Sept. 2
CONNECTICUT:
Former Death Row Inmate Wins Judgment That He Faces "Cruel And Unusual
Punishment"
A judge has ruled in favor of a Connecticut inmate who sued the state in
federal court over the conditions he’s faced during incarceration.
Richard Reynolds was sentenced to death in 1995 after he was convicted in the
murder of a Waterbury police officer. But after the state abolished the death
penalty, he was re-sentenced to life in prison.
He’s currently classified as a “special circumstances inmate” living in a 12
foot by 7 foot cell.
The judge deemed his situation in prison as “cruel and unusual” and he called
solitary confinement an “extreme” form of punishment.
David McGuire agrees. He’s executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union. He hopes this will prove to be an important
test case.
“I believe that a lot of the arguments set forth by Richard Reynolds that were
ultimately agreed upon by the judge will be used in other cases challenging
similarly harsh conditions in Connecticut," McGuire told Connecticut Public
Radio.
"I also hope that this decision makes very clear to the legislature and elected
officials that solitary confinement is counter-productive – it actually makes
the prisoners, the guards, and ultimately society less safe -- and really
takes a hard look why we use solitary confinement in Connecticut today,” he
went on.
The state has been ordered to improve the quality of Reynolds’ incarceration
within 30 days.
A spokesman for Attorney General William Tong says he’s weighing options now.
The Department of Correction issued a statement saying it’s also "in the
process of reviewing the decision and consulting with our legal team in order
to determine a future course of action.”
(source: wnpr.org)
FLORIDA:
Death penalty cases in limbo pending Florida Supreme Court decision
2 Charlotte County men scheduled to be re-sentenced under Florida’s new death
penalty law may no longer have that chance.
It all depends on the outcome of litigation before the Florida Supreme Court.
The court is reconsidering whether the requirement of a unanimous jury to
recommend a death sentence should be applied retroactively.
“I guess the thinking was or is that it’s a different makeup now,” said Defense
Attorney James Ermacora. “Since Gov. DeSantis has appointed three new justices
that are more conservative, the belief is that maybe they’ll get a different
result.”
Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a 59-page brief in June on the appeal case
of Duane Eugene Owen, arguing that the sentencing changes should be
“prospective only,” or applying only to death penalty cases moving forward.
Should the Florida Supreme Court agree the new law should not be applied to old
cases, re-sentencings will be canceled for dozens of death row inmates.
In Charlotte County, a status conference for Stephen V. Smith on Aug. 30 and
his re-sentencing scheduled for October were both cancelled. His co-defendant,
Dwight Eaglin, had not been scheduled for re-sentencing, but the state has
requested an indefinite continuance on his case.
Smith, 58, and Eaglin, 44, both received death sentences for the 2003 murders
of fellow inmate Charles Fuston and correctional officer Darla Lathrem. Both
men were serving life sentences at Charlotte Correctional Institution when they
committed the murders during a botched escape attempt.
In the penalty phase, a death sentence was recommended for Smith by a jury
split 9-3. For Eaglin, the split was 8-4.
In a motion to continue Smith’s re-sentencing, Assistant State Attorney Daniel
Feinberg wrote, “Should the Florida Supreme Court decide the pending litigation
in the favor of the State... the defendant would not be entitled to a
re-sentencing, and the pending hearing set to begin October 13, 2019 would be
unnecessary.”
Kevin Shirley, who is defending Smith along with Ermacora, said both the
defense and the state are ready to go when the decision is made.
“Right now, we’re just treading water, waiting to find out whether we can do
our job,” he said.
Shirley and Ermacora both said the unanimous jury requirement should be applied
to old cases.
“Anybody on death row, sentenced to death without it being a unanimous jury
recommendation, should get a new hearing,” Ermacora said. “It shouldn’t matter
when you got that death penalty... My true feeling is there shouldn’t be a
death penalty period. If there’s going to be one, certainly it should be a
unanimous recommendation.”
The attorneys hope in a new re-sentencing, they would achieve a similar or
better outcome than the 9-3 split in Smith’s prior sentencing, though only 1
juror voting against the death penalty would be needed.
