October 12
TEXAS:
Dr. Phil On The Upcoming Execution Of Rodney Reed: ‘I Want A Stay Of Execution,
So This Man Can Present The Truth’
Dr. Phil is tackling one of his most important topics yet this week as he
fights on behalf of a man named Rodney Reed who has been on death row for 22
years while proclaiming his own unwavering innocence. Reed has served time for
the murder of a 19-year-old bride-to-be named Stacey Stites since 1996 and is
scheduled to be executed on November 20th, 2019.
New evidence in the case, which wasn’t available at the time of Reed’s
sentencing, seems to corroborate with his innocence plea and Dr. Phil is
determined to get that evidence seen before it’s too late. CBS Local’s Matt
Weiss spoke Dr. Phil about the case and what his viewers can do to help.
MW: Dr. Phil, good morning!
Dr. P: Good Morning Matt.
MW: So, quite a serious topic we have to discuss today. We’re going to be
talking about Rodney Reed, a man who has been on death row for over 20 years
and you actually went to visit him prison and spoke with him. What was it like
going there and talking to someone in his situation?
Dr. P: Well Matt, I was asked to get involved in this by Bryce Benjet, who is a
lawyer with the Innocence Project and we’re talking about Rodney Reed, he’s
been on death row for 22 ½ years. He was convicted of the rape and murder of
19-year-old Stacy Stites in south Texas. Mr. Reed has been sitting there for 22
½ years waiting to die, he’s been scheduled for execution before, he’s
exhausted appeals and now he is set for an execution unless we do something,
we, all of us that watch Dr. Phil, unless we do something about this I have no
doubt in my mind he will be executed.
I interviewed him on death row, he has not given any other interviews until
now. I interviewed him with an eye towards whether he was telling the truth or
not. I asked him some questions that he just didn’t know the socially desirable
answer to, to see whether he was telling the truth or not and I came away with
a very troubled heart. This man is telling the truth when he says he didn’t
commit this crime. I then did a really deep dive into the pile, there are four
medical scientific experts, that were not available at the time of trial or
even during the appeals, DNA experts, forensic experts, that say it is not even
possible, in fact it is scientifically impossible that he committed this crime.
They have wrong the man, they are getting ready to execute an innocent man.
Matt, I’ve talked to people that have different views about the death penalty,
some in favor of it, some not, but I never met anyone that favors killing a man
that you’re not 100% sure is guilty of the crime which he has been convicted.
We all know that there have been people on death row that have been executed
and later exonerated and that’s exactly what’s getting ready to happen here if
we don’t do something about it.
MW: You also spoke to his attorney. What information were they able to add to
the story and to his assertion that he’s innocent?
Dr. P: Well I talked to attorneys on both sides, in fact I have an attorney on
the show today that is 100% convinced that Rodney Reed is guilty. Now he has a
reason for that, he has an agenda. Look, the law is that the burden of proof is
on the prosecution that you’re innocent until proven guilty. I understand
that’s what the law is, that’s not how it really works. How it really works is
the jury says, “OK if we’re not down here for the reasons that the prosecutors
say we are, then you need to give me an alternative explanation. If Rodney Reed
didn’t do this crime, then you need to tell me who did. You need to tell me why
we’re down here. Why it’s wrong.”
That’s what I intend to do on Friday. I’m going to give them an alternative
explanation, if Rodney Reed didn’t do this crime, I’m going to give them a
really good candidate for who did.
MW: It sounds like from talking to you, you truly believe that he is innocent.
In order to at east get a stay of execution, what do you feel needs to happen
to hold off the execution scheduled for next month?
Dr. P: Well I don’t want a stay of execution, I want a new trial. I want this
man to have a fair and full trial, which has never yet happened. And in fact
Matt, that’s what he wants. He’s not asking to be turned loose, all he wants is
a fair trial, he’s been there for 22 ½ years. I said to him, “Do you want them
to open this door and let you out?” He said, ‘No, I don’t. What I want is a
fair trial. I want my name cleared. I don’t want them to just turn me loose and
say never mind and everybody speculate whether I did it or not. I want a fair
trial. I want all of this evidence to come forward. I want people to say not
only to say he’s not guilty, I want people to say he’s innocent.” That’s what
he wants.
