July 12
TEXAS:
Texas took a decade of Alfred Brown's life. It's time to pay him back.
After wrongfully convicting Alfred Brown and keeping him behind bars for 12
years, the state should stop trying to sweep him under the rug.
Brown was sent to death row in 2005 for the 2003 murder of a Houston police
officer and a store clerk at a check-cashing business, but his alibi was not
vindicated until years later, when unearthed phone records showed that Brown
was at his girlfriend's house at the time of the killing. Although the Court of
Criminal Appeals threw out his conviction and death sentence in 2015 because
this evidence never made it into the hands of his defense at trial, he wasn't
declared actually innocent until earlier this year, when Harris County District
Attorney Kim Ogg and Harris County District Court Judge George Powell both
swore to his innocence.
Brown's plight calls to mind an exoneration that went more smoothly: the case
of Hannah Overton, who received a finding of actual innocence in 2017 and was
compensated by the comptroller the next year without question. The
comptroller's office stated that a trial court does not have the authority to
dismiss a case it has previously dismissed, but there is clearly precedent for
this exact pattern. Like Brown, Overton's case was dismissed twice by the same
court, but that did not stop the comptroller from performing his duty of
compensating her.
Brown has a strong case for actual innocence, and we wish him the best of luck
in gaining his due. That doesn't mean we should be comfortable with our system.
The state took 12 years of Brown's life and has no intention of paying him back
even after admitting the mistake. Now, the burden is on Brown to prove his own
innocence.
Perhaps the comptroller has good reasons for inconsistency which haven't yet
been made clear. Nonetheless, our system has clearly let Brown slip through the
cracks. Whatever may happen in the future, Brown now represents a sliver of
freed inmates both wronged and ignored by the state. He was not only released,
but found innocent, and yet the state still refuses to make him whole.
There ought to be a place in our system for people drifting between freedom
after wrongful convictions and full pardons. Right now, we're keeping them in
limbo.
We shouldn't treat a dismissal like a pardon. Neither should we make it an
excuse to neglect the wrongfully jailed. Whether or not the state accepts his
innocence, Brown spent over a decade in prison thanks to the state's mistakes,
not his own. It's time to make him whole and ensure that other victims of the
judicial system will not be overlooked.
(source: This editorial was written by the editorial board and serves as the
voice and opinion of The Dallas Morning News)
*********************
Supporters: Fight over Reed’s innocence ‘nowhere near over’
Rodrick Reed stood on the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington
last week, joining capital punishment abolitionists from across the nation one
day after Texas’ highest criminal court denied his brother Rodney Reed’s latest
appeal for a new trial.
Reed, who was convicted in 1996 for the Bastrop County murder of Stacey Stites
and placed on death row, has argued for a new trial after his defense attorneys
claimed his conviction was based on false scientific evidence and that new
evidence called into question testimony provided by Stites’ fiancé, Jimmy
Fennell.
But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected those appeals in a unanimous
ruling last Wednesday after reviewing the merits of their argument. It was
Reed’s latest loss after the Supreme Court rejected his attorneys’ request to
test DNA evidence 1 year ago.
“When something like that happens, it kind of knocks the wind out of us a
little bit, but we take a deep breath and we keep moving forward,” Rodrick Reed
said from Washingtonn. “We move forward in faith and belief that justice will
be done, because my brother is truly innocent and all the evidence proves
that.”
“This fight is nowhere near over,” he said.
Last Thursday, Rodrick and other family members gathered on the Supreme Court
building’s steps hoisting protest signs and wearing bright shirts reading “free
Rodney Reed” or “Texas executes innocent people.” They were joined by advocates
from across the country, all seeking to abolish capital punishment in favor of
alternatives. Speaking and protesting with all these allies, some of whom have
won exoneration themselves, Rodrick found support and inspiration.
“It always gives you hope when you have somebody fighting for the same thing
you’re fighting for — that always lifts you up,” Roderick said. “When you speak
with people who have been where you are, and you see them here today, it gives
you hope. It lets you know that the fight is never over.”
