — wrote that he was “thrilled” by the news of the
moratorium. Bloodsworth, the interim executive director of the death-row
exonerees’ organization, Witness to Innocence, said the moratorium would
prevent the “unforgivable and grave mistake” of executing an innocent person.
Beth Webb — whose sister and a close friend were killed and whose mother was
wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in Orange County history — said she
“could not be prouder to have Gov. Gavin Newsom standing with me and other
loved ones of victims for whom the death penalty has created years of prolonged
pain and suffering rather than any sense of justice.” At the same time, several
California district attorneys staged a press conference with family members of
other victims to denounce Newsom and the moratorium, and four prosecutors
authored a CNN op-ed accusing the governor of ignoring victims and
“singlehandedly undermining” California’s democratic government.
At an April 11 press conference in Sacramento the day after prosecutors
announced they would seek the death penalty against Joseph DeAngelo — linked by
DNA to at least 13 murders and 50 rapes in the 1970s and 1980s — Orange County
District Attorney said “Governor Newsom took a knife and stabbed all the
victims and all the victims’ families in the heart.” Ron Harrington — whose
brother was murdered and sister-in-law was raped and murdered called the
accused Golden State Killer “the worst of the worst of the worst ever. He is
the poster child for the death penalty,” Harrington said. In their CNN op-ed,
District Attorneys Anne Marie Schubert of Sacramento County, Michael Hestrin of
Riverside County, Lisa Smittcamp of Fresno County, and Gilbert Otero of
Imperial County derided the moratorium order as “a slap in the face to crime
victims and their families” and an “autocratic decree [that was] a disgraceful
day for democracy.”
In an op-ed in the Mercury News, Bloodsworth called the moratorium necessary to
address California’s “long history of wrongful convictions.” He wrote that,
“[s]ince 1989, 191 men and women have been exonerated of serious crimes in
California. And since the death penalty was reinstated in the state, five men
have been released from death row.” Those wrongful convictions, he said, had
been caused by “witness misidentification, the use of junk science, false
informant testimony, misconduct by police or prosecutors, and false
confessions,” with multiple causes often present in each case. In an April 28,
2019 op-ed in the Orange County Register, Webb described how years of
deliberate misconduct by Orange County sheriffs and prosecutors forced local
courts to bar the death penalty for convicted mass murderer Scott Dekraai.
“From the beginning, it was clear the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and
the District Attorney’s office were so focused on pursuing the death penalty
that they were willing to cheat, withhold evidence and even lie on the stand”
to stonewall the investigation of a multi-decade scandal involving the
deliberate misuse of prison informants. “Because of the way some overzealous
prosecutors pursue the death penalty at all costs, this case that should have
been quickly concluded dragged on for six years, subjecting me, my family and
the loved ones of the other victims to unimaginable pain,” Webb said. She also
warned of “another, insidious, evil of the death penalty... [, that] it is
wielded as a tool to score political points by an increasingly small group of
prosecutors.”
Newsom’s moratorium order also drew support from six former governors who had
granted clemency, imposed moratoria, or ended the death penalty in their
states. In a blog post, Governors Richard Celeste, John Kitzhaber, Martin
O’Malley, Bill Richardson, Pat Quinn and Toney Anaya wrote that Newsom’s action
“took great courage, and the ability to see that his state’s death row …
exemplified just how broken the system is.” The former governors praised Newsom
for recognizing that “inaction isn’t an option” and assured Newsom that “he
isn’t alone.”
(Kirk Bloodsworth, Opinion: My wrongful conviction shows need to abolish death
penalty, The Mercury News, March 27, 2019; Beth Webb, I will spend my life
fighting against the death penalty and I’m proud to have Newsom with me, The
Orange County Register, April 28, 2019; Anne Marie Schubert, Michael Hestrin,
Lisa Smittcamp, and Gilbert Otero, California Gov. Gavin Newsom's death penalty
moratorium is a disgrace, CNN, April 23, 2019; Richard Celeste, John Kitzhaber,
Martin O’Malley, Bill Richardson, Pat Quinn and Toney Anaya, 6 former governors
tell CA Gov. Newsom “he isn’t alone”, Death Penalty Focus Blog, April 12, 2019;
Andrew O’Reilly, Family members of murder victims slam California Gov. Newsom's
moratorium on death penalty, Fox News, April 11, 2019.) See Victims, Innocence,
and Prosecutorial Misconduct.
(source: Death Penalty Information Center)
USA:
Finding Common Ground on Repealing the Death Penalty
What do Michael Bloomberg and Oliver North have in common? How about Michelle
Malkin and Kim Kardashian West, or Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders? They may not
share much turf when it comes to their political or social views, but they do
all agree on 1 point that may surprise you.
They all oppose the death penalty.
Support for repealing the death penalty is diverse, it is growing, and it is
bipartisan in nature. The brokenness of the death penalty system, long
documented in local headlines and the cases they highlight, has hit a turning
point with the public. This year alone, Republicans sponsored death
penalty-repeal bills in ten states. That’s in keeping with trends that my
organization, Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, has been
tracking since 2012.
I am a walking example of this trend.
Growing up as a conservative and as the daughter of a Southern Baptist
minister, my views on the death penalty were for many years exactly what one
might expect—absolutely pro. But I changed my stance after finally digging
deeper, and learning just how frequently innocent people are caught up in the
system. I learned about the outrageous costs of the death penalty’s operation.
I learned that the death penalty does not deter crime. I learned of the
extraordinary arbitrariness and racial bias in sentencing.