Do I want a stay of execution, yes. I want a stay of execution, so a trial can
be scheduled and so this man can present the truth. That’s what needs to
happen. So what I want, I want everybody who watches The Dr. Phil Show, I want
them to call everybody they know and say stop what you’re doing and watch today
and tomorrow because a man’s life hangs in the balance. I’m convinced if we
don’t do something about it, this man will be dead in a matter of days.
MW: And if he is innocent that would not only be very tragic for him and his
family but for the family of the victim as well.
Dr. P: I have dealt with families that have advocated for the execution of a
man and found out after the fact that it was the wrong person. That is not
where this family wants to go, they don’t ever get over that. They want to find
the right perpetrator here.
MW: Right, justice for both sides is the most important thing of course. Thank
you so much Dr. Phil, great talking to you as always and looking forward to the
rest of the episodes this week.
Dr. P: Thank you Matt.
(source: CBS News)
********************
Prosecutor: Man who killed 6 in Texas deserves death penalty
A man convicted of capital murder in an attack in which he fatally shot 6
members of his ex-wife's family in Texas lied when he claimed he was mentally
ill and should be sentenced to death, a prosecutor told jurors Friday.
Prosecutor Samantha Knecht said during closing arguments in the punishment
phase of Ronald Lee Haskell's trial that "this is the moment for justice" for
his victims.
As she talked to jurors, Knecht placed bullet casings for each of the 6 victims
in front of the jury and more than 20 bullets for other family members that
Knecht said Haskell also wanted to kill.
The same jury convicted Haskell on Sept. 26 in the deaths of Stephen and Katie
Stay at their suburban Houston home, rejecting his attorneys' efforts to have
him found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Haskell also killed four of the couple's children in the 2014 attack, and he
shot a fifth child, 15-year-old Cassidy Stay, but she survived by playing dead.
Cassidy Stay, now 20, testified at trial that Haskell forced her family to the
floor in the living room and shot them one by one. She said she prayed and
begged her uncle "please don't hurt us," before Haskell opened fire.
Jurors have only two sentencing choices: death or life in prison without the
possibility of parole.
Defense attorneys argued hard for a life sentence life.
Neal Davis III said Friday that the 39-year-old man should spend the rest of
his life thinking about what he has done and "die in prison." Doug Durham told
jurors that at the heart of prosecutors' arguments for a death sentence is
"anger, hatred, fear, vengeance because of this terrible, terrible crime."
To impose a death sentence, jurors have to find Haskell would be a future
danger to society and that any mitigating factors - such as mental illness -
were insufficient to merit a lesser sentence.
Haskell's attorneys said he suffered from various mental illnesses and that
voices had told him to kill his ex-wife's family.
At closings, prosecutors called Haskell a manipulator and a liar. In earlier
proceedings, they produced expert witnesses who testified that Haskell did not
have a severe mental illness and had faked his symptoms. They said he
meticulously crafted a plan to hurt anybody who helped his ex-wife, Melannie
Lyon, after the couple divorced, traveling from California to Texas to carry
out the killings.
Besides Stephen and Katie Stay, Haskell also killed 4-year-old Zach; 7-year-old
Rebecca; 9-year-old Emily; and 13-year-old Bryan. Katie Stay was Lyon's sister.
Prosecutors only needed to charge Haskell with two of the deaths to get to
capital murder. In cases with multiple murders, it is a common trial strategy
for prosecutors to not charge the deaths all at once in case legal issues arise
and new indictments are needed.
After the shooting, he reloaded his gun and headed to the homes of Lyon's
parents and brother so, according to prosecutors, he could complete his
vengeful plan. He was arrested before reaching any other homes.