“As long as you’ve got one, you win, unlike the old days,” Ermacora said. “It’s
got to be unanimous. ... The judge can’t overrule it anymore, so as long as you
get 1.”
It’s unclear when the Florida Supreme Court will make a decision on the issue.
A status conference for Smith has been set for Nov. 15 at 8:30 a.m. at the
Charlotte County Justice Center. Eaglin has a status conference on Jan. 24,
2020.
(source: Port Charlotte Sun)
MISSISSIPPI:
Curtis Flowers’s Conviction Tossed by Mississippi Supreme Court----Mr. Flowers,
a black man, has been tried by a white prosecutor 6 times over the killings of
4 people in a furniture store in 1996. His case was featured in the podcast “In
the Dark.”
The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the murder conviction of
Curtis Flowers, a black man who has been tried 6 times for the same crimes, 2
months after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor, who is
white, unconstitutionally kept black people off the jury. Mr. Flowers, 49, has
been accused of murder in the 1996 killings of 4 people in a furniture store in
Winona, Miss. All six prosecutions have either ended in mistrial or convictions
that were reversed on appeal.
The case sparked a national conversation about race in the criminal justice
system after a podcast investigated the decades-long effort by the prosecutor,
Doug Evans, to convict Mr. Flowers.
Thursday’s move by the Mississippi Supreme Court was expected after the United
States Supreme Court said in June that Mr. Evans had violated the Constitution
in Mr. Flowers’s 6th trial by striking black jurors. In the six trials for Mr.
Flowers, 61 of the 72 jurors were white.
Rob McDuff, a lawyer for Mr. Flowers, called Thursday’s ruling a “routine
procedural step.”
The case will now be sent back to a lower court, and prosecutors will have to
decide if they want to try Mr. Flowers for a 7th time.
“We’ll be asking that the judge dismiss the case if the prosecutor is unwilling
to,” Mr. McDuff said.
Mr. Evans could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday evening.
Mr. McDuff added that he would seek to get Mr. Flowers, who has been held in
state prison for 22 years, released on bail.
Reporters at APM Reports, a division at American Public Media, highlighted Mr.
Flowers’s case last year in the podcast “In the Dark.”
Reporters with the podcast poked holes in the forensic evidence prosecutors
used and raised questions about an informant who said Mr. Flowers had confessed
to him. In February, the podcast won a George Polk award, a prestigious
journalism prize, for its work about the case.
The United States Supreme Court noted in June that Mr. Flowers’s first 2
convictions were reversed based on prosecutorial misconduct. His 3rd conviction
was reversed after the Mississippi Supreme Court said Mr. Evans had
discriminated against black jurors during jury selection.
The 4th trial ended in a mistrial. In the 4 trials, held between 1997 and 2007,
Mr. Evans used all 36 of his peremptory challenges to strike black potential
jurors.
“The state’s actions in the first 4 trials necessarily inform our assessment of
the state’s intent going into Flowers’s 6th trial,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
wrote in the majority opinion. “We cannot ignore that history.”
The 5th trial also ended in a mistrial because of a hung jury. The jury at the
6th trial, made up of 1 black and 11 white jurors, convicted Mr. Flowers in
2010 and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court had affirmed the
conviction and sentence.
But Justice Kavanaugh said that Mr. Evans had violated the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court noted that during jury selection, Mr. Evans
asked black prospective jurors an average of 29 questions each, while asking
the 11 white jurors who were eventually seated an average of 1 question each.
“Equal justice under law requires a criminal trial free of racial
discrimination in the jury selection process,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Mr. Evans said he excluded black potential jurors for a variety of reasons,
including that they knew witnesses or members of Mr. Flowers’s family, had
qualms about the death penalty or had turned up late for jury selection.
(source: New York Times)
OHIO:
Former Ohio Governors Weigh in on Death Penalty, Gun Control ----- Both Bob
Taft and Ted Strickland now have reservations about implementing the death
penalty.
There’s an ongoing and uncivil war between many Republicans and Democrats. But
two former Ohio governors have called a truce and created a friendship. And
though they’re from different parties, Republican Bob Taft and Democrat Ted
Strickland have a lot of views in common.