For 20 years Rodrick, other members the Reed family and supporters around
Bastrop have been advocating on behalf of Rodney as the Reed Justice
Initiative, selling shirts to spread awareness of the campaign and organizing
advocacy events. In April, they launched a letter writing campaign that filled
up Bastrop County District Attorney Bryan Goertz’s mailbox.
Rodrick said the initiative will live on, no matter the outcome of Rodney’s
case, pursuing death penalty abolition.
“Once we got into this thing, it was about my brother, but we’ve been in it so
long, we’ve seen the sadness and the pain in the eyes of others that are going
through what we’re going through and we just have to do something about it,” he
said. “It’s not just about us.”
Bryce Benjet, Reed’s defense attorney with the Innocence Project of New York,
said following the ruling last week that his team is considering options for
presenting the new evidence to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the
U.S. Supreme Court, including a possible federal civil rights lawsuit to force
testing on Stites’ clothing and two pieces of the belt used to strangle her.
In 2017, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Reed’s request for DNA
testing in an 8-0 ruling. The court’s ruling saidproblems with the chain of
custody of the physical evidence — or the handling of the evidence by attorneys
over the years — raised questions about contamination and doubts that DNA
testing would produce reliable results. Reed’s attorneys then unsuccessfully
brought the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Texas court
misinterpreted the state DNA law’s chain-of-custody language, which requires
testing to be done on evidence that has not been tampered with.
Reed’s advocates and attorneys have also challenged various facts presented in
the case, including Stites’ original time of death, saying that Stites died
hours before the state claimed, which would help prove Reeds’ innocence.
They point to the possibility that Stites’ fiancé, Fennell, a former police
officer, could be responsible for her killing. They have argued that Reed and
Stites were having an affair and that Fennell killed her after learning of
their consensual sexual relationship.
Last year, Fennell was released 6 months early from a 10-year prison sentence
for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman in his custody as a Georgetown
police officer in 2007.
(source: Austin American-Statesman)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Victim's family asks prosecutors to drop death penalty
A North Carolina district attorney says the family of a murder victim has
persuaded prosecutors to drop the death penalty for a man convicted of
murdering his pregnant girlfriend and permanently injuring her 3-year-old son.
Ashville Citizen-Times reports 27-year-old Nathaniel Dixon was convicted last
month of 1st-degree murder, attempted 1st-degree murder and malicious maiming.
Prosecutors say he shot 22-year-old Candace Pickens and her 3-year-old in 2016.
The boy lost his left eye and suffered a traumatic brain injury but survived.
Pickens was in her 1st trimester of pregnancy when she was killed.
Assistant District Attorney Pat Patton said prosecutors met with Pickens'
family, who have said they opposed the death penalty and said life imprisonment
without parole was sufficient for Dixon's punishment.
A sentencing hearing is set for July 16.
(source: WRAL news)
FLORIDA:
Prosecutors seeking death penalty in Hunt case
A man Panama City police say shot and killed 1 person and injured 3 others in
now facing the death penalty.
Prosecutors confirmed Thursday that they are seeking the death penalty Michael
Harrison Hunt.
Investigators were searching for Hunt after he walked away from the Bay County
courthouse during an April 1st court session. During the hearing, Hunt learned
of a new warrant for his arrest but due to confusion about the warrant he was
able to slip away.
While Hunt was missing the shooting happened. Hunt was declared a person of
interest and he was arrested as he returned to Bay County.
(source: mypanhandle.com)
*********************
Scott Nelson: No Death Penalty for Convicted Killer
After 2 days of deliberations, a 12-member jury couldn't unanimously agree on a
death sentence for convicted killer Scott Nelson, who then got life in prison
for killing a Winter Park personal assistant in 2017.
Judge Keith F. White read the jury's decision to the courtroom at the Orange
County Courthouse in downtown Orlando late Thursday afternoon. Soon after White
read the decision, he officially sentenced Nelson to life in prison.
The jury's decision to recommend death for Nelson had to be unanimous, which
means at least 1 juror declined to recommend the sentence.
"We respect the decision of the jury, and we are relieved to know this person
will no longer be a threat to our community," the State Attorney's Office said
in a statement.