During the trial's punishment phase, relatives of the Stays told jurors how
their lives were devastated by the killings.
Haskell's brother testified that his sibling "still has good in him."
(source: Associated Press)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Opening statements heard in Brady murder trial
After 5 long days that saw hundreds of potential jurors summoned to the Dare
County Courthouse in Manteo, jury selection was finally completed on Friday,
Oct. 11 and opening statements were heard in one of the most high-profile
criminal cases to come to the area in recent years.
The state is pursuing the death penalty against Mikel Brady, 1 of 4 Pasquotank
Correctional Institute inmates charged in the death of 4 prison guards
following a failed escape attempt in October 2017, the deadliest such attempt
in North Carolina history. He faces 4 counts of murder in the 1st degree and
other related charges.
The other men charged are Wisezah Buckman, Seth Frazier and Jonathan Monk. Each
defendant will be tried separately, with Buckman’s trial slated for March;
Frazier’s and Monk’s trial dates have not yet been set.
In her opening statement for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney
Kimberly Pellini depicted the deadly escape attempt as a clearly premeditated
attack that turned the situation in the prison into a “hellscape.”
For his part, defense attorney Thomas described Brady as someone suffering from
“serious mental illness” and vowed to explore his client’s troubled life during
the trial.
In the 5 days since jury selection for the trial began, several dozen jurors
have been struck. Some followed the murders in the media and had already formed
an opinion of Brady’s guilt. Others were personally acquainted with those
affected in the incident. Still others were excused because they stated they do
not support the death penalty.
On Friday alone, around a dozen potential jurors were excused as the court
strove to fill its 4-person alternate jury. Immediately after the alternate
jury was selected, Superior Court Judge Jerry R. Tillett, who is presiding over
the case, brought back in one female juror, who had handed the judge a letter
detailing her reservations about the death penalty. Earlier this week she had
stated she could vote for the death penalty, but today she told Judge Tillett
that after she thought about the matter, she decided she could not impose the
death penalty. District Attorney Andrew Womble exercised a peremptory challenge
against the juror, who was excused. An alternate juror was moved to fill her
place, reducing the number of available alternates to 3.
Alternate jurors are expected to watch the court proceedings and be available
to serve as a juror in the event a jury member is incapacitated during the
trial, which in this case, may stretch for weeks.
In her opening statement at the trial, Assistant District Attorney Pellini
presented a minute-by-minute account of the events of Oct. 12, 2017, the day
when four Pasquotank prison employees lost their lives and numerous others were
injured.
Pellini insisted that 4 men’s escape attempt was not a “spur of the moment
plan,” but that they had been “planning and plotting” for months, studying the
habits of the prison staff, physically training for the escape, and stockpiling
supplies.
Oct. 12 seemed like a “typical day” to the prison staff, she explained, and no
one knew that the prison would soon turn into a “place of nightmares.”
In sometimes graphic detail, Pellini described to the jury the extent of the
victims’ injuries on that day, likening the situation to a “slaughterhouse,” a
“hellscape,” and “absolute chaos.” Crossing the room and standing not 15 feet
from Brady, Pellini spoke directly to Brady as she listed the charges against
him in a voice filled with emotion. Brady, she said, “led a small army in a war
against people who didn’t know they were in one.”
Thomas “Tommy” Manning, a private lawyer from Raleigh, gave the opening
statement for the defense team, which also includes Andrew “Jack” Warmack, a
private lawyer from Edenton. Manning said that the defense’s goal was to speak
less to what happened at the prison, but rather to show “how it happened and
how it was possible for [this incident] to occur at all.”
According to Manning, the defense will provide background on the defendant’s
childhood and show how Brady first came to enter the prison system. Brady has a
“long history of serious mental illness” and suffered “abuse and neglect.”
Manning said Brady was not medicated at the time of the incident and that he
was “very seriously unstable and violent.”