Former Ohio Governors Bob Taft and Ted Strickland weigh in on the death
penalty.
Bob Taft became governor in 1999. His 1st year in office, Cleveland killer
Wilford Berry became the 1st inmate to die since Ohio revised its death penalty
after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and resumed executions. 2 dozen people were
put to death in Taft’s 8 years in office. But he said he felt it was part of
the job.
“I felt that unless there really was a mistake in law or evidence that it
should proceed pursuant to law. But having gone through that experience and
having examined the death penalty after being out of office, I’m developing
growing reservations about it,” Taft said.
Taft’s successor Ted Strickland took over in 2007. 17 people were executed
during his 4 years – including 8 in 2010, the largest number in a single year
since 1963. Strickland is a former prison psychologist, and now says he wishes
he’d declared a moratorium on capital punishment.
“I think the death penalty is wrong for a lot of reasons. It’s unevenly
applied. I think there’s always the danger of an innocent person being killed
by the state,” Strickland said.
Execution numbers dropped under Strickland’s Republican successor John Kasich.
And current Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has said that no executions will
proceed until there’s a protocol for lethal injection that is upheld by the
federal courts – but he’s added he doesn’t see a path for that to happen under
state law.
Both Taft and Strickland are also watching DeWine as he deals with gun
violence. As he left office in 2006, Taft vetoed the law that keeps local
communities from passing their own gun control laws – the legislature overrode
him. He said it’s now time for some reforms.
“We need very tight background checks in particular. Gov. DeWine’s program is a
good program. I hope the legislature will adopt that program. The ‘red flag’
laws make a lot of sense to me so long as you have proper procedural
safeguards. But clearly, we need to keep guns from getting into the hands of
wrong people,” Taft said.
Strickland had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association in 2006 and in
2010, when he was defeated by Kasich. But when Strickland ran his unsuccessful
campaign against Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman in 2016, he had changed his
position and now advocates for what he calls reasonable restrictions.
“The NRA, I think, has gone completely off the rails. I think it’s become a
reactionary organization that’s not concerned about hunting or sportsmen. It’s
concerned about the gun manufacturers,” Strickland said. “And there’s an
extreme element within our state and within our nation when it comes to this
gun issue. And they will not even consider reasonable efforts to prevent gun
deaths.”
Taft and Strickland say they have a good relationship – unlike many Republican
and Democratic politicians. And Taft, who has long been considered a moderate,
admits he’s no fan of President Trump.
“I have concerns with policies on immigration, on trade, on divisiveness as a
political strategy. As governor, I tried to bring people together. I thought I
should represent all Ohioans, whether or not they voted for me. So I’m not a
fan of a divisive strategy which I think, it seems to me, that President Trump
is following now,” Taft said.
Strickland goes further. “Donald Trump is an embarrassment – certainly to the
Republican Party – but he’s an embarrassment to this country. He’s unfit and
unworthy to be president, and I cannot wait to get in there and do everything I
can to help whoever runs against him,” Strickland said. And he added, “Just
some random person out on the street corner would be a more competent president
for this country than is Donald Trump.”
But one thing they strongly agree on is Mike DeWine, who they say reached out
to them after his election to the office they both once held. Taft said he
likes DeWine’s focus on kids and Lake Erie, and that he has great respect and
admiration for DeWine’s long career.
Strickland, who serves on DeWine’s RecoveryOhio mental health and substance
abuse advisory board, said DeWine is like a breath of fresh air compared to
Strickland’s former opponent Kasich. And Strickland added that it’s critical
for people in office to be genuinely concerned about serving and not about
promoting themselves.
(source: WKSU news)
TENNESSEE:
Death penalty cases rare in Sumner
Of the countless murder trials Sumner County District Attorney Ray Whitley has
prosecuted during the last 39 years, only 5 have involved the death penalty.
Each of those cases centered around murders that occurred during the 1980s with
4 taking place in Sumner County and 1 in Robertson County where Whitley also
served as district attorney from 1980 until 1984.
“The death penalty is supposed to be for the worst of the worst,” Whitley said
about the cases. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the value of the person’s
life who is killed. Not every first-degree murder would quality for the death
penalty (under state law).”
