June 22
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Reflections on the end of the death penalty in NH
I spent my first year out of law school as a law clerk for Paul C. Reardon, a
justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We had many interesting
cases, and I helped Judge Reardon draft opinions in the cases that assigned to
him.
One such case was Commonwealth v. Ladetto, a murder case in which Peter Ladetto
was convicted of killing a police officer while attempting to commit a robbery.
Under Massachusetts law at that time, 1st degree murder carried an automatic
death sentence unless the jury, as part of its verdict, recommended life
imprisonment.
I had read “Reflections on the Guillotine,” a 1957 essay by the French writer
Albert Camus, which convinced me that the death penalty was a bad idea, a view
I have held ever since. I probably approached my work in the case — reviewing
the record, researching the law, drafting an opinion — with the hope of finding
a basis on which Ladetto might avoid execution.
And I found one, or at least thought I did. I wrote a memorandum arguing that
the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed a single holdout juror to
send a person convicted of murder to the electric chair. Judge Reardon showed
my memo to “the Chief,” but that’s as far as it went. The court upheld
Ladetto’s conviction and death sentence. That was in 1965.
Some years later the Supreme Judicial Court declared the death penalty
unconstitutional under the Massachusetts state constitution, and Ladetto
managed to live out his life in prison, where he died a few years ago, more
than 50 years after killing Officer Callahan.
Meanwhile, American law has repeatedly confronted the issue of the death
penalty, with a hodgepodge of rulings that have created little clarity and
widespread uncertainty. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in Furman v. Georgia
that the death penalty laws of several states were so arbitrary and
discriminatory that they violated the Eighth Amendment protection against
inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The result was a national death
penalty moratorium, which only lasted for a few years.
In 1976 the court held, in Gregg v. Georgia, that the death penalty was
constitutional so long as state law included objective criteria for the jury to
consider, for example a history of felonies, a particularly vicious crime, or
killing a police officer, and so long as the jury considered the defendant’s
background, meaning mitigating or aggravating factors. The latter is what
produced the current system of a separate sentencing hearing after a guilty
finding.
The death penalty question goes back to debates over the bill of rights in
1789. New Hampshire’s Samuel Livermore argued during the First Congress that
“it is sometimes necessary to hang a man,” even if doing so was “cruel.”
21 years earlier, New Hampshire had executed a woman named Ruth Blay. That was
some 250 years ago. Over the course of time, the state has carried out the
death penalty a total of 22 times, most recently in 1939. It is now generally
agreed that Blay was innocent.
In 2008, Michael Addison was convicted of murdering a Manchester police officer
and sentenced to death. He has been on death row ever since, and the state has
spent over $5 million on his case. Meanwhile, in 2018 the legislature voted to
repeal the death penalty, but Gov. Chris Sununu successfully vetoed the bill.
This year was different. Once more, the Legislature voted to repeal the death
penalty for any conviction “on or after” passage of the new law. The governor
again exercised his veto power, but this time both the House and the Senate
narrowly mustered the required two-thirds vote and overrode the veto on a
bipartisan basis.
Nationally, the picture is quite different. While the Supreme Court has chipped
away at capital punishment in certain types of cases, for example in cases of
rape, or if the defendant is insane, mentally retarded, or under age 18, or if
the method of execution inflicts excessive pain, today’s court seems eager to
impose strict rules of enforcement and expedite the death penalty. Just
recently Justice Breyer was left writing an anguished dissent at 3 o’clock in
the morning, requesting a brief delay so that the Justices could discuss the
case later that morning. He lost by a vote of 5 to 4, suggesting that on this
issue at least, the court is badly split and anything but collegial.
I suppose Camus was wrong in at least one respect. The death penalty does work
in the sense that it kills people convicted of murder. But the price is too
high. Keeping Addison in prison for life would cost less than the state has
already spent. And Ruth Blay isn’t the only wrongfully executed person.
According to one report, fifteen innocent people have been executed in the
United States since 1976. And, thanks to improvements in DNA science, over 150
death row inmates have been exonerated.
So in the larger sense, it doesn’t work, for the simple reason that the justice
system is not sufficiently reliable to allow the government to put someone to
death. I, for one, am grateful to the Legislature for doing away with the death
penalty in New Hampshire, putting us in company with most civilized countries,
if not our own.
The repeal does not apply to Michael Addison. Will he follow in Ladetto’s
footsteps and live out his life in prison? Or will he be our 23rd execution?
His fate remains unknown.