(source: Outer Banks Voice)
FLORIDA----impending execution
100th Execution or 30th Exoneration? Florida Sets Execution Date for
73-Year-Old Military Veteran Who May Be Innocent
Florida has scheduled the execution of 73-year-old James Dailey for November 7,
2019, despite substantial evidence that he had no involvement in the killing,
including a statement by the admitted killer, Daley’s co-defendant, that he had
acted alone. Dailey stands to be either the 100 death-row prisoner put to death
by Florida since executions resumed in the 1970s or the state’s 30th death-row
exoneree.
Dailey was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1985 killing of 14-year-old
Shelley Boggio. The prosecution admitted to the jury at trial that no “physical
evidence,” “no fingerprints,” and “no hair or fibers” linked Dailey—who served
1 tour of duty in the Korean war and 3 more in Vietnam—to the crime. Instead,
he was convicted based on the testimony of self-interested witnesses, including
the later-recanted testimony of his co-defendant, Jack Pearcy, and testimony
from three jailhouse informants whom police provided information about the
murders and who received reduced charges for saying Dailey had confessed to
them.
Official misconduct and false accusation are the leading causes of wrongful
capital convictions. A DPIC review found that at least 1 of those factors has
been present in at least 18 of the 29 cases since 1973 in which wrongfully
convicted Florida death row prisoners have later been exonerated. An analysis
by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions of
the first 111 death-row exonerations found that false “snitch testimony” had
contributed to 45.9% of those wrongful capital convictions.
At the time of Boggio’s murder, Dailey lived in an extra room at the home
Pearcy shared with his girlfriend. A knife belonging to Pearcy was found near
Boggio’s body, but when he was questioned about the crime, he told police that
Dailey had killed her. Pearcy was tried for the crime first and convicted, but
the jury rejected a death sentence and recommended life. According to Dailey’s
attorneys, “The murder was gruesome and the state was under intense pressure to
obtain the death penalty against the two men it elected to charge. This
pressure only intensified after Pearcy’s jury recommended life, not death. But
the state was aware that it did not have sufficient evidence to secure even a
conviction against Dailey, let alone a death sentence.”
1 month after Pearcy’s trial, a detective visited prisoners in the unit in
which Dailey was incarcerated awaiting trial. The prisoners say the detective
showed them news articles about the murder and asked them if Dailey had told
them anything about the case. Just days later, 3 men came forward claiming that
Dailey had confessed to the killing. Each of the men received benefits from the
state in exchange for their testimony, but testified falsely that they had not
received any preferential treatment.
1 of those men, Paul Skalnik, was a former police officer who was a prosecution
informant in at least six cases. Dailey’s lawyers described Skalnik as “a
notorious snitch with an established history of pathological deception
including at least 25 convictions for crimes of dishonesty.” Skalnik, who
claimed at trial that the charges against him “were grand theft, counselor, not
murder, not rape, no physical violence in my life,” had in fact been charged in
1982 with “lewd and lascivious conduct involving a 12-year-old girl.” His
cooperation in other cases had resulted in prosecutors dropping those charges.
Perhaps most significantly, Pearcy recanted his statements that Dailey had
helped him murder Boggio. On April 20, 2017, he signed an affidavit stating,
“James Dailey was not present when Shelly Boggio was killed. I alone am
responsible for Shelly Boggio’s death.” This was at least the 4th time he had
made such an admission. On three occasions spanning20 years, Pearcy told fellow
prisoners that he had committed the crime himself, and that Dailey had nothing
to do with it. Seth Miller, one of Dailey’s attorneys and director of the
Innocence Project of Florida, said, “Jack Pearcy, a man with a history of
violence against women, has admitted at least 4 times that he alone was
responsible for the death of Shelly Boggio.” Dailey, on the other hand, had no
prior record of violence against women and trial testimony indicated that he
nearly died from eleven stab wounds he suffered breaking up a fight involving a
friend’s daughter and her boyfriend. “Justice has been served in this case: Mr.
Pearcy is serving a life sentence,” Miller said. “The courts and the governor
must stop Mr. Dailey’s execution before it’s too late.”