The jurors spent Wednesday night sequestered in a hotel with no TV, wifi or
private phone calls. About an hour into their deliberations Thursday morning,
they had a request for the judge.
The jury wanted to revisit testimony by 2 psychologists who testified during
the penalty phase of Nelson's trial: 1 for the state and 1 for Nelson’s
defense.
Jurors specifically wanted to hear testimony that dealt with bipolar disorder
and post-traumatic stress disorder, 2 mental disorders that Nelson's defense
attorneys argued their client has struggled with. The attorneys argued that
those disorders contributed to his killing of Jennifer Fulford in 2017.
The state’s psychologist testified that Nelson doesn't have mental disorders
but a personality disorder that includes narcissism, and that he still has the
ability to choose between right and wrong.
Jurors listened for about an hour as a court reporter read back the testimony,
then went back into deliberations.
The jurors last month found Nelson guilty of killing Fulford. Taking the stand
in his own defense, Nelson admitted to killing her but said his parole officer
made him do it.
Prosecutors announced in court that Thursday would have been Fulford's
birthday.
The judge told Nelson he has 30 days to appeal his case in writing.
(source: mynews13.com)
NEBRASKA:
Man facing death penalty after murdering woman he found through Tinder 'with
girlfriend'
A man who slashed his own neck during a court hearing has been found guilty of
murdering and dismembering a young woman he met through Tinder, and could now
face execution.
Jurors convicted Aubrey Trail of first-degree murder in the death of Sidney
Loofe, 24, after less than 3 hours of deliberation.
Loofe disappeared in November 2017 and her remains were found in 14 pieces near
a highway in Nebraska weeks later.
Trail's girlfriend Bailey Boswell also faces a murder charge but her trial is
yet to begin.
Prosecutors said Trail and Ms Boswell had planned to kill someone before the
woman met Loofe through Tinder.
Ms Boswell solicited young women through social media sites, and she and her
boyfriend together picked out a victim, it is said.
Trail said he and Ms Boswell had in fact met Loofe several months earlier, but
that she did not want to participate in their other crimes. He claimed they
rekindled a relationship in November 2017 through Tinder.
Prosecutors alleged Trail repeatedly changed his story during the investigation
and trial.
Authorities said Trail and Boswell had been captured on video buying tools used
to dismember Loofe, hours before the young woman’s death and while she was
still at work.
Trail and his partner were later charged with murder but the 52-year-old
claimed Loofe had died during rough sex.
He also said he had invented various stories, including one about killing 14
other people, to throw investigators off-track.
Following the verdict, a second phase of the trial is underway to determine
whether Trail is eligible for the death penalty.
Trail missed much of his own trial after slashing his neck in the courtroom on
24 June. He shouted, ”Bailey is innocent, and I curse you all” before he
passing an object across his throat.
He returned to court earlier this week to testify in his defence, bearing large
scars on his neck.
(source: Yahoo News)
**********************
Judges to decide if Trail gets the death penalty
Aubrey Trail, who was convicted of 1st-degree murder for the killing of Sydney
Loofe, has waived his right to a jury trial to see if there were aggravated
circumstances involved in the crime, electing to send the case to a death
penalty hearing.
Trail, who was convicted for the killing of Loofe on Wednesday night, waived
his right to the jury hearing on Thursday morning.
Since the state is pursuing the death penalty as a sentence, Trail had the
right for a jury to decide if there were at least 1 of 9 aggravated
circumstances surrounding the killing of the 24-year-old.
Since he waived his right to the hearing with this jury, the case will advance
to a 3-judge panel to decide whether Trail gets the death penalty.
Trail was convicted of 1st-degree murder as well as conspiracy to commit
murder.
"I don't think he has much credibility. I don't think you can get to end of the
trial and decide to tell the truth," a juror said after the court adjourned
Thursday.
The next step is for the panel to convene. Judge Vicky Johnson, who heard the
case in Saline County, will likely be one of the three people on the panel.
The other 2 will be chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Nebraska.
The panel has to decide unanimously to sentence him to death. Otherwise he will
serve life in prison.