(source: Op-Ed----Joseph D. Steinfield is a lawyer who lives in Keene and
Jaffrey; The Keene Sentinel)
GEORGIA:
Rowe death penalty trial slated for November
The death penalty trial of Donnie Rowe, who is accused of murder in the
shooting deaths of two officers with the Georgia Department of Corrections
during a June 2017 prison bus escape in Putnam County, is expected to get
underway in early November.
Another pre-trial hearing to discuss additional motions related to the capital
murder case was held Thursday morning in Putnam County Superior Court in
Eatonton before Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Brenda H.
Trammell.
Plans going forward are to begin jury selection process in Grady County on
Monday, Oct. 28, Trammell said.
The judge said she had spoken with the chief judge in that circuit, and that
everything had been lined up to begin jury selection and then transport the
jurors to Putnam County to begin the trial of Rowe, one of two defendants
accused in the shooting deaths of GDOC Sgt. Curtis Billue and Sgt. Christopher
Monica.
Trammell said court officials in Grady County have offered all of their
facilities to local court officials, including District Attorney Stephen A.
Bradley; Senior Assistant District Attorney Allison Mauldin; Assistant District
Attorney T. Wright Barksdale; and D.A. Chief Investigator Mark Robinson.
“They could not have been more accommodating,” Trammell said of the chief judge
and other court officials in Grady County.
Rowe, who is represented by Adam Lavine and Erin Wallace, of Athens, came into
the courtroom for Thursday’s hearing wearing a white dress shirt and gray dress
slacks and sporting a full beard.
Lavine said he and his co-counsel were not ready to try the case yet and said
he didn’t anticipate, constitutionally speaking, being ready in November.
The other co-defendant in the case, Ricky Dubose, is charged with the same
crimes as Rowe and will be tried first in a separate trial. Dubose’s trial will
be held in Brunswick beginning Sept. 30. Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Superior
Court Judge Alison T. Burleson will preside over that trial.
The latest hearing involving the Rowe case lasted only a half-hour and included
prosecution and defense attorneys once again discussing outstanding motions
related to the case.
They did not argue any of the motions during the public portion of the hearing.
Motions brought up at the hearing included:
Motion No. 41 - To bar unconstitutional convictions and bad acts.
Motion No. 30 - To prohibit non-statutory aggravators.
Motion No. 46 - To preclude the admission of gruesome photographs and highly
prejudicial photographs.
Motion No. 47 - To preclude judicial security measures.
Motion No. 101 - For district attorney to reveal acquisition of medical
records.
Several of the motions are expected to be argued by attorneys during Rowe’s
next hearing date, which is set for July 12.
(source: The Union-Recorder)
FLORIDA:
Resentencing trial delayed for Joseph Smith in Carlie Brucia murder
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are awaiting a ruling from the Florida
Supreme Court before determining the resentencing for the man convicted in the
abduction, rape and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in Sarasota in 2004.
The resentencing trial for Joseph Smith was set for October, but on Thursday,
prosecutors and his defense attorneys requested the date be delayed as the
state Supreme Court considers the resentencing issue.
Smith was sentenced to death in 2006 by a 10-2 jury vote, but a 2016 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Hurst v. Florida required all death sentences to be
unanimous; the ruling can be applied retroactively to cases dating back to
2002, allowing death row inmates the possibility of resentencing.
Retroactive resentencing is dependent on the ruling Ring v. Arizona (2002) in
which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juries, rather than the judge, must
decide on the factor that makes a defendant eligible for the death penalty.
“Now death penalty cases must be unanimous. Before it was simple majority,”
said Karen Fraivillig, prosecuting attorney for the case.
Smith appealed his sentence, claiming it is no longer valid.
After an April 24 order, the Florida Supreme Court is accepting briefs with
information and arguments about the validity of retroactive resentencing. The
decision, which Fraivillig said will likely take several months, could impact
many death row cases in the state.
This decision could determine if Smith is entitled to a new sentencing.
“Everything is contingent on the Supreme Court decision,” she said.
Fraivillig said the judge agreed to remove the trial from the October docket,
but told both attorneys to continue to prepare for the case, awaiting the
Florida Supreme Court’s decision.
“We’re saying let’s wait and see,” Fraivillig said.
(source: Sarasota Herald-Tribune)
ALABAMA:
HBO documentary to examine the life of EJI director Bryan Stevenson
To understand the work of Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson is
to examine what it means to be on death row.
Currently, 174 men and women have been convicted of crimes deemed so heinous,
the state of Alabama will spend taxpayer dollars to kill them, despite having
no statewide service to defend them. Oftentimes, those inhabiting death row
come from poverty and face state-sanctioned execution due to less than adequate
legal defense. African-Americans comprise less than 13 percent of the
population, but make up 42 percent of death row prisoners nationally and more
than 50 percent in Alabama, a striking statistic that led Stevenson in 2016 to
call capital punishment “a stepchild of lynching.”