Dailey’s case has drawn support from some conservative and religious groups
concerned about a potential wrongful execution. Hannah Cox, National Director
of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, wrote that “procedural
obstacles” have blocked courts from hearing the evidence of Dailey’s innocence.
“Dailey has more going for him than many defendants,” Cox wrote. “He has
attorneys — really good ones. He has significant evidence of innocence. He was
even excluded as a source of the existing forensic evidence — a hair found in
the victim’s hand. He is of sound mind. And the ‘evidence’ used to convict him
is shaky at best. But will it be enough to stop the state from executing him?
That remains to be seen.”
Rev. Robert Schneider and Sabrina Burton Schultz, members of the Life, Justice
and Advocacy Committee of the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg, called the
case “shocking.” In an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times, the 2 wrote: “The family
of Shelly Boggio suffered an unimaginable loss, and Floridians should pray for
their healing and an easing of their pain. Taking another life, especially an
innocent one, will only compound this tragedy.” Saying that “[h]aving a culture
of life in our state means holding life at all stages sacred,” they urged Gov.
DeSantis to “search his heart and do the right thing by withdrawing the death
warrant in Mr. Dailey’s case. There is too much doubt to proceed with this
execution,” they said.
(source: Death Penalty Information Center)
*****************************
South Florida hit man faces death penalty for killing FSU professor, but
mistrial for girlfriend
The murder-for-hire trial of a slain Florida State University professor came to
an end Friday afternoon with a guilty verdict for the trigger man and a hung
jury on a suspected co-conspirator.
Sigfredo Garcia, of Miami, now faces the death penalty for shooting Dan Markel
twice in the head on the morning of July 18, 2014.
Garcia, 37, and the jurors will return to court in Leon County on Monday
afternoon to move into that phase of the trial.
“Danny was brutally murdered in cold blood,” attorneys representing Markel’s
parents, Ruth and Phil, said in an emailed statement. “After waiting 5 long
years, we are relieved that at least 1 of the people responsible for Danny’s
murder was convicted ... yet justice was only partially served.”
Garcia’s co-defendant and the mother of his 2 children, Katherine Magbanua, 34,
wept upon hearing that he had been found guilty of 1st-degree murder and
solicitation to commit murder.
Garcia was acquitted of 1 count — solicitation to commit murder — in what
prosecutors had presented as a murder-for-hire scheme orchestrated by Markel’s
inlaws.
After more than 12 hours, the 12-person jury could not reach a verdict on
Magbanua’s charges.
Portrayed by prosecutors as the intermediary between the hired assassins and
the people who took out the hit, Magbanua faced the exact same charges as
Garcia.
Leon Circuit Judge James C. Hankinson sent the hung jury back into
deliberations to try harder, but they soon announced that they could not reach
a unanimous decision.
Hankinson declared a mistrial and scheduled Magbanua’s next court date for Oct.
22.
Markel’s parents said they were confident Magbanua would be re-tried and
convicted.
News about Friday’s trial outcome was posted on a Justice for Dan Facebook
page. It said, “the arc is still bending way too slowly, but in the right
direction." That was followed by #justicefordan.
The crux of closing arguments presented by both defense teams on Thursday was
that the wrong man and woman were on trial.
No one in Markel’s ex-wife’s prominent South Florida family has ever been
arrested or charged, but the Adelsons were the ones who financed the $100,000
plot to kill the 41-year-old professor and legal academic, the defense lawyers
said.
“People are chomping to get the Adelsons, and let me tell you, rightfully so,”
Garcia’s defense lawyer, Saam Zangeneh, told jurors on Thursday. “There is
substantially more evidence against the Adelsons than there is against Sigfredo
Garcia.”
Markel’s parents said they hold out hope "that everyone responsible for Danny’s
murder is held accountable."
"Until that day comes, we will continue to fight for complete justice and to be
reunited with our grandchildren, Danny’s two young boys, whom we love and miss
dearly.”
