[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., S.C., GA., FLA., ALA.
June 20 TEXASnew execution date Randall Mays has received an execution date for October 16; it should be considered serious. (source: MC/RH) * Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present43 Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982present-561 Abbott#scheduled execution date-nameTx. # 44-July 31Ruben Gutierrez-562 45-Aug. 15Dexter Johnson--563 46-Aug. 21Larry Swearingen564 47-Sept. 4Billy Crutsinger565 48-Sept. 10---Mark Anthony Soliz--566 49-Oct. 2-Stephen Barbee--567 50-Oct. 16Randall Mays568 (sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin) ** Houston judge questions capability of federal prosecutor in San Jacinto County death penalty case A federal judge publicly rebuked a Justice Department prosecutor in a Houston death penalty case over allegations the Washington, D.C., lawyer hid exculpatory evidence in another capital case in Indiana federal court. U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, who is known to air his feelings candidly about government employees and policies, made his opinion of Assistant U.S. Attorney James D. Peterson clear Wednesday during a discovery hearing. “I think that America could find a better representative of its values and ideals than Mr. Peterson,” Hughes told another prosecutor on the case. It was the second time in the past year the judge has clashed in court with Peterson. The judge’s admonition came during a hearing for James Wayne Ham, of San Jacinto County, who faces a capital trial on charges that in 2013 he fatally shot Eddie “Marie” Youngblood, a 52-year-old Coldspring postal worker and then burned her remains. Ham’s defense lawyers say that amid a dysfunctional culture in their unit, Peterson and two other Justice Department lawyersdemonstrated a pattern of misconduct in other death penalty cases around the country that warrants further scrutiny of their work regarding Ham. If the judge orders the release of additional documents, the defense team will assess whether they believe evidence that weighs in favor of Ham’s innocence was withheld. The lead defense lawyer in the Houston case, Kimberly C. Stevens, also noted that Peterson’s Texas Bar license has been suspended since 1996 for failure to pay his dues. She told the judge that becoming ineligible due to an administrative suspension constitutes a violation of the federal and local rules. Peterson has an active law license in Virginia and could appear in federal court without a Texas license, according to the state bar association. Evidence presented in a civil suit in Connecticut that Peterson and Steve Mellin, another prosecutor previously tied to the Ham case, had destroyed or failed to produce evidence favorable to the defense in other federal death penalty cases. And a declaration by Amanda Haines, a former co-worker, in an Indiana death penalty case stated that she had resigned due to ethical breaches she had reported that were never addressed by management. Haines, the aggrieved ex-prosecutor, said in a sworn statement that Peterson “committed a fundamental error in judgment” and a violated protocol in the Indiana case when he interviewed dozens of witnesses who had evidence favorable to the defendant without law enforcement present. Peterson then compounded the error, in her view, by destroying his notes and then denying he had disposed of them. Haines said that attorney Mellin, who worked on the Ham case in Houston from 2013 to 2014, had missed deadlines and failed to review documents or identify exculpatory Brady material boxes of evidence in the Indiana case. Justice lawyers said under oath that Peterson’s department was riddled with personnel problems, including allegations of a sexualized environment at the office that was both hostile to and discriminatory against women. Male lawyers accused of failing to cover the basics won awards and got plum assignments, like the Boston Marathon bombing case, while female prosecutors got short shrift, the women said. Stevens, the defense lawyer in Houston also asked the judge to review the conduct of Kevin Carwile, who previously headed Mellin and Peterson’s unit at the Justice Department and Carwile’s deputy, Gwynn “Charlie” X. Kinsey Jr. Both men appeared at Ham’s death penalty determination hearing in Washington opposite 2 female defense lawyers. These top capital prosecution officials subsequently faced scrutiny and were ousted from their roles in the wake of allegations of misconduct and disparate treatment. Hughes, the judge in the Houston case, ordered the prosecutors to produce a list of all events and documents involving Peterson and the other Justice lawyers. The
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., S.C., GA., FLA., ALA., MISS., OHIO, TENN., WYO., ID., USA