Since the late 1980s, Stevenson has made defending death row inmates and
combating judicial discrimination his life.
On June 26, the HBO documentary “True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for
Equality” will examine the life of the modern day civil rights defender whose
nonprofit EJI fights for the rights of the poor, the incarcerated and the
wrongfully convicted.
“I’m grateful to HBO and Kunhardt Films for their interest in our work,”
Stevenson said in a statement. “We have ignored our nation’s history of racial
inequality and the unfairness of our criminal justice for far too long. I am
persuaded that if we commit to challenging racial injustice, poverty and abuse
of power, we can achieve a more just society. I hope films like this can
contribute to that goal.”
A Delaware native and Harvard law graduate, Stevenson’s work in the South began
in 1985 when he joined the Southern Center for Human Rights and moved to
Atlanta. Stevenson soon earned directorship of the Alabama Capital
Representation Resource Center’s Montgomery office, a federally funded death
penalty defense organization.
In 1993, Stevenson secured the exoneration of Walter McMillian, a 46-year-old
black man who had been sentenced to death by Judge Robert E. Lee Key Jr. for
the shooting death of an 18-year-old white woman. Stevenson proved the state’s
case was built on perjury and that evidence had been withheld from McMillian’s
legal team.
“It was too easy for one person to come into court and frame a man for a murder
he didn't commit. It was too easy for the state to convict someone for that
crime and then have him sentenced to death. And it was too hard in light of the
evidence of his innocence to show this court that he should never have been
here in the first place,” Stevenson said after the trial.
Congress pulled funding for death-penalty defense in 1994, but Stevenson’s
purpose took on a new guise in the formation of EJI.
Since its founding, EJI has been the tip of the spear for Stevenson’s mission
and values, which can be summed up by his oft-used phrase “Each of us is more
than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”
In 2015, EJI secured the exoneration of Anthony Ray Hinton, who spent 30 years
in prison, charged with two murders he did not commit.
Besides working to provide legal counsel to those who would otherwise fall
through the cracks, EJI also jump-started a national conversation on the
history of racial oppression in the U.S. last year when it opened the first
national memorial to African-American lynching victims and the Legacy Museum,
which traces slavery through the Jim Crow era to the modern era of mass
incarceration.
Stevenson speaks publicly and passionately about the work being done and the
obstacles facing his organization in a nation with the highest incarceration
rate, a state which leads the nation in death row sentences per capita, and a
city that became a slave trading capital of the Confederate States of America.
And yet, little is said of who Stevenson is and how he came to carry a cause
larger than himself.
When asked that very question in a 1991 Washington Post interview, Stevenson
responded, “How can anyone do anything else?”
“True Justice” will premiere on Wednesday, June 26, on HBO.
(source: Montgomery Advertiser)
MISSISSIPPI:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Conviction of Mississippi Man on Death Row----Curtis
Flowers, who was tried for murder 6 times, argued that the same prosecutor in
all of his cases intentionally excluded black jurors based on racial
discrimination.
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the death sentence of a Mississippi man
who alleged that the prosecutor in all of this cases intentionally excluded
black jurors based on racial discrimination.
In a 7-2 ruling in "Flowers v. Mississippi," the court reversed the 2010
conviction of Curtis Flowers, a black man accused of murdering four people in
Mississippi in 1996. Flowers, who has been tried 6 times for murder and is now
on death row, argued that prosecutor Doug Evans, who is white, barred
African-Americans from serving as jurors based on their race.
The high court's majority ruled that Evans violated the 1986 decision in
"Batson v. Kentucky," which ruled that attorneys can't use peremptory
challenges – an objection to a proposed juror without needing to give a reason
– to strike prospective jurors based solely on their race.
Flowers was convicted in his first 3 trials, but the Mississippi Supreme Court
reversed all 3 convictions, citing racial discrimination in the jury selection
process. His 4th and 4th ended in mistrials with hung juries. In his 6th trial,
he was sentenced to death and the state Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.
In all of Flowers' trials combined, Evans has struck 41 of the 42 black
prospective jurors.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion was joined by Chief
Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kavanaugh wrote that the trial
court committed "clear error" by concluding that the state's peremptory strike
of a black prospective juror "was not motivated in substantial part by
discriminatory intent."
"Equal justice under law requires a criminal trial free of racial
discrimination in the jury selection process," Kavanaugh wrote. "Enforcing that
constitutional principle, Batson ended the widespread practice in which
prosecutors could (and often would) routinely strike all black prospective
jurors in cases involving black defendants."
Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned the dissenting opinion, was joined by
Justice Neil Gorsuch. The case attracted national attention when Thomas spoke
during arguments for the 1st time in 3 years.
"The majority's opinion is so manifestly incorrect that I must proceed to the
merits," Thomas wrote. "Flowers presented no evidence whatsoever of purposeful
race discrimination by the State in selecting the jury during the trial below."
(source: US News & World Report)
LOUISIANA:
In Louisiana, a Messenger of Change Disregards His Message----James Stewart,
Caddo Parish’s DA, continues to defend controversial death sentences that
originated with his predecessors.
Between 2010 and 2014, 3 people were principally responsible for making Caddo
Parish, Louisiana, the death penalty capital of America: District Attorney
Charles Scott and 2 of his assistant DAs, Dale Cox and Hugo Holland.
Holland was forced to resign in 2012 after he and several other employees of
the district attorney’s office falsified paperwork in their attempts to qualify
for weapons from the federal government’s surplus military gear program meant
for police departments. Scott died in 2015 from a heart attack, and Cox chose
not to run to be his replacement following the media attention he received
after telling the Shreveport Times, “I think we need to kill more people. … I
think the death penalty should be used more often.” Nevertheless, the effects
of their administration persist.
Caddo Parish accounts for roughly 5 percent of the state’s population, 10
percent of homicides in the state, but nearly half of all death sentences in
the past 12 years. The rate of death sentences per homicide was eight times
higher than the rest of Louisiana between 2006 and 2015, according to the Death
Penalty Information Center. This extreme disparity of death sentences handed
down in the parish prompted Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to question
the constitutionality of the death penalty.
James Stewart was elected to be Scott’s successor. Electing the former judge,
who received financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros, was seen
by some as a sign of reform in a system that had become synonymous with
corruption and racism. At the same time, there were signs that Stewart would
not be the reformer some hoped for. Stewart has said that he believes the death
penalty should be reserved for the “worst of the worst.” And in addition to the
Soros funding, he was endorsed by Scott’s widow, Alexis Scott.
“The DA has the sole choice to decide which cases to seek the death penalty,”
Stewart said during a candidates forum in 2015. “…You have to have somebody who
is attuned to the community, who knows which cases are the most serious, [who]
undestands which cases should go [to the death penalty] and which cases should
not go.”
While it may not have been clear how much of a reformer Stewart would be, he
did campaign on a message of change from the prior administration. That’s why
it troubles advocates to see him pursue death penalty cases initiated by his
predecessors despite evidence that those prosecutors acted in bad faith.
For instance, Stewart continues to seek the death penalty against Grover
Cannon, who is accused of killing a Shreveport police officer, Thomas LaValley,
in August 2015. If Stewart is successful in securing a death sentence against
Cannon, it will the first of his administration and the first in more than 4
years. But Cannon’s case has been controversial from the start.
In September 2015, Cox opposed the release of an audio recording by Shreveport
police that Cannon and his legal team believed would exonerate him. Since then,
Cannon’s trial has been delayed multiple times because of problems with the
jury selection process. In February, jury selection was moved to East Baton
Rouge Parish because the abundance of pretrial media coverage made it
impossible to select an impartial jury in Caddo Parish.
The trial was delayed again in March after it was discovered that a computer
error excluded all people born after June 2, 1993, from the list of potential
jurors. Stewart then attempted to transfer the case back to Caddo Parish, but
that decision was overturned on appeal in June.
“James Stewart was elected District Attorney because Caddo Parish voters
rejected Dale Cox’s ‘we should kill more people’ view of justice,” Ben Cohen,
counsel at the Promise of Justice Initiative and Cannon’s attorney, told The
Appeal in an email. “Voters in Caddo Parish, like justices on the United States
Supreme Court, recognized that Cox was an outlier, a vestigial mixture of
racism and vindictiveness.”
This is not the 1st time Cohen has squared off against Stewart in a case that
originated with the prior administration. Cohen also represented Marcus Reed,
who was convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2013 for the
killing of 3 brothers outside his home in 2010.
Reed argues the killings were in self-defense. He says at least one of the
brothers had broken into his home on Aug. 16, 2010, and returned around 10 p.m.
the same day with his brothers to confront Reed.
Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the confrontation that led to the
shooting. One witness said Reed walked out of his home and told the brothers to
leave before shots were fired. That witness claimed to have heard a single
gunshot, a pause, and then what sounded like multiple shots firing back. Two
other witnesses said Reed opened fire as soon as the brothers arrived and the
oldest stepped out of the vehicle. A semi-automatic rifle was found under
Reed’s porch and a handgun was found near the home.