The last time Sumner County had a death penalty trial was in 1991 – 28 years
ago.
Earlier this month, prosecutors filed a notice to seek the death penalty
against accused Westmoreland mass murder suspect Michael Cummins who is accused
of violently killing eight people between the ages of 12 and 69 years old in
the northern part of the county earlier this year.
An arraignment hearing for Cummins was held Friday in Sumner County Criminal
Court. The 25-year-old was indicted Aug. 8 on a dozen charges related to the
killings, which the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has called the worst
homicide event to occur in the state in at least 2 decades.
A settlement hearing for the case is scheduled to take place Nov. 14.
“In all criminal trials guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt,”
Whitley wrote in a news release on the same day the indictments were issued.
“Likewise, as is the case of determining guilt of a defendant in a criminal
trial at least one statutory aggravating circumstance must be proven by the
state beyond a reasonable doubt before a sentence of death can be imposed.”
No documented Sumner executions
In Tennessee, all individuals convicted of a capital offense were hanged up
until 1913, according to the Tennessee Department of Corrections. However, no
official records of those executed exist.
Since capital punishment resumed in 1916, there have been 136 executions
carried out by the state. Of those, none have involved cases from Sumner
County.
Between 1983 and 1991, Whitley was able to secure convictions along with death
penalty sentences for David Carl Duncan in connection with a rape and murder in
Gallatin; Edmund Zagorski for the murder two people in Robertson County;
William Wesley Goad for a murder in Millersville; and Roosevelt Bigbee for a
murder in Hendersonville.
While their convictions were all upheld, the sentences for Duncan and Bigbee
were later overturned to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Goad
died in prison.
In November, Zagorski became the only person Whitley has prosecuted to be
executed. The 63-year-old had been found guilty more than 30 years earlier of
luring 2 men into the woods in Robertson County and slitting their throats as
part of fake plan to get marijuana.
Due to existing state law, Whitley was not allowed to attend the execution.
“I didn’t have any qualms about him getting the death penalty,” Whitley said
about Zagorski. “I would have gone if I had been allowed to, not because I want
to see somebody die, but I felt like if I was big enough to ask somebody to
give him the death penalty I ought to be big enough to see it carried out. I
felt like it was my responsibility. It’s not like I want to run from it.”
By carrying out the death penalty, Whitley said he believes it demonstrates
“how much we value life” as a society.
He also pointed out that the victims “almost always never get the chance to say
goodbye to their loved ones.”
“Somebody on death row can read the Bible and get right with God and be
forgiven for what he or she did,” Whitley added. “They have deprived their
victim of that opportunity.
“I don’t become joyous that someone has been (executed), but I feel like that
is justice and the law has been fulfilled as it should be.”
(source: The Gallatin News)
CALIFORNIA:
Death penalty sought for California couple who killed 10-year-old boy after
pouring hot sauce on his face----29-year-old Heather Barron and 32-year-old
Kareem Leiva pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges, including murder
involving the infliction of torture
Prosecutors in California have announced that they intend to seek the death
penalty against a mother and her boyfriend who have been accused of killing
their 10-year-old son by torturing him. The child was repeatedly whipped on the
bottom of his feet with a belt, body-slammed, and even forced to kneel on
grains of rice, according to authorities.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, on Wednesday, announced its
plan despite California Governor Gavin Newsom issuing an official moratorium on
capital punishment in the state in March this year.
29-year-old Heather Barron and 32-year-old Kareem Leiva pleaded not guilty to
all criminal charges, including murder involving the infliction of torture.
Subsequently, a grand jury in December last year decided to indict Barron and
Leiva on capital murder charges.
The child, Anthony Avalos, reportedly died on June 2, 2018, a week after
incessant torture was allegedly inflicted on him by the duo. Deputy District
Attorney Jonathan Hatami, during the trial last year, had said that Barron and
Leiva, in the days leading up to the boy's death, allegedly poured hot sauce on
the boy's face, gave him rug burns, and dropped him on his head after dangling
him upside down.
The 10-year-old was found unresponsive in the family home in Lancaster after
his mother called 911 to say that he had fallen down the stairs. He was put on
life support but he passed away the following day.