January 31 TEXASexecution 30 years after killing a Houston police officer, Texas executes Robert JenningsJennings was put to death Wednesday for the 1988 murder of Elston Howard. The long sentence was complicated by constantly evolving death penalty laws. Robert Jennings was on Texas’ death row for nearly 30 years. On Wednesday, the 61-year-old was put to death in the nation’s 1st execution of 2019. Jennings was sentenced to death in the 1988 murder of Houston police officer Elston Howard. According to court records, Jennings walked into an adult bookstore to rob it, and Howard was there arresting the store clerk for a municipal violation. The clerk testified that Howard had no time to even reach for his gun before Jennings shot him multiple times, killing him. Less than an hour after his final appeals were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Jennings was injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital at 6:15 p.m. in the state's execution chamber in Huntsville. He was pronounced dead 18 minutes later. In his final words uttered strapped to a gurney, he told his friends and family it was "a nice journey." "To the family of the police officer, I hope this finds you peace," he said. "... Enjoy life's moments because we never get them back." The lengthy stretch of time between Jennings' 1989 sentencing and his execution shines a light on the complications that can arise during the appeals process in the face of constantly evolving death penalty law. In their last attempt to halt Jennings' execution, his lawyers zeroed in on changes in how death penalty juries weigh "mitigating evidence"— factors that can lessen the severity of the punishment that are largely based on the defendant's background, like an abusive childhood or intellectual disability. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that, at the time of Jennings' trial, Texas juries were not told they could opt for a sentence of life in prison rather than death if they believed the defendant’s background or character warranted mercy — a key aspect of death penalty trials now. Rather, the so-called "special issue" questions Texas juries were required to answer after finding someone guilty of capital murder asked them to determine whether the murder was deliberate or provoked — and whether the defendant was a potential future danger. At the punishment portion of Jennings' 1989 murder trial, when the jury was supposed to answer those questions, the prosecution brought up Jennings’ long rap sheet — he had been to prison multiple times for aggravated robbery and had been released on parole only 2 months before Howard’s murder, according to court records. In his confession to police after his arrest, he also confessed to several other robberies in the 2-month span. Meanwhile, Jennings’ lawyers only brought forth a Harris County jail chaplain, who said Jennings wasn’t “incorrigible,” in reference to potential danger posed. The jury also heard Jennings’ recorded confession, in which he admitted he had been drinking and using drugs and expressed remorse for the shooting. But days before the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in an unrelated case that a death penalty jury must be specifically directed to determine whether mitigating evidence warrants sparing the defendant from execution. In an attempt to address the ruling at the last minute, Jennings’ jurors were told after closing arguments to consider any mitigating evidence already introduced and, if they found it appropriate, to answer against the death penalty in one of the already-existing questions. The jury was unconvinced, and Jennings was sentenced to death. It wasn’t until more than a decade later that the Supreme Court again took up the issue and determined that telling a jury to weigh mitigating evidence by overwriting an existing special issue is not constitutional. Jennings’ lawyers have argued that the jury’s inability to properly weigh his drug use and how remorseful he was for Howard’s death warranted him a new trial with the new special issue questions, which now include a question on mitigating evidence. They also said if the trial counsel had known to raise other mitigating evidence, including mental deficits and a troubling childhood, the jury would have reached a different conclusion. “It gets extremely complicated because the law evolves, and then the question is: Do new decisions get applied retroactively?” Randy Schaffer, one of Jennings’ lawyers, told The Texas Tribune Tuesday. But not every death sentence handed down before juries were instructed to consider mitigating factors was tossed after the Supreme Court ruling. Rather, the nation's highest court said it depended on the nature of the evidence presented at trial. Ultimately, the courts said Jennings’ remorse didn’t make the cut — although he did get one execution date taken off the calendar as a Texas court