Magbanua for a time dated Charlie Adelson, big brother to Markel’s ex-wife
Wendi Adelson.
Wendi Adelson is also a lawyer. Her family runs the Adelson Institute for
Esthetics and Implant Dentistry in Tamarac, where her father, Dr. Harvey
Adelson, is a cosmetic dentist and her brother, Dr. Charlie Adelson, is a
periodontist. Her mother, Donna, is the patient care coordinator.
Prosecutors maintain that Magbanua recruited two assassins at Charlie Adelson’s
behest — Garcia and Luis Rivera. They say that after Markel was dead, she split
$100,000 with the killers, Wendi Adelson and Markel were in the midst of a
nasty divorce when when he was shot to death in his Tallahassee garage. The
couple were locked in a bitter battle over custody of their 2 sons. Wendi
Adelson’s family in Coral Springs wanted her and the boys closer to them.
The Adelson’s lawyer, David O. Markus, has repeatedly asserted Charlie
Adelson’s innocence.
“I hope the Markel family feels some sense of justice and relief that Garcia
was convicted,” Markus said. “This trial must have been so hard and taxing on
them.”
“The prosecution couldn’t prove its theory on Katie after three years of really
thorough investigation and preparation,” he said. “This is why they have not
charged Charlie and his family — the case simply isn’t there."
Markus predicted a bleak forecast for prosecutors.
“After the hung jury, their prospects have gone down, not up."
(source: Sun-Sentinel)
OHIO:
Decades After 'Dead Man Walking,' Author Sees Views Shifting On Death Penalty
This weekend, Journey Of Hope From Violence To Healing is hosting a conference
in Ohio on the death penalty.
The group is led by the family members of murder victims who reject capital
punishment.
Forums will happen across the state over the next week, but the event kicks off
with a day-long event in Columbus on Saturday. It will feature Sister Helen
Prejean, the author of Dead Man Walking, a 1993 book chronicling her work with
two Louisiana death row inmates.
She says a lot has changed in the intervening 26 years.
"It used to be the death penalty was like the third rail of politics. You
didn't dare say you oppose the death penalty. It was too politically costly,"
Prejean says. "This is the 1st year, for example, that we've had presidential
candidates against the death penalty."
She adds that the roadblocks that have cropped up to the death penalty in Ohio
- from a 3-year hiatus, to a legal battle over the lethal injection protocol,
to wavering support from lawmakers - are a good sign for anti-capital
punishment advocates.
"The last act that happens is when you have the legislative political body
appealing it," she says. "But the first thing you look for is practice, where
you just stop doing it."
Prejean recognizes that not all family members of murder victims oppose the
death penalty.
"I cut them a whole, whole lot of slack. When people have a loved one killed,
they're traumatized," she says. "That's a starting point. Of all the victims'
families I know, that's not where people end up."
(source: WOSU news)
**********************
Jury convicts security guard of killing girlfriend’s kids in Garfield Heights
A Garfield Heights man who worked as a security guard will face the death
penalty after jurors on Friday found him guilty in the shooting deaths of his
girlfriend’s teenage children.
Matthew Nicholson was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated murder in the
Sept. 5, 2018 deaths of Giselle Lopez, 19, and Manuel Lopez Jr., 17, at their
East 86th Street home in Garfield Heights.
Jurors deliberated for about 2 days before they returned the verdict in Common
Pleas Court Judge Timothy McCormick’s room.
The penalty phase, where jurors will hear more evidence and decide whether to
recommend the death penalty or life in prison, is set to begin Tuesday.
Prosecutors said Nicholson attacked his girlfriend after finding text messages
on her cellphone that led him to suspect she was cheating on him, and shot the
children in the back as they ran from the home.
Nicholson took the stand Wednesday and claimed he shot the children because
they got ahold of his service pistol and he feared they were going to shoot
him. The shooting spurred an hours-long SWAT standoff as Nicholson refused to
come out of the house. He eventually surrendered and police arrested him
without incident.