Authorities, however, caught on to the couple's misdeeds after they detected
signs of the child being severely beaten. Medical officials also told the
authorities that the child was malnourished. An examination of his body found
out that he had bruises, abrasions and even cigarette burns on his skin.
Further reports state that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services had received multiple tips about the boy being abused in the
couple's house, however, they continued to allow the boy to remain in their
home.
An attorney representing the boy's relatives said that the agency reportedly
probed nearly 88 claims of abuse dating back to 2013 and at least 2 of 15
substantiated claims involved sexual abuse. The LA County Sheriff’s Department
said that shortly after Anthony's death, 7 other children, between 11 months
and 12 years old, were removed from the home.
According to the LA Times report, in one instance, Leiva hit Anthony's younger
brother with so much force that the child required medical attention and
staples to close a head wound.
Hatami, at the time, had said: "The evidence will clearly show that Leiva and
Barron are ultimately responsible for the torture and eventual murder of
Anthony. The evidence will show that Barron, who's Anthony's biological mother,
and Leiva, who's 6-feet-1-inch and weighs 200 pounds, brutally, brutally
tortured and intentionally murdered 10-year-old Anthony."
(source: meaww.com)
OREGON:
Will those on Oregon's death row stay there with changes to state's aggravated
murder law?
Marion County veteran prosecutor Katie Suver ticked off the names and crimes of
various death row inmates:
A father and son convicted of conspiring to blow up a bank, killing 2 police
officers in the process.
Another man sentenced to death for stabbing a Salem woman then peddling her
stolen jewelry.
Several inmates who killed while incarcerated for other crimes.
All of these current death row inmates, Suver said, stand the chance of
skipping out on a death sentence in the event their convictions are overturned
if lawmakers don't make quick changes before Senate Bill 1013 goes into effect
on Sept. 29.
The bill narrows Oregon's use of the death penalty by whittling down the number
of crimes that qualify as aggravated murder — the only offense punishable by
death.
Previous coverage: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown willing to call session to fix death
penalty bill
Previously, about 20 circumstances made a homicide qualify as aggravated
murder, including murder for hire, murdering multiple people, torturing before
killing, the murder of someone under 14 and murder during the course of a
felony crime.
Oregon legislators voted to limit these aggravating circumstances to only 4:
terrorist killings of 2 or more people, the premeditated murder of police
officers, murder committed in a prison or jail by someone who was already
convicted of murder, and the premeditated murder of a child under the age of
14.
According to the Oregon Department of Corrections, 29 men and 1 woman are
currently on death row.
Suver said the changes mean most of the people on death row, if tried under the
new law, could not be charged with aggravated murder and sentenced to death.
This includes a mother accused of torturing and abusing her 15-year-old
daughter to death, and a man believed to be Oregon's most prolific serial
killer.
The only person Suver believes could still be charged with aggravated murder is
an inmate who stabbed and beat another inmate to death at the Oregon State
Penitentiary while already serving a sentence for aggravated murder.
"Jason Brumwell is the only defendant currently on death row whose crime would
fit under the new definition of aggravated murder," she said. "The only one."
SB 1013 passed the House 33-26 and the Senate 17-10 in the 2019 Legislative
session and was signed into law Aug. 1 by Gov. Kate Brown.
The law attracted little attention until an Aug. 9 email from the Oregon
Department of Justice sparked debate and confusion.
The department reviewed the bill and a murder case out of Washington County
involving a teen thrown off a bridge in 1998 only to find that they could not
defend a death sentence or even an aggravated murder conviction.
The defendant in that case, Martin Johnson, was convicted of aggravated murder
and sentenced to death in 2001 but his conviction was overturned by the Oregon
Supreme Court in 2017. His retrial is set to begin in October.
In an email to Oregon prosecutors, Oregon Department of Justice Solicitor
General Benjamin Gutman said the new law would have a significant impact on
pending cases.
DOJ officials who had reviewed the then-pending legislation concluded that a
new, narrower definition of aggravated murder in SB 1013 did apply to pending
cases — including cases that have been sent back for new penalty or guilt
phases, Gutman said in the email.
