November 14
TEXAS----impending execution
Texas to execute Mexican national on Wednesday, amid pleas for case review
----Lawyers for convicted killer Robert Moreno Ramos have argued that he wasn’t
aware of his rights under an international treaty, and therefore didn't receive
proper legal counsel during his trial and sentencing.
Texas plans to carry out the execution of Robert Moreno Ramos by lethal
injection on Wednesday evening, amid his lawyers’ continued pleas that the case
be re-examined for legal violations from 25 years ago.
Ramos, 64, was convicted of capital murder in March 1993 for the February 1992
killings of his wife, Leticia, 42, and their 2 children, Abigail, 7, and
Jonathon, 3, in Hidalgo County. Ramos, a Mexican national, beat his wife and
children with a miniature sledgehammer, and then buried them under the bathroom
floor in the family’s Progreso home, according to trial evidence.
Ramos’ case has been a point of contention in both district and federal courts
for years, due to requirements of an international treaty. The Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations mandates that when an immigrant is arrested
and held in detention, he has the right for the consulate to be notified so
that the foreign government can provide legal representation.
Lawyers in Ramos’ case have argued in appeals since 1996 that Ramos wasn’t
aware of his rights, and therefore didn’t receive sufficient legal guidance
that they say could have made a difference in his sentencing.
His current lawyer wrote in a 2015 filing that Ramos was instead represented by
court-appointed, “incompetent counsel” who was poorly trained and failed to
present “mitigating evidence” at his conviction and sentencing that disregarded
Ramos’ brain damage and history of severe mental illness, as well as his
upbringing marked by “shocking brutality and desperate poverty.”
On Feb. 7, 1992, a neighbor reported that she had heard screams coming from the
Ramos home. For nearly two months after the murders, Ramos dodged questions
regarding his wife and children’s location, until his sister-in-law reported
Leticia Ramos and the children as missing. In court records, it is noted that
Ramos was having an affair and had married the woman 3 days after the killings.
Police questioned Ramos at the end of March about his family’s disappearance.
After providing contradictory statements — saying first that his family was in
Austin, then San Antonio and Mexico — Ramos was later arrested on traffic
violations and brought to the police station.
Police obtained permission to search the house on April 6. They found traces of
blood throughout the home. After another round of questioning on April 7, Ramos
admitted that he buried the victims under the bathroom floor, where police
eventually excavated the bodies from underneath newly installed tiling.
During Ramos’ sentencing, his 19-year-old son testified against him, detailing
harrowing accounts of growing up under his father’s physical and verbal abuse.
Another woman testified that Ramos was likely responsible for the disappearance
of her daughter, who married Ramos in 1988 in Reynosa and who had not been seen
by her family since 1989.
Ramos was found guilty and sentenced to death in March 1993.
The Mexican government eventually filed a case against the United States in
2003 that bundled Ramos with more than 50 other Mexican immigrants sentenced to
death in the U.S. who did not receive consulate-sponsored representation under
the treaty. The case went to the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
Netherlands, which determined in 2004 that the U.S. government had violated the
treaty.
However, after the decision, President George W. Bush announced that it would
be up to the state courts to “review and reconsider” details of the cases.
Ramos sought relief under the international court’s ruling, but the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court denied a review
of the decision.
A week before his scheduled execution, Ramos’ attorneys were still filing for a
stay of execution, saying that Ramos will “die without having received even one
full and fair review of the constitutionality of his death sentence at any
stage of the process in any state or federal court.”
Ramos’ attorneys did not respond to the Tribune’s requests for comment.
(source: Texas Tribune)
***************
Former deputy attorneys general call out Texas court, file brief supporting
death row inmate
A group of conservatives, prominent lawyers and former deputy attorneys general
have jumped into the debate over a Texas death row inmate, condemning a state
appeals court and instead siding with the convicted killer whose lawyers are
trying to prove he’s too intellectually disabled to execute.
In a 24-page friend of the court brief - backed by a coalition including
Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose probe led to President Bill
Clinton's impeachment - the groups calls out the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals for threatening the rule of law with its "disturbing disregard" for the
Supreme Court's decision in the case of Harris County killer Bobby Moore.
“Applying medical standards as required by this Court’s prior decision in this
very case, Bobby Moore is intellectually disabled,” the group wrote. “It is
indisputable that this disability renders Moore categorically ineligible for
the death penalty.”