“Nicholson senselessly killed 2 young teenagers who had their entire lives
ahead of them,” Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley said in a statement
after the verdict. “His claim that he was the victim in this case was a feeble
attempt to deny responsibility.”
Nicholson worked as a private security officer contracted by the United States
Department of Homeland Security.
(source: cleveland.com)
TENNESSEE:
Herbert Slatery's actions are not those of a sound leader
State Attorney General Herbert Slatery's office announced his intention to
appeal Friday, weeks after a judge ordered Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman off death row.
In the last 12 years, three innocent men in Tennessee have been exonerated
after serving a combined 62 years on death row. Rushing through an additional 9
executions is not only wrong, it’s reckless.
Brandon Tucker is policy director at the ACLU of Tennessee and was a former
state advocacy strategist working on the death penalty for the national ACLU.
While the country is overwhelmingly turning its back on the death penalty, some
in Tennessee are embracing it. Attorney General Herbert Slatery’s recent
request that the Tennessee Supreme Court set execution dates for 9 men makes
very little sense.
A subscription gives you unlimited access to stories across Tennessee that make
a difference in your life and the lives of those around you. Click here to
become a subscriber.
Slatery also recently took the unprecedented step of appealing a court order
brokered by the Nashville district attorney to remove Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman from
death row – a move made due to “overt racial bias and deception” during
Abdur'Rahman's trial.
We may never understand the rationale for AG Slatery’s decision to kill people
in the state’s name – indeed, in our name – but we do know that this is not
sound leadership.
If the death penalty was infallible, based on the most heinous crimes, applied
in a manner that wasn’t racially biased – then perhaps Tennesseans shouldn’t be
outraged by Slatery’s request. But the death penalty is none of these. Capital
punishment is not only inherently unconstitutional, but unfairly applied in an
arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Decisions about who lives and who dies are
largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys,
the race of the victim, and where the crime took place. It’s a broken system
and Slatery’s request should make us all pause.
Capital punishment is slowly but surely disappearing in the rest of our
country.
Before joining the ACLU of Tennessee, I worked at the ACLU’s national office,
where I developed campaigns and supported state affiliates nationwide in
combating the death penalty. During that time, Washington became the twentieth
state to abolish capital punishment. The state’s Supreme Court cited
arbitrariness and racial bias in its decision to end the practice. The governor
of California, which has the country’s largest death row, signed an executive
order imposing a moratorium on executions.
And New Hampshire – a state that hadn’t used the death penalty since 1939 and
had just one person on death row – became the twenty-first state to abolish it.
Not incidentally, the single person slated for execution in New Hampshire was a
black man, in a state that has a black population of 1%.
In the South, it’s been more than 5 years since Louisiana, Mississippi and
South Carolina have carried out an execution and over 10 years since North
Carolina and Kentucky have executed a person.
All told, 37 states have either abolished the death penalty or not executed
anyone in over 5 years. Public support for the death penalty is near its
all-time low. Fewer than 50 percent of Americans believe the death penalty is
fair.
Country is turning its back on death penalty for good reason.
An arbitrarily-applied punishment rife with racial bias, error and exorbitant
costs has no place in our society. Yet our attorney general has just requested
execution dates for 9 men. Tennessee can do better.
Opposing the death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for victims of
crime. Many victims’ families oppose the death penalty and do not wish to see
another life taken, especially in the name of their loved one. In the words of
Lorrain Taylor, whose sons were murdered, “Revenge is not justice … Taking
another person’s life does not stop violence. There’s a contradiction in
responding to murder by executing people.” Life without the possibility of
parole is a harsh punishment in keeping with the wishes of families who oppose
the death penalty.
Feelings are strong on both sides of this issue, but everyone can agree that we
shouldn’t be irresponsible. People on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that
our criminal justice system has deep flaws, so why would we rush to impose an
irrevocable punishment?