This meant most of those cases could no longer be prosecuted as capital
aggravated-murder cases and would instead have to be tried as first-degree
murder, which carries a presumptive sentence of life with the possibility of
parole after 30 years.
He said the conclusion came as a "surprise."
"Many of us, myself included, were under the impression that SB 1005 ensured
that SB 1013 would not apply to cases that had previously been tried and were
being retried after an appeal or post-conviction relief," Gutman said. "There
are news stories citing legislators as saying as much."
“The clock is ticking, but we have a month to take care of this.”----Sen. Floyd
Prozanski, D-Eugene
The finding left those who had opposed the law outraged.
In a letter penned to the bill’s chief sponsors, the Oregon District Attorneys
Association called on Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, and Sen. Floyd
Prozanski, D-Eugene, to fix the language in a special legislative session
beforethe law goes into effect on Sept. 29.
“This law is a failure on multiple levels — a failure to respect the will of
the voters, a failure to draft a clear law for Oregon’s most dangerous
criminals, and a failure of trust by telling voters it is not retroactive when
the opposite is true,” ODAA President Beth Heckert said in the letter.
Even those who had supported the law were confused.
Prozanski said after hearing about the DOJ's interpretation of how retroactive
the law could be, he immediately knew: "If that's the case, we need to have a
special session and fix it."
He said he feared unintended consequences and negative fallout from the law if
a change wasn't made before it went into effect.
Prozanksi said he is working with stakeholders to craft legislation to clarify
the intent of the bill, making it clear it was not intended to be retroactive
in any way and "only applies to offenses committed on or after the effective
date of September 29."
Because the bill's effective date is the last Sunday in September, Prozanksi is
recommending a special session during legislative days Sept. 16-18 when most
lawmakers already are planning to return to Salem for committee hearings.
"The clock is ticking, but we have a month to take care of this," he said.
Clarity for victims
On Wednesday, Brown announced that she was willing to call a special session to
make fixes to the bill if the changes have enough votes to pass and the session
lasts less than one day and tackles just the one issue.
"From my perspective, given the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing
with and the impact on victims and families, I think it's critically important
that there be clarity about the law and in particular this law," Brown said
during a conference call with reporters.
Oregon has not had an execution since 1997, and all potential executions have
been subject to a moratorium put in place in 2011 by then-Gov. John Kitzhaber.
After taking office, Brown upheld the moratorium and made her personal
opposition to the death penalty clear.
But Brown said she wants to change the law, removing any "retroactivity" and
providing clarity to the victims, their communities and the legal system.
"Based on the clarification by the Department of Justice, it is really clear
that there is a misunderstanding about the intent of the words in Senate Bill
1013," she said.
Brown said she's relying on legislative leadership to change the language of
the bill and garner enough votes ensure passage.
When asked by a reporter whether her office took responsibility for the
misunderstanding, Brown replied:
"Look — there were a lot of people involved in this legislation. I think we all
share some responsibility."
'Confusion like we've never seen before'
Suver, the Marion County prosecutor, said without a fix, countless cases could
be thrown into question.
"What I can say, as a practitioner, as a lawyer, frankly, I continue to be
confused about what the application of this law now means," she said.
What happens to those already charged with aggravated murder but awaiting
trial, she said.
"Do we go back to grand jury?" she asked. "Do we strike the language in the
indictments? Is it just words? Does it really matter?"
Several people in Marion County have pending aggravated murder charges against
them, including Amy Robertson, a Keizer woman charged with killing her
12-year-old son, and Craig Bjork, an inmate convicted of murdering his 2 young
sons, his girlfriend, a prostitute and an inmate in Minnesota before being
transferred to Oregon State Penitentiary. Bjork is suspected of murdering
another inmate in 2013.
2 men suspected of shooting and killing two men at a Northeast Salem home also
have aggravated murder charges pending against them.They are suspected of also
shooting a pregnant woman, killing her unborn child.
"In all fairness and all candor, we have a significant amount of confusion on
what this means to pending cases," Suver said. "It has thrown confusion like
we've never seen before into the prosecution of the most serious crimes."
This uncertainty also seeps into older cases. Of the 30 people on death row,
eight were convicted and sentenced to death in Marion County.