The amicus brief - 1 of 3 filed in the past week supporting Moore’s claims - is
just the latest in a twist-laden case that’s now before the Supreme Court for
the second time in as many years.
The Houston man’s appeals attracted national attention in 2017 after a split
Supreme Court ruling that upended the way Texas determine intellectual
disability. The court found that Texas was using a dated, nonclinical method
based to determine intellectual disability, so the justices sent the case back
to Harris County.
There, prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed that Moore is so mentally
disabled that it would be unconstitutional to put him to death. But when the
case landed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for approval, the state
justices agreed on a modern, clinical standard - then decided Moore didn’t meet
it anyway. Defense attorneys condemned the ruling as an "outlier" and
"inconsistent" with the higher court.
Afterward, Moore’s attorneys returned to the Supreme Court this fall, and last
week Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg's office filed a rare response in
support.
Then late last week, the coalition of former deputy attorneys general weighed
in, writing that the appellate ruling “reflects a disturbing disregard for the
binding authority” of the Supreme Court and pointing out that the Texas court
isn’t allowed to simply ignore the Supreme Court because they don’t like its
decision.
The brief goes on to argue that Texas court just “repackaged” the factors used
to determine Moore was fit to execute under the old standard - the one the
Supreme Court struck down - and used the same logic to draw the same
conclusion, using the new method as a “window dressing.”
“Such disregard for this Court’s binding authority is impermissible, and calls
for swift correction,” the group wrote, calling the Texas court’s decision is a
“clear error” that is “inconsistent with the rule of law.”
In another brief supporting Moore’s claims, the American Bar Association argued
that letting the Court of Criminal Appeals subvert the Supreme Court’s 2017
decision would “give license to States simply to ignore this Court’s judgments
when they disagree with them.”
Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association and other medical groups
filed a brief criticizing the Texas appeals court for how it applied the new
clinical standards it adopted, and recommend that the Supreme Court overturn
the lower court’s ruling. But - unlike in the other 2 briefs filed - the
medical groups didn’t clarify whether Moore counts as intellectually disabled.
“The APA does not opine on the specifics of individual cases,” attorney Jessica
Amunson explained in an email Monday.
Moore was 1 of 3 men involved in the April 25, 1980 botched robbery of the
Birdsall Super Market near Memorial Park. The trio targeted the store because 2
of the employees were elderly and the cashier was pregnant.
Moore, who fired the shot that killed elderly store clerk James McCarble, fled
to Louisiana. But one of his co-conspirators turned himself in and confessed -
and Moore was picked up by police 10 days later. He was sentenced to death
during his 1980 trial.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
******************
UN experts urge US to halt Texas execution of Mexican Roberto Ramos Moreno
UN human rights experts* have called on the US Government to halt the imminent
execution of a Mexican national amid concerns that he did not receive a fair
trial.
Mr. Roberto Ramos Moreno, a Mexican national, is due to be executed in Texas on
14 November 2018. He was convicted of capital murder in 1993.
Mr. Moreno has had psychosocial disabilities predating the time of offence. In
such circumstances, international human rights standards prohibit the use of
the death penalty.
The Texas authorities failed to notify, in a timely fashion, the Mexican
consulate of his arrest, in contravention of international standards thus
resulting in Mr. Moreno being denied essential assistance in crucial stages of
the investigation. In addition, Mr. Moreno Ramos did not have legal
representation until 3 months after his initial arrest, despite having
requested a lawyer.
The UN’s International Court of Justice found in 2004 that the US Government
had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
and ordered the Government not to execute Mr. Ramos Moreno until his case had
been reconsidered.
“Any death sentence carried out in contravention of a Government’s
international obligations amounts to an arbitrary execution,” the experts
warned. “We call for his death sentence to be annulled and for Mr. Ramos Moreno
to be re-tried in compliance with due process and international fair trial
standards.”
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also called for a new trial
in line with due process and fair trial standards.
----
*The UN experts: Ms. Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions; Mr Seong-Phil Hong, Chair-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the
Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent
experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s
independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific
country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special
Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not
receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or
organization and serve in their individual capacity.
(source: UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights)
PENNSYLVANIA:
For death row survivors, the fight against capital punishment starts in Philly
If the justice system worked in America, we never would have met. Kwame grew up
in Cleveland. Kirk grew up in Maryland. Kwame was a teenager with no criminal
history. Kirk was a former Marine, also with no criminal history. We were both
just starting our lives when we were arrested for murders we didn't commit and
sent to death row.