(source: KOLN news)
ARIZONA:
Death penalty decision in Peoria rap music murder could take months
It’s too early to tell if prosecutors will seek the death penalty for a man
accused of fatally stabbing a West Valley teenager because he reportedly felt
threatened by the rap music the youth was listening to, Maricopa County
Attorney ill Montgomery said Thursday.
A day earlier, a grand jury indicted Michael Paul Adams on a 1st-degree murder
charge in the July 4 killing of 17-year-old Elijah Al-Amin at a Peoria
convenience store.
If convicted of the charge, Adams will be sentenced to life in prison without
parole or death by lethal injection.
The attorney for Adams has said her client, who was released from prison 2 days
before Al-Amin was killed, is mentally ill.
During a press conference Thursday, Montgomery said, as with all
1st-degree-murder cases, prosecutors will conduct a review to determine if they
will seek the death penalty.
“It is at this point that we will look at all available evidence, including any
allegations of mental health issues and evidence of hate towards Elijah,”
Montgomery said of the review process.
Court records show that Adams served 13 months for aggravated assault on a
corrections officer at a county jail. Adams was in jail because of a 2017
arrest on charges he waved a brick at a security guard and told him he would
“put this brick through your face,” records show.
Jacie Cotterell, Adams’ attorney, told the judge at his initial appearance
hearing last week that her client was mentally ill and had been released from
prison without any medication, “no holdover meds, no way to care for himself.”
A former defense attorney, Josephine Hallam, said last October that Adams had
been diagnosed as autistic and suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and a “sensory processing disorder.” Adams believed the brick to have
“magical” powers that would protect him, Hallam said.
? Department of Corrections spokesman Bill Lamoreaux said in a statement that
“the tragic death is terrible, and Mr. Adams will have to answer for his
alleged actions.”
Lamoreaux said that when Adams was released he “was not designated seriously
mentally ill” and that once the agency transported him from the state prison
complex in Yuma to the Phoenix area where he lives, it “had no further legal
authority over him.”
Montgomery acknowledged that mental health problems, in general, can complicate
cases without speaking directly to the issue in this case.
Under state law, prosecutors have 60 days to file their intent to seek the
death penalty, but Montgomery anticipates the deadline being extended through
an agreement with the defendant.
The case has garnered national attention, with calls to prosecute the seemingly
senseless death of a black teen at the hands of a white man as a hate crime.
Even Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker has tweeted about it
using the hashtag #JusticeforElijah.
However, Arizona doesn’t have a hate crime statute, although evidence of bias
against a victim’s identity can be used to enhance the sentence.
“If we choose not to pursue the death penalty the case will still go forward as
a first-degree murder case, with the natural life as the penalty that would be
imposed following a conviction,” Montgomery said.
Montgomery got emotional when talking about Al-Amin’s death.
“What makes this offense so tragic is we had a 17-year-old who did absolutely
nothing,” he said, choking up.
“As a father myself of a 16-year-old, I can’t imagine what this young man’s
family is going through, and it is a significant loss to our community.”
Montgomery said he would not utter the defendant’s name during the press
conference.
“Our community has lost forever what Elijah would have contributed, and it is
his memory, his name that we should acknowledge and remember.
“Elijah Al-Amin did nothing to warrant the brutal and senseless attack that
took his life in the early-morning hours just 1 week ago.”
There wasn’t any indication that the defendant was affiliated with any hate
groups, Montgomery said.
“And we have seen no evidence of the adoption or proclamation by the defendant
of white supremacist ideology,” Montgomery said.
(source: KTAR news)
CALIFORNIA:
Man accused of killing, robbing Modesto bookstore employee could face death
penalty
A man accused of robbing and killing an employee at a Modesto adult bookstore
could face the death penalty if he’s convicted, a prosecutor told a judge
Thursday.
Favian Marcos Ramirez, 20, of Modesto is charged with murder and robbery in the
shooting of 38-year-old Cinnamon Eades, according to a criminal complaint filed
Thursday morning by the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office.
The murder charge includes a special circumstance allegation — that the
shooting occurred during a robbery — that makes the case against Ramirez
eligible for the death penalty.