At trial, prosecutors argued Reed lured the brothers to his home and ambushed
them. The jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a death
sentence for Reed. He was denied a new trial and the Capital Post-Conviction
Project of Louisiana has filed a number of motions for post-conviction relief
and public records requests. Stewart’s office is fighting all of the motions to
compel discovery, and it issued redacted documents to the defense team. In
response to the motions, Stewart’s office even requested financial compensation
from Reed’s attorneys for their time.
Stewart did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
“DA Stewart should look closely at the death sentences sought and secured by
Dale Cox, rather than defend them with Cox’s vigor,” Cohen said. “It’s a true
disappointment to see old-guard prosecutors defend these death sentences that
were so out of bounds of our current standards of decency.”
(source: theappeal.com)
ARKANSAS:
Bella Vista man makes 1st court appearance since death penalty overturned
Mauricio Alejandro Torres sat with his head bowed Friday while his lawyer, the
prosecutor and judge discussed his capital murder case.
Torres, 49, of Bella Vista made his first court appearance Friday since the
Arkansas Supreme Court overturned his convictions and death sentence. Torres'
2nd jury trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 21.
Possible penalty
Mauricio Alejandro Torres, 49, of Bella Vista faces life in prison or a death
sentence if convicted of capital murder. He faces from 5 to 20 years in prison
if convicted of the battery charge.
A jury in 2016 convicted Torres of murder and 1st-degree battery in the death
of his 6-year-old son, Maurice "Isaiah" Torres. Isaiah died March 30, 2015, at
a Bella Vista medical clinic.
Benton County Circuit Judge Brad Karren sentenced Torres to death on the jury's
recommendation.
Karren interrupted Friday's discussion to ask Torres if he felt OK.
"I'm tired," Torres said.
Karren told the lawyers when he saw Torres with his head down, he thought he
was sleeping.
"I'm sorry," Torres replied. "I apologize."
A medical examiner testified in the 2016 trial Isaiah's death was caused by a
bacterial infection, the result of being sodomized with a stick. The abuse with
the stick occurred in Missouri, but Isaiah died in Benton County.
The state Supreme Court overturned Torres' murder conviction April 18 in a 4-3
decision based on where elements of the crime occurred.
Torres argued in his appeal the judge should have ruled the state failed to
prove its case for the death sentence. The state Supreme Court agreed, saying
prosecutors must prove an element of rape occurred in Arkansas if the rape is a
required element to support the death penalty.
The court said, because the abuse happened in Missouri, rape cannot be the
aggravating factor for a death penalty.
Nathan Smith, Benton County's prosecutor said he will amend the capital murder
charges under the theory Torres knowingly killed a child. Torres also will be
retried on the 1st-degree battery charge.
Torres' behavior in court Friday led Karren to question whether Torres should
have a mental evaluation to determine whether he is fit to stand trial.
The judge asked Torres whether he understood what was happening in court.
"Yes, sir," he replied.
The judge then wanted to know whether Torres understood the roles of the judge,
prosecutor and defense attorney.
"Yes, sir," he said again.
Karren said he was going to leave the decision on the fitness evaluation with
the defense. Attoney Jeff Rosenzweig said he isn't asking for an evaluation.
The judge ruled Torres will be held without bond in the county jail.
An omnibus hearing is scheduled for Oct. 7.
Mauricio Torres' wife, Cathy, pleaded guilty to capital murder in the boy's
death and was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
(source: nwaonline.com)
CALIFORNIA:
Suspect In Highway 35 Stabbing Murders Could Face Death Penalty
A 26 year old Pacifica man is facing a Monday arraignment on charges he fatally
stabbed 2 men in separate instances then left both on a rural stretch of
Highway 35. In a jailhouse interview with ABC 7, Malik Dosouqi insists he is
innocent and doesn't remember anything except waking up in the hospital with
his arm bandaged. Meanwhile San Mateo County's DA tells KCBS Radio reporter
Holly Quan that this could be a death penalty case.
(source: KCBS radio news)
OREGON:
Yamhill County DA weighs death penalty in case against man accused of killing
mom, son
Almost a week after the bodies of a missing Salem mother and her 3-year-old son
were discovered, the boy's biological father, who is accused of killing them,
appeared in court.
Michael Wolfe was arraigned Friday on a 5-count indictment from a Yamhill
County grand jury.
After the arraignment, Yamhill County District Attorney Brad Berry met with
Fretwell's families and investigators in the case.
"We continue to answer their questions. There are still a lot of questions that
are unanswered," said Berry.
(source: KVAL 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