In Kwame's case, the police coerced a 13-year-old boy to identify him, his
brother, and a friend as the killers of a money order salesman. He spent 28
years in prison, including three years on death row, before the witness told
the truth, and Kwame and his co-defendants were exonerated with evidence of
their innocence.
Despite having an alibi, Kirk was convicted of the rape-murder of a 9-year-old
girl. In prison in 1992, he read about a forensic breakthrough called DNA
fingerprinting and fought for testing. After 8 years, he became the 1st
capitally-convicted person in the U.S. to be exonerated by DNA testing.
Kirk Bloodsworth, exonerated in 1993 after being wrongly convicted of murder,
is acting executive director of Witness to Innocence.
We wish we could say our stories are unusual, but they are not. Since 1973, 164
people have been exonerated from death row. In fact, for every 9 executions, 1
death-row prisoner has been freed because of evidence of their innocence. As
long as humans are in charge, mistakes will be made – including irreversible
mistakes.
Death-row exonerees have every reason to stay home and disengage. But many of
them have joined the Philadelphia-based Witness to Innocence, the only
organization in the U.S. composed of and led by exonerated death-row survivors
and their families, and are dedicating their lives to making sure that what
happened to them never happens to anyone else. Take Sabrina Butler. She was a
teenager in Mississippi when she was convicted of murdering her baby and
sentenced to death. She spent more than five years in prison before she was
able to prove her son died of natural causes.
This week, Witness to Innocence reached a milestone, our 15th anniversary. As
we enter our next phase, we have launched Accuracy & Justice Workshops to bring
together exonerated death-row survivors and criminal justice professionals,
including police officers, prosecutors, and judges, with the goal of reducing
wrongful convictions. Reform-minded prosecutors across the country are hosting
these discussions, and our next session, in December, will be with the 300
prosecutors in Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner's office.
Of course, the only surefire way to avoid executing an innocent person is to
stop imposing the death penalty. And over the last several years, capital
punishment has been in steady decline. In 1996, 315 people were sentenced to
death. Last year, 39 people received death sentences. Public support is at its
lowest level in 45 years, according to Gallup. Less than 1/2 of Americans
believe that capital punishment is applied fairly.
Our leaders are getting the message. Last month, the Washington Supreme Court
found that the state's death penalty was applied in an arbitrary and racially
biased manner and struck it down as unconstitutional. With the Washington State
ruling, 20 states have abolished the death penalty by court order or
legislative action. The states that continue to carry out executions tend to be
the same states that had slavery, which should tell you something.
Pennsylvania is 1 of 3 states that have a moratorium, and rightly so, given
that the bipartisan Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital
Punishment recently concluded that many systemic problems were intractable and
"there is no way to put procedural safeguards in place that will guarantee with
100 % certainty that the Commonwealth will not execute an innocent person."
Based on the empirical data and our own life experiences, we believe it is time
to end capital punishment across the U.S. Some people support capital
punishment in theory, but in practice, it is too broken to be fixed. We need to
get the death penalty right every time, and we don't. If it can happen to us,
it can happen to anyone.
(source: opinion; Kwame Ajamu is chair of the board and Kirk Bloodsworth is
acting executive director of Witness to Innocence----philly.com)
FLORIDA:
Florida Death-Penalty Cases Trigger Diverging High Court Opinions
3 Supreme Court justices defended their votes Tuesday after the court rejected
its 84th death-penalty case in recent weeks involving the same claim against
Florida.
As with the preceding cases, the challenge here by Michael Gordon Reynolds
sought retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida, a 2016 ruling in which the
Supreme Court found the Sunshine State’s death-penalty scheme unconstitutional
because it required a judge rather than a jury to find the aggravating
circumstances necessary to impose a death sentence.
Though the Florida bench has retroactively applied the Hurst holding to capital
defendants whose sentences became final after 2002, capital defendants like
Reynolds whose sentences became final before 2002 have been denied relied.
The basis for the cutoff is Ring v. Arizona, a 2002 decision in which the
Supreme Court ruled against a similar death-penalty scheme in a different
state.
With the Supreme Court rejecting the challenge today by Reynolds, Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote that a more prudent course of action would be to rule on
the constitutionality of the death penalty itself, “rather than attempting to
address the flaws in piecemeal fashion.”
Though Breyer raised the possibility that Reynolds may not have been sentenced
to die if the jurors had to confront various issues with the death-penalty
scheme, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the facts of
Reynolds’ case should “alleviate [his] concerns.”