"Not only does (the bill) presently impact cases that are being remanded to our
office, but it will continue — potentially for years and years and years — to
impact cases as they move through the post-conviction process," Suver said.
Those sentenced to death are automatically granted an appeal. The appeal and
post-conviction process can take decades. For example, David Lee Cox was
convicted in 2000 of murdering another inmate at the state prison and sentenced
to death. His conviction was overturned this year.
The Turnidges are another example of this uncertainty, Suver said.
The father and son were sentenced to death for the bombing deaths of 2 law
enforcement officers at a Woodburn bank.
The language of the law about terrorist acts — the same used in the Patriot Act
— would make mass shootings, school shootings and the Woodburn bombing hard to
prosecute as aggravated murders, Suver said. And SB 1013's requirement to prove
"premeditation" would make it difficult to try the Turnidges with aggravated
murder if their convictions were overturned.
She and the Oregon District Attorneys Association opposed the bill from the
beginning, saying it was not properly being discussed and would create
significant legal problems.
"The decision of whether to repeal the death penalty should be a vote of the
people of the state of Oregon and the narrowing of the definition of aggravated
murder to effectively repeal the death penalty was not the proper process,"
Suver said.
And despite assurances from lawmakers the bill would not be retroactive, it
will be if fixes are not made, she added.
Support local journalism: New subscribers can get unlimited digital access for
$1 for three months Get the latest on crime and criminal justice news. Become a
Statesman Journal subscriber and get unlimited digital access to stories that
matter.
Proponents push back
Bobbin Singh, executive director of Oregon Justice Resource Center and a key
proponent of the bill, accused district attorneys and DOJ attorneys of either
being incompetent and not reading the law or understanding it but trying to
spark controversy over a non-issue.
"It all went through the legislative process," Singh said. "The plain language
of the bill is clear. People knew what it said. There was nothing misleading or
anything like that."
He said those wanting the quote-unquote "fixes" are conflating the ideas of
retroactivity versus reversal.
"In any criminal case, when there is a reversal, that typically happens for
serious constitutional issues," Singh said. "That's not uncommon with death
penalty cases because of how big they are, how large they are, how much
scrutiny they go under."
If a defense attorney didn't do their job or prosecutors engaged in misconduct,
convictions and sentences get reversed and sent back to trial or sentencing.
Singh said when old cases go back to trial, they should get the same rights as
those with new cases.
“If the law has changed, it strikes me as reasonable to apply the new law,”
said Caroline Davidson, associate professor at Willamette University’s College
of Law.
Davidson pointed to the international human rights principle known as “lex
mitior” — the concept that if the law has changed, a person should benefit from
the lighter penalty. The United States has not consistently adopted this
principle, she added.
Davidson said the current confusion over SB 1013 could be attributed to the
disconnect between the legal definition of “retroactive” and the non-legal
interpretation of the word.
“Retroactivity can be a complicated issue,” she said. “But this isn't
retroactive. It's active.”
Those with overturned convictions and sentences have active cases. They have
the same rights as other defendants.
Singh said he disagrees strongly with the bill being changed in a special
session.
"To me, it is incredibly disturbing that 1) this framing (of the
"retroactivity") has been pushed out, and 2) legislative leadership and now the
governor are also sort of acquiescing to this sort of nonsense," he said.
But not all legislative leaders support making changes.
“I support Senate Bill 1013 as it was passed and signed into law," House
Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said in a statement. "There is no consensus on
whether the law needs to be amended and there is no agreement among legislators
on appropriate next steps.”
According to media reports, including several comments to The Oregonian, key
backer Williamson insisted the law would not be "retroactive." After the DOJ
email, she said no changes were needed and the bill was written as intended.
A few days later, she directed a letter to the governor and legislators saying
she would be game for a special session to clear up "apparent confusion" in
exchange for the full funding of the Oregon Domestic and Sexual Violence
Services Fund, according to the Oregonian/OregonLive.
Williamson did not respond to request for comment from the Statesman Journal.
The tumult is an indicator of how broken Oregon's death penalty system is,
Singh said.