These are the reasons that many on the political right, like myself, are
joining the opposition to capital punishment and fighting for repeal.
At the end of the day, the death penalty is another failed big government
program marked by the same inefficiency and misallocation of resources found
throughout almost all bureaucracies. The tenets of conservatism are
straightforward: a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the
protection of the sanctity of human life. The death penalty does not meet any
of those metrics, so it makes sense that conservatives are abandoning it in
droves.
It’s been a rough few years politically in our country. The divisiveness and
the disagreements have left many Americans feeling as though we’ll never come
together again. I would argue that our ability to band together despite
differences in ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, and culture is what
has made American civil society so strong for so many years. On this point, the
encouraging thing that I see in my work and in the movement against the death
penalty at large is it is providing those of us eager to find new common ground
with an opportunity to work across the aisle, on an issue we can all agree is
unjust.
As state legislatures across this country debated repeal bills, I’ve sat
shoulder to shoulder in hearings with people from all walks of life: Democrats,
Republicans, Libertarians; murder victims’ family members and death row
exonerees; Baptist, Jewish, Catholic, and Unitarian religious leaders; retired
law enforcement, state attorneys general, judges, and lawyers. The list goes on
and on. We have come together despite perceived and actual differences in
stations, beliefs, and backgrounds to eliminate this broken system. There is
power in that.
In addition to the growing number of repeal bills across the nation, there are
some other signs of success that point to Americans’ growing disapproval. New
death sentences are actually down 60 % since 2000, and last year was the 4th
year in a row that the country carried out fewer than 30 executions. All 25 of
those executions stemmed from just 8 states, and Texas alone was responsible
for over 1/2 of them.
In short, not only is usage of the death penalty down, it is concentrated and
isolated.
I often say that support for the death penalty runs a mile wide and an inch
deep. The minute someone takes time to examine the facts around the death
penalty support quickly wanes. My elevator pitch response to “what do you do?”
is almost always real-time evidence of this fact. There are simply too many
problems with the system for us to allow it to continue.
Given all the progress we have made in repealing the death penalty in recent
years, and the diversity of support that made it happen, I think it makes
perfect sense for Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty and the ACLU
to work together as the U.S. marches closer to ridding the nation of this
broken system forever.
When those opportunities arise and we find issues that unite us, I believe we
must choose to come together. And when we come together as Americans, we know
big things happen and we can fulfill the promise of justice in our justice
system, one defined by equity, conscience, and our shared values as a society.
(source: Hannah Cox, National Manager, Conservatives Concerned About the Death
Penalty, aclu.org)
**********************
Chase professor cited, quoted in national death penalty case
Drug dealer Azibo Aquart and his accomplices pulled on their masks and armed
themselves early one morning on August 24, 2005, to break in a “perceived” drug
competitor’s apartment. After constraining her and 2 others in the apartment,
Aquart and company beat them to death with baseball bats, according to an
edited version of the case.
Aquart was convicted of “murder in aid of racketeering and murder in connection
with a continuing criminal drug enterprise and was sentenced to death,”
according to the background of the case.
Although he was issued the death penalty at the federal level, Aquart is
originally from Connecticut, a state that banned the death penalty.
That’s where Chase Law Professor Michael Mannheimer steps in. Mannheimer has
done research for cases similar to this one.
Mannheimer said that as long as he can remember he has always wanted to be a
lawyer. He likes to argue, reason things out and is good at math, which he said
helps him think through things logically and systematically.
Mannheimer explained that the federal death penalty applies to every state, but
he argues against this.
“It’s an interesting case because, at the time of the killings, Connecticut had
the death penalty, but since then, Connecticut has repealed their death
penalty,” Mannheimer said.
At the end of the oral argument, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Guido
Calabresi, according to Ballotpedia.org, asked that the parties submit briefs
on “original understanding” of the Eighth Amendment and how it applies to
United States v. Aquart, Mannheimer said.
The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
It’s the last part of the Eighth Amendment that serves as an argument made by
the defense.
“You can’t apply the federal death penalty for a crime that occurred in a
non-death penalty issue,” Mannheimer said agreeing with an argument made by the
defense.
The defense cited Mannheimer’s work, citing one of his articles to make this
argument.
Mannheimer has written several articles on this topic; he summarized his
viewpoint as to supercede how the Eighth Amendment framers and ratifiers used
the words “unusual punishments.”
“What they meant by the word unusual was ‘not permitted by law’, and what a lot
of them were thinking of, I think, was ‘not permitted by the law of the
state’,” Mannheimer said.
Mannheimer explained that state law was used to protect individual rights and
in order to ensure that the federal government supersede these state laws, the
Bill of Rights was created as a compromise.
“The best test for what is unusual is, ‘Is it authorized by law?’” Mannheimer
said.
Calabresi, however, said, “I concur in the result, namely, that nothing in the
constitutional arguments that are before us precludes a new penalty
proceeding,” according to an edited version of the case.
In addition to his research and being cited 10 times, Mannheimer also teaches
several course ranging from criminal law, evidence and the death penalty.
John DeRossett, Chase Law student, explained that every professor’s teaching
style is different. However, he likes Mannheimer’s teaching style better than
other professors he’s had before.
“He is hard, but I respect him. He is very detail oriented when it comes to
cases,” said 2nd year Chase student, Dayna Wilson. “He’s helpful for that, he’s
helpful for the research, because he’s so knowledgeable.”
(source: thenortherner.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