“The only thing ‘cruel and unusual’ in this case was petitioner’s brutal murder
of 3 innocent victims,” the opinion from Thomas states.
Thomas noted Reynolds was convicted of murdering nearly an entire family in
1998. He began with the father, bashing in Danny Ray Privett’s head with a
piece of concrete as Privett relieved himself outside of the family’s camping
trailer.
Not wanting to leave any witnesses, Reynolds “entered the trailer, where he
brutally beat, stabbed, and murdered Privett’s girlfriend, Robin Razor, and
their 11-year-old daughter, Christina Razor,” the Thomas opinion states.
“Only petitioner knows whether Robin had to watch her daughter die, or whether
Christina had to watch her mother die,” the opinion continues.
Thomas added that “the sole surviving family member, Danielle, ‘was spared only
because she was spending the night with a friend.’”
Speaking to Breyer’s concern about how long it takes for the death penalty to
be administered — saying it could take 40 years after the jury’s verdict —
Thomas called this “a reason to carry out the death penalty sooner, not to
decline to impose it.”
“It is no mystery why it often takes decades to execute a convicted murderer,”
Thomas added. “The ‘labyrinthine restrictions on capital punishment]
promulgated by this court’ have caused the delays that Justice Breyer now
bemoans.”
Thomas also balked at Breyer’s concern about unequal treatment: that Reynolds
will still be executed while others sentenced to die in the same manner have
been awarded resentencing.
“Whether he deserves to be sentenced to death has nothing to do with whether a
different person who engaged in different conduct might be entitled to be
resentenced on procedural grounds,” Thomas wrote. “Moreover, if petitioner had
been resentenced, and was again sentenced to death, I have little doubt that
Justice Breyer would instead be fretting that the original jury failed to
consider his belief that resentencing “sharpens’ ‘death row’s inevitable
anxieties and uncertainties.’”
The opinion concludes with Thomas arguing that Reynolds’ jury was indeed made
to shoulder the enormity of sentencing and “nonetheless … returned not one but
2 unanimous death recommendations.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor rounded out the opinions in the Reynolds case with a
dissent, specifying that Reynolds is one of seven Florida capital defendants in
today’s order list whose sentences should be revisited.
“The jurors in petitioners’ cases were repeatedly instructed that their role
was merely advisory, yet the Florida Supreme Court has treated their
recommendations as legally binding by way of its harmless-error analysis,”
Sotomayor wrote. “This approach raises substantial Eighth Amendment concerns.
As I continue to believe that ‘the stakes in capital cases are too high to
ignore such constitutional challenges,’ I would grant review to decide whether
the Florida Supreme Court’s harmless-error approach is valid in light of
Caldwell. This court’s refusal to address petitioners’ challenges signals that
it is unwilling to decide this issue. I respectfully dissent from the denial of
certiorari, and I will continue to note my dissent in future cases raising the
Caldwell question.”
The Supreme Court decided the case Caldwell v. Mississippi in 1985, holding
that it is “constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a
determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the
responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s death
rests elsewhere.”
(source: courthousenews.com)
OHIO:
Portage County murderer appeals death sentence to Ohio Supreme Court
A 21-year-old man sentenced to death in Portage County is taking his case to
the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming his death sentence is a violation of multiple
amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Damantae D. Graham, 21, of Akron, was sentenced to death in Portage County in
November 2016 after he was convicted of killing Kent State University student
Nicholas W. Massa during a February 2016 robbery in Kent. Graham was charged
with aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and 3 counts of
kidnapping, all with firearms specifications.
His lawyers, Donald Hicks and Donald Gallick, both of Akron, filed their notice
to appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in December 2016. The full appeal was
filed in May. Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci filed a response Sept.
24. The most recent filing was the defense’s response to the prosecutor’s
rebuttal on Nov. 8.
The appeal lists alleged multiple errors by the Portage County Common Pleas
Court and Graham’s then-defense lawyer, Frank L. Beane. They also claim that
sentencing Graham to death is unconstitutional under multiple amendments.
Graham is currently being held at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
according to court records. According to Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections, there are currently 137 people on death row.
Gallick said his client is currently waiting for the Ohio Supreme Court to
schedule the case. The case will go directly to the Ohio Supreme Court and skip
the 11th District Court of Appeals because Graham is on death row.