"It just goes to show that the death penalty is a waste of time and money and
nothing more than a symbolic punishment in which we're asking death penalty
attorneys, judges, corrections officers and defendants to go through this
perverse charade," he said.
Davidson said she doesn’t think the new law goes far enough.
“I think there are any number of problems with the death penalty from both a
moral and cost perspective such that we ought to eliminate it altogether,” she
said. “Given those problems, at a minimum, we should be restricting it. This is
a step in the right direction, at least.”
(source: Salem Statesman Journal)
USA:
Jewish congregations oppose death penalty for Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter
Members of the 2 Synagogue congregations that were targeted in the worst
anti-Semitic shooting in US history are asking that the killer be spared the
death penalty, and instead be sentenced to life in prison.
11 people from the Attorney General William Barrand The New Light congregations
were killed when Robert D Bowers, 46, armed with an automatic weapon burst into
The Tree of Life Congregation Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, at 9.30am
on 27 October 2018.
Bowers is reported to have shouted anti-Semitic slogans as he he fired at the
congregation. He is alleged to be linked to a far right social media site which
hosts racist and anti-Semitic content.
Federal prosecutors are calling for the death penalty for Bowers, because of
his "lack of remorse", after he "targeted men and women participating in Jewish
religious worship."
Attorney General William Barr, who is a Catholic, announced the reinstatement
of capital punishment for federal prisoners just over a month ago.
Rabbi Jonathan Perlman of New Light, who survived the attack, said the death
penalty was an "outmoded kind of punishment." He has appealed to Mr Barr's
Catholic faith by reminding him that "recent popes and bishops have spoken out
against the death penalty."
In a letter to Barr, the Rabbi describes capital punishment as a "cruel form of
justice," stating that both his religion and that of the shooter have
traditions that stand firmly against the death penalty. He went on: "a drawn
out and difficult death penalty trial would be a disaster with witnesses and
attorneys dredging up horrifying drama and giving this killer the media
attention he does not deserve."
Donna Coufal, President of the Dor Hadash congregation, also wrote to Mr Barr
to ask that the killer receive a life sentence rather than the death penalty,
reiterating Rabbi Perlman's comments on the impact of a prolonged and painful
trial.
Mrs Rabinowitz whose husband Jerry, a much-loved community doctor, was killed
in the shooting, said killing the man who murdered her husband would be a
"cruel and bitter irony," as he himself so strongly opposed the death penalty.
She said it would make no sense to her.
"Like slavery, this is something that belongs to another time and another
place," he said. "I can't think of any worse punishment for a criminal than to
spend the rest of his life in a maximum-security prison without parole."
In a statement on its website, Dor Hadash said:
'…. Today, we are saddened and disappointed to learn that Attorney General Barr
will pursue a trial and seek the death penalty for the perpetrator of the
attack on October 27, 2018.
Earlier this month, Congregation Dor Hadash sent a letter to Attorney General
Barr requesting that both parties agree to a plea bargain for life without
parole. A deal would have honored the memory of Dor Hadash congregant Dr Jerry
Rabinowitz, who was firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty. It
would have prevented the attacker from getting the attention and publicity that
will inevitably come with a trial, and eliminated any possibility of further
trauma that could result from a trial and protracted appeals.
We continue to mourn with our fellow congregants and community members who have
lost loved ones and survived unspeakable terror. We continue to reject hatred
and all systems of oppression, and follow the tenets of our faith, which
teaches us that only through our shared humanity can there be an end to hatred
and violence….
Under Orthodox Judaism, the death penalty is considered a just punishment, but
human judicial systems are too flawed to properly carry it out. "As Jews, as
citizens of a nation dedicated to liberty and justice, we believe that
governments must protect the dignity and rights of every human being," Rabbi
Shmuly Yanklowitz, founder of the Orthodox Jewish social justice movement Uri
L'Tzedek wrote inthe Jewish Journal. "Our American system today lacks the
highest safeguards to protect the lives of the innocent and uses capital
punishment all too readily."
Reform Judaism has formally opposed the death penalty since 1959, 1 year before
leaders in Conservative Judaism declared capital punishment "barbaric and
obsolete."
(source: Independent Catholic 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