Ramirez made his 1st court appearance Thursday afternoon. He was ushered into
the courtroom wearing a gray-and-charcoal jail inmate jumpsuit with shackles on
his wrists and ankles. He sat quietly next to Deputy Public Defender Jared
Jordan.
Jordan asked the judge to postpone the arraignment while the county’s Public
Defender’s Office, which has been appointed to represent Ramirez, receives
discovery evidence collected by prosecutors.
Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Scott Steffen postponed Ramirez’s arraignment
until July 25. Ramirez only spoke in court when he told the judge he was
willing to waive his right to an arraignment in a timely manner.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Houston asked the judge to keep Ramirez in
jail without setting a bail amount, because Ramirez could face the death
penalty if convicted. The prosecutor told the judge that the District
Attorney’s Office had not decided whether it will seek the death penalty.
Judge Steffen said Ramirez also could face life in prison without parole if
he’s convicted. Steffen denied the prosecutor’s request and set Ramirez’s bail
at $11 million.
Eades suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was taken by ambulance to a local
hospital, where she died. She was working at Liberty Adult Books, at 1030
Kansas Ave. in west Modesto, Tuesday afternoon when the shooting occurred.
The Modesto police Violent Crimes Unit determined that Ramirez made a purchase
at the bookstore, and said he then shot Eades before grabbing an undisclosed
amount of cash and leaving the store.
Police officials said Ramirez drove to the store in a car he’d taken on a test
drive from a Modesto used-car dealership. He left the car outside Liberty Adult
Books when he walked away from the crime, according to police.
Detectives identified Ramirez through a combination of information, including
security camera video and questioning staff at the car dealership, where police
say he provided valid identification before taking the test drive.
Detectives and SWAT officers found Ramirez leaving a Ceres home in another
vehicle Tuesday night. Police said Ramirez ran away, but he was found about 11
p.m. after authorities surrounded the area near Pleasant and Central avenues.
Ramirez’s charges include enhancements for allegedly acting with premeditation
and using a gun in the deadly robbery, according to the filed complaint.
(source: Modesto Bee)
OREGON----female death sentence tossed out
Judge tosses McAnulty conviction and sentence
A retired judge from Malheur County threw out the conviction and death sentence
of Angela McAnulty, Oregon's only woman on death row, who pleaded guilty in
2011 to murdering her 15-year-old daughter.
Senior Circuit Court Judge J. Burdette Pratt issued his signed order late
Wednesday. He said McAnulty should get a new trial because her attorneys failed
to adequately represent or advise her during her trial.
McAnulty's case is one of the most notorious in modern Oregon history. Pratt
noted the evidence was "particularly gruesome."
According to prosecutors, McAnulty singled out her daughter Jeanette Maples to
beat and starve while allowing her other 2 children to eat.
Kenneth Hadley was part of McAnulty's defense team during her trial and
sentencing. He said others on the defense had only a month and a half to
prepare since they were finishing up another death penalty case.
"We felt very rushed," Hadley said. "They were given a very short period of
time before we started this trial, and I thought that was terribly unfair."
Hadley said prosecutors did not give McAnulty a plea deal, unlike her husband.
He said McAnulty pleading guilty with the death penalty still on the table was
meant to show the jury that she was taking responsibility for her actions and
was shocked when the jury came back with the death penalty verdict.
Hadley said they brought up her childhood trauma and mental illness during the
sentencing phase, but court records filed on McAnulty claim only a fraction of
evidence was presented.
In an email to KEZI 9 News in Eugene, Senior Prosecutor Erik Hasselman with the
Lane County District Attorney’s Office — who first prosecuted the case — said
the Oregon Attorney General will be deciding whether to appeal the ruling to
the Oregon Court of Appeals. He said until it is officially sent back to their
office for a retrial, they won't comment.
KEZI reached to people who knew Jeanette Maples but haven't heard back. KEZI
also reached out to organizations dedicated to fighting child abuse in Lane
County, and while officials were not available for a formal interview, they
said there are more prevention programs available today compared to 2009.
(source: KDRV 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