Gallick and Hicks allege that several prospective jurors used racial slurs on
and off the record while the court was making jury selections, leading defense
attorneys to believe some of the jurors may have been biased. Graham is black.
In a response, prosecutors said that one offhand comment cannot be the basis
for an argument of race bias, and also claim that the defendant cannot make a
specific claim for comments heard outside of the jury briefing room. Defendants
responded by filing several specific incidents in a brief.
The court also allowed jurors to consume up to 3 alcoholic beverages before the
Nov. 8 death penalty sentencing, according to the appeal. Prosecutors said that
argument was irrelevant in a response. Defense lawyers said in a response to
the prosecutor’s response that the act, “minimizes the seriousness of the
duties of a death penalty qualified jury.“
Lawyers for the defense also argue the prosecutor boosted the credibility of 2
co-defendants while the defendants were testifying, resulting in an error.
Prosecutors responded that asking someone if they are telling the truth in a
courtroom is not improper.
Gallick and Hicks also claim that prosecutors violated Graham’s right to a fair
trial by asking witnesses to testify about Graham carrying a gun and showing a
photo of Graham holding a firearm, which wasn’t directly related to the
incident. Prosecutors said in a response that there was a logical connection
between the individuals photographed together in a photo days before the crime
occurred.
Defense attorneys also claim that testimony about Graham’s initial refusal to
cooperate with law enforcement should not have been allowed. Prosecutors
responded that Graham did not remain silent and told police, “I wasn’t there,”
so his refusal could legally be used in court.
Gallick and Hicks also claim that Graham’s placement on death row under the age
of 21 is unconstitutional and that the death penalty is unconstitutional under
various Constitutional amendments. Graham was 19 at the time of the murder.
Prosecutors pointed out that only those under the age of 18 are not allowed to
be sentenced to death and said that the defense’s arguments did not merit
overruling precedent.
(source: record-courier.com)
MISSOURI:
He was sentenced to death in 1986. Wednesday, he'll be at Ragtag.
16 years ago, Ryan Wylie’s first documentary screened at Ragtag Cinema.
It’s screening there again Wednesday — with one special guest.
Joseph Amrine, who in 2003 was released from prison 17 years after he was
sentenced to death, will attend a screening at Ragtag of “Unreasonable Doubt:
The Joe Amrine Case,” a 50-minute documentary. The producers are John McHale,
Dan Huck and Wylie, who graduated from MU in 2001.
Amrine and Wylie are scheduled to attend the discussion session after the
screening, according to the city of Columbia website. Also, Lindsay Runnels, a
professor of the School of Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and
Rodney Uphoff, MU law school professor, will join them.
Also, Reginald Griffin, another exonerated man whose death sentence was
overturned in 2011, will join the discussion, Wylie said.
After the documentary is shown, there will be an additional 15 minutes of
footage that shows Amrine getting out of the prison, answering questions from
the press and seeing his family again, Wylie said.
When Wylie was at an Innocence Project meeting in fall 2001, he was shocked to
know that Amrine was going to be executed with no witnesses linking him to the
crime, Wylie said.
After that meeting, Wylie, an experimental filmmaker, made up his mind to make
a film about Amrine as his first documentary.
“I had a strong sense of justice,” he said.
Because Amrine was in prison and officials weren’t willing to let Wylie and
other producers inside, interviewing Amrine was difficult, he said. He finally
got the interview once Amrine’s lawyer, Sean O’Brien, intervened, he said.
Wylie said the film is about humanity — that is, understanding others,
including someone sentenced to death.
“This is my fellow human being,” he said. “Whatever they did or didn’t do, they
deserve dignity, and how we treat them, that defines who we are.”
Wylie said the screening would be a valuable opportunity for the public because
Amrine will talk about his story, and a discussion on the death penalty will
take place afterward.
“We don’t have to execute people,” Wylie said. “So why do we do it? Do we do it
because we are vengeful people? I hope that we are not.”
In an interview Amrine looked back on the day he was released, saying it was
indescribable.
Being free was a dream, he said.
People should watch the documentary because it humanizes a solemn topic, he
said.
“When you see the news or you read an article about someone who was sentenced
to death or executed, it’s just an article,” he said. “But once you put a face
to the article, it’s not just an article anymore.”
(source: Columbia Missourian)
SOUTH DAKOTA:
'Is it supposed to feel like that?': Berget execution transcript released
Danielle Ferguson, Sioux Falls Argus Leader Published 1:57 p.m. CT Nov.