The country is going in one direction on use of the death penalty and Attorney
General Slatery is taking Tennessee in the opposite direction. He has chosen
wrongly. We should all demand better.
(source: Opinion; Brandon Tucker is policy director at the ACLU of Tennessee
and was a former state advocacy strategist working on the death penalty for the
national ACLU----The Tennessean)
********************
Death row inmate’s attorneys say appeal ignores justice
An attorney for a Tennessee death row inmate says the state attorney general
puts “proceduralism over justice” in his attempt to scuttle a resentencing
agreement.
The comments were from Brad MacLean, who has represented Abu-Ali Abudur’Rahman
for more than 20 years.
The inmate, who is black, was resentenced to life in prison in August after
raising claims that racism tainted the jury selection process.
Attorney General Herbert Slatery appealed last month, claiming Nashville’s
district attorney had no right to agree to the resentencing.
At a news conference Friday, MacLean said the attorney general’s office has not
disputed the claims of racial discrimination but instead argues the courts
should not consider them.
A news release announcing Slatery’s appeal said his office is obligated to
“defend the rule of law.”
(source: dailyjournal.net)
USA:
Boston Marathon bomber convicted of killing, wants to live----Last chance for
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as he awaits fate in Colorado supermax
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is appealing to stay locked up in a
Colorado supermax prison instead of being executed — a fate an uncle of 2
bombing victims says he deserves.
“The punishment meets the crime,” said Peter Brown, whose two nephews lost
their right legs in the April 15, 2013, blasts.
“He deserves the death penalty. How else are we going to send a message that
terrorism isn’t accepted in this country?” Brown told the Herald. “There’s no
doubt. The guilt is there for all to see — and he executed a cop.”
Those killed in the bombings included 8-year-old Martin Richard, Krystle
Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. More than 280 people were injured and MIT
Officer Sean Collier, 27, was murdered by Tsarnaev and his older brother
Tamerlan at the start of a nearly 24-hour manhunt three days after the bombings
that included a region-wide lockdown. Tamerlan was killed that night.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys are asking the court to reverse either the death
sentence or his convictions and keep him locked up for life instead.
Tsarnaev is now on death row in the notorious ADX supermax prison in Colorado,
called a clean version of hell that holds the nation’s worst terrorists and
traitors.
In the 207-page briefing, Tsarnaev’s lawyers argue that their client could not
have received a fair trial anywhere in Eastern Massachusetts because the entire
region was rocked by the twin bombings. They also claim 69% of the jury pool
believed Tsarnaev was guilty.
The lawyers also argue inadmissible evidence was used against Tsarnaev at trial
and that two of the jurors allegedly lied during the jury selection process,
violating their client’s constitutional rights.
In total, the appeal makes 13 points for why Tsarnaev’s death sentence should
be reversed. Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death 4 years ago for
carrying out the attack with his older brother.
The appeal was filed by attorneys Clifford Gardner, Gail Johnson, David Patton,
Deirdre Von Dornum, Daniel Habib and Mia Eisner-Grynberg.
The 490-cell ADX prison is located in the barren foothills of Colorado’s Rocky
Mountains. Others locked up in the supermax include Unabomber Ted Kaczynski,
9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, Oklahoma City bombing cohort Terry
Nichols, FBI traitor Robert Hanssen, who spied for the Soviets, and “Shoe
Bomber” Richard Reid.
Brown added that taxpayers have done enough for the Cambridge terrorist and the
original sentence should stand. “It’s mind-boggling we’ve been paying for his
defense all this time,” he added.
Tsarnaev was a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth at the
time of the bombings. He had graduated from, and was on the wrestling team at
Cambridge Ridge and Latin.
After Tsarnaev apologized for the bombings just before he was sentenced, the
judge said it was too little, too late.
“What will be remembered is that you murdered and maimed innocent people and
that you did it willfully and intentionally,” said federal Judge George A.
O’Toole Jr. “You did it on purpose.”
(source: Boston Herald)
_______________________________________________
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