The last thing Rodney Berget said was in response to execution drugs pumping
into his body.
"Is it supposed to feel like that?" Berget said, according to a transcript of
Berget's Oct. 29 execution at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, released
Tuesday afternoon.
Berget was executed by lethal injection after a delay of several hours, ending
a 6-year court battle over the inmate's mental capacity to be put to death by
the state.
Berget, 56, was sentenced to death for the 2011 killing of correctional officer
Ron "R.J." Johnson during a failed prison escape attempt. Berget had been
serving a life sentence for an attempted murder and kidnapping conviction.
The Department of Corrections released the transcript of the execution Tuesday
morning.
The execution, which started around 7:20 p.m. after a six-hour delay because of
a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court, began with the warden of the state
penitentiary, Darin Young, ordering open the blinds.
Sec. of Corrections Denny Kaemingk, who announced he will retire in January,
then said:
"We have contacted the Governor of South Dakota, the Chief Justice of the South
Dakota Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office. No appeals are pending,
and no motions have been filed to set aside the warrant of death sentence and
execution in the matter of the state of South Dakota vs. Rodney Berget.
Therefore, you may proceed to carry out the order of the court."
Young: "Rodney Berget, you have been convicted of the crime of first degree
murder of Ronald 'RJ' Johnson. You have been sentenced to death by lethal
injection for this crime. This is the time and place for execution of that
sentence."
(source: Sioux Falls Argus Leader)
USA:
Shooting at Tree of Life Synagogue----Jeff Sessions’ legacy and the Pittsburgh
massacre suspect’s death penalty chances
When U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned last week, he left behind the
decision of whether or not accused synagogue shooter Robert Bowers will face
the death penalty.
Bowers, 46, of Baldwin, faces 44 federal charges, including hate crimes.
Authorities said he carried an AR-15 and 3 handguns into the Tree of Life
synagogue in Squirrel Hill on Oct. 27 and killed 11 people and injured six
more, including four police officers.
Two days later, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott
Brady said he had started the process to pursue the death penalty against
Bowers — a decision that ultimately rests with the U.S. Attorney General.
But Bowers’ trial can’t begin until that decision is made, Margaret Philbin, a
spokesperson for federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, confirmed to The Incline. Lawyers need to
know if it’s a capital case before preparing and selecting a jury.
On Nov. 1, Bowers entered a not guilty plea in federal court and requested a
jury trial. He was told then that he could face the death penalty. A case
status conference is set for Dec. 11, per court records.
So with Sessions gone, and Matthew Whitaker as acting U.S. Attorney General,
how could that impact Bowers’ case?
The short answer from experts: It may be impossible to predict.
“We don’t know how long Matthew Whitaker will be serving as acting attorney
general, so we don’t know who ultimately will be making the decision,” Robert
Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center told The
Incline in an email.
Decision-making ahead of the U.S. Attorney General’s final decision on a death
penalty case is confidential, according to the U.S. Department of Justice
website.
Dunham added: “I think questions about the constitutionality of the manner in
which Whitaker was installed will complicate any case-specific decisions until
the appointment-related issues are resolved.”
Sessions resigned the day after the midterm elections at President Donald
Trump’s request, ending a relationship that went sour when Sessions recused
himself from the investigation into whether foreign governments, largely
Russia, interfered with the 2016 presidential election. Questions continue to
swirl about what Whitaker’s appointment means for Robert Mueller’s
investigation.
But William Schweers, an assistant professor of political science and executive
director of the Atkins Ethics Center at Carlow University, said he doubts that
will impact Bowers’ case.
Schweers said he doesn’t think there is any question that authorization for the
death penalty will be granted. Plus, he said, Trump was clear in advocating for
the death penalty in this case, too, pointing to a phone call between Trump and
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.
Per The Washington Post, on the day of the shooting, Peduto received a call
from Trump:
After offering thoughts and prayers — and pledging anything Peduto needed,
including a direct line to the White House — Trump veered directly into policy,
Peduto recalled. The president, Peduto said, insisted on discussing harsher
death penalty legislation as a way to prevent such atrocities. Peduto was
stunned into silence.
Trump also called for the death penalty twice on the day of the mass shooting,
three days before he came to Pittsburgh to pay his respects to the victims.
“I think that any nominee will share his view on the death penalty,” Schweers
said.
According to the DOJ website, the standards for the U.S. Attorney General to
make a decision include fairness, national consistency, adherence to statutory
requirements and law enforcement objectives such as the strength of the
evidence and if the defendant is willing to plead guilty and accept life
without the possibility of release.
Currently, there are 62 prisoners on federal death row, per the Death Penalty
Information Center. Since capital punishment was reinstated 30 years ago, just
3 prisoners have been executed, the last in 2003. In that time, 12 defendants
were sentenced, but removed from death row, and in 3 cases, the death sentence
was recommended but not imposed.
Death penalty cases are more common at the state level, and Bowers faces an
additional 36 state charges. Despite a moratorium on executions in
Pennsylvania, prosecutors could still pursue the death penalty at the state
level, as well. Officials haven’t said if they will but did say the federal
case takes priority.
Gov. Tom Wolf told Newsradio 1020 KDKA that he will support whatever penalty
Bowers’ is given if convicted.
(source: theincline.com)
********************
Justices clash in death-penalty cases; Thomas concurrence highlights brutal
murders
Justice Clarence Thomas clashed with Justice Stephen G. Breyer on Tuesday when
the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in 7 death-penalty cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the cert denial, but Thomas didn’t take
her to task for urging the Supreme Court to hear the cases. Instead, Thomas
referred repeatedly to Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Thomas stressed the brutal
nature of the crimes and said he was writing separately to “alleviate” Breyer’s
concerns that jurors might have made a contrary recommendation regarding
capital punishment had they known of legal issues. The opinions are available
here, beginning at page 8.
The 7 defendants had been sentenced under Florida’s former sentencing scheme in
which jurors issued advisory opinions on capital punishment and judges made the
final decision. The U.S. Supreme had struck down the scheme in January 2016 in
Hurst v. Florida because it allowed judges rather than jurors to find the facts
necessary to impose the death sentence. In its rulings in the 7 cases, the
Florida Supreme Court found that any sentencing error was harmless, according
to Sotomayor’s dissent.
Sotomayor acknowledged the inmates were “convicted of gruesome crimes,” and
that the victims, the families and their communities suffered. But she said she
was mindful that it is “this court’s duty to ensure that all defendants, even
those who have committed the most heinous crimes, receive a sentence that is
the result of a fair process.”
Although the justices referred to more than 1 cert denial, their writings were
captioned Reynolds v. Florida, for the case of inmate Michael Gordon Reynolds,
convicted of murdering “nearly an entire family,” according to Thomas.
Breyer’s statement regarding the cert denial referred to his previous call to
re-examine the constitutionality of capital punishment.
Breyer said the Reynolds case, along with 83 other cases the Supreme Court has
refused to hear in recent weeks, dealt with the Florida Supreme Court’s
application of the Supreme Court’s Hurst decision. He said the cases highlight
3 issues: the long delays between conviction and execution, how far back Hurst
has retroactive effect, and whether the Florida Supreme Court’s harmless error
analysis violates the Eighth Amendment.
Breyer said the Eighth Amendment question wasn’t fully developed, so he agreed
with the decision not to grant cert.
Thomas started his concurrence in the cert denial with a description of the
July 1998 murders of a father, his girlfriend and their 11-year-old daughter.
Reynolds snuck up behind the father outside his camping trailer and beat his
skull with concrete, Thomas said. Reynolds then entered the trailer, where he
beat and stabbed the 2 others.
In a footnote, Thomas included details of other murders in cases before the
court, including the murder a 75-year-old woman who had repeatedly helped the
man convicted of killing her.
Thomas noted Breyer’s worries that jurors might have reached a different
decision in Reynolds’ case had they known of legal issues. “In light of
petitioner’s actions, I have no such worry,” Thomas wrote, “and I write
separately to alleviate Justice Breyer’s concerns.”
Thomas said Reynolds was not bothered by issues raised by Breyer.
Reynolds was evidently untroubled by death-penalty delays because he “has
litigated all the way through the state courts and petitioned this court for
review 3 separate times,” Thomas said.
Nor did Reynolds appear to be troubled about the advisory verdict scheme,
Thomas said. Reynolds tried to waive the jury’s penalty recommendation, but the
trial judge did not allow the waiver.
Thomas concluded his opinion by pointing out his difference with Breyer on
whether the death penalty in general is cruel and unusual. “The only thing
‘cruel and unusual’ in this case was petitioner’s brutal murder of 3
innocent victims,” Thomas wrote.
(source: abajournal.com)
_______________________________________________
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
