May 14
TEXAS:
The Dissenter----Texas’ highest criminal court turned Elsa Alcala into one of
the state’s most prominent death penalty critics.
Elsa Alcala began her legal career in the Harris County DA’s office, joining a
prosecutorial machine famous for cranking out death sentences. 3 decades later,
she’s a prominent critic of the death penalty.
Alcala, a Republican, says serving as an appellate court judge opened her eyes
to systemic inequities in the criminal justice system. During her 7 years on
the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’ highest criminal court, she became known
for lengthy dissents that challenged other judges, particularly in high-stakes
appeals from death row. In one 2016 dissent, she questioned whether the death
penalty in Texas is even constitutional. And in one of her final opinions last
year, Alcala broke from a majority ruling that would have allowed for the
execution of a mentally disabled man.
Alcala, who chose not to run for re-election last year, has spent this
legislative session lobbying for death penalty reforms at the Capitol on behalf
of Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit that represents capital defendants. She
spoke with the Observer about her evolution from a prosecutor seeking death
sentences to one of the most prominent voices questioning capital punishment in
Texas.
Your career unfolded alongside some big changes in the criminal justice system.
How did your thinking evolve over time?
I started out as a prosecutor under [former Harris County District Attorney]
Johnny Holmes in ’89. It was basically pre-DNA, so back then the gold standard
was an eyewitness. If you had an eyewitness, you thought, ‘Wow, we’ve got a
rock-solid case.’ The hard cases were the circumstantial evidence cases. It
sounds so simplistic today, but that’s where we started.
During the [job] interview they asked, ‘How do you feel about the death
penalty?’ I said I was against it, they asked me why, and I didn’t really know,
so I just answered what the law school professors had told me: that it didn’t
make fiscal sense. That seemed to satisfy them that I wasn’t just some
bleeding-heart liberal. I remember one of the senior lawyers said something
like, ‘We’ll see what you think in 5 years.’
I started off handling misdemeanors, little bitty property crimes and speeding
cases, but within five years I was trying murder cases. I tried three death
penalty cases, and I got the death penalty on two of them. One was Eddie
Capetillo, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime. I have kids now who
are 19 and 16 years old. The thought of using the death penalty on somebody
that young is just horrific to me now, but I wasn’t really thinking about it
from that point of view then.
Back then I was looking at the cases really only from the point of view of the
victims. One was a 9-year-old girl shot between the eyes. There was a
7-year-old boy killed in the same incident. Just horrible crimes. I really
wasn’t thinking about the defendant beyond the technical analysis — did he
intend to commit the crime, what are the mitigating factors, is he a future
danger?
So you didn’t start thinking differently about the system until your time as a
judge?
After 9 years at the DA’s office I became a trial judge for 3 1/2 years. Then I
went on to the court of appeals for nine years. It was just general
jurisdiction, which was probably the best thing that ever happened to me,
because I was exposed to civil law and some of the brightest civil lawyers
around. You’d see drug-addicted parents, kids removed to go live with
grandparents, things like that. So I’m starting to get a bigger picture.
By the time I ended up on the Court of Criminal Appeals, I’d been away from the
death penalty for almost a decade, so I feel like I was looking at the issue
with fresh eyes. Over time, I started forming the opinion that, generically
speaking, we have all these laws out there and they sort of give us this
illusion of justice, but in many cases, justice wasn’t really happening.
Were you surprised to find yourself developing a reputation as a voice of
dissent?
In some ways Texas has been very progressive on criminal justice matters, from
a junk science commission to expanding the appointment of counsel. But those
are things that have occurred outside of the courts. For whatever reason, I
think there’s just a lot of entrenchment on the courts. Some people have been
there for way too long. After enough time, I kept thinking, “If I stay, what am
I going to become?”
You’ve called yourself a “Republican hanging on by a thread.” What does that
mean?
I was Republican long before Trump was, but somehow he came along and changed
everything. I don’t feel included in that. I can’t join that kind of negativity
and hatred. I am not an us-versus-them kind of person. We’re all in this
together, whether we’re talking about the person on death row or the immigrant
at the border.
I’m still fiscally conservative, I still see some social issues on the left
where I don’t agree. I feel like I’m somewhere in the middle, but people in the
middle have frankly been tossed aside. So when I say “hanging on by a thread,”
it’s because I’ve been part of the party for something like 30 years, but it’s
just not the same party anymore.
Days after leaving the bench, you raised the idea of a moratorium on the death
penalty in Texas. Should our state still have the death penalty?
The governor of California just called for a moratorium for almost the exact
same reasons I’ve raised. He’s seen racism involved in the death penalty, he
thinks it lacks reliability, and I think he even said something about the
possibility of innocent people on death row. I have said many of the same
things. Is there racism in the death penalty? Absolutely, yes, no doubt in my
mind. Last year, all seven people who were sentenced to death in Texas were
people of color. Statistics repeatedly show that if the victim is Anglo, the
defendant is more likely to get the death penalty regardless of race. But if
the victims are minority, then there’s less of a likelihood of the death
penalty.
Is the death penalty reliable? Look at the case of Anthony Graves. We know 100
% that he’s innocent, and yet he was called up for execution at least twice.
Then we have Michael Morton [who spent nearly 25 years in prison for a murder
he didn’t commit]. So is it realistic to think there are innocent people in
prison? Yes. That is realistic, that’s not fanciful, we know it has happened.
There is no reason to believe that it isn’t happening now or will not happen in
the future.
Right now, in front of the Legislature, for my work with Texas Defender
Service, we’re advocating for bills to make the death penalty fairer. We can’t
cure all of the problems with it, but there are these baby-step measures that
would perhaps make the system a tiny bit fairer.
Are you personally now against the death penalty?
You know, I’ve been a lawyer for 30 years, so I tend to think very
pragmatically. I don’t feel like I have the luxury of declaring morally what’s
right. I guess I’ll leave those moral questions to other people. If the
Legislature turned around tomorrow and said they’re going to get rid of the
death penalty, I certainly would not complain.
(source: Michael Barajas is a staff writer covering civil rights for the Texas
Observer)
******************************
Alito slams Supreme Court order blocking execution of Buddhist inmate
A pair of Supreme Court justices on Monday issued new statements on a March
ruling that blocked the execution of a Texas inmate who was not permitted to
have a spiritual adviser present at this death.
The court had ruled in favor of the inmate, Patrick Henry Murphy, who was
convicted for the murder of a police officer. Murphy, a Buddhist, had requested
that his spiritual adviser be present in the room at the moment of his death,
but previous Texas state policy blocked chaplains who are not employees of the
state from being present during executions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh had sided with the liberal justices in the order,
stating that it was unconstitutional to allow spiritual advisers for some
religions but not all.
But in a new opinion issued Monday, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he believed
the court’s ruling in the case was “seriously wrong.”
The justice criticized Murphy’s lawyers for not filing his request that the
Supreme Court stay his execution on religious liberty ground until about six
hours before the scheduled execution. And he claimed that by ruling in the
inmate’s favor, “the Court invites abuse.”
“If the tactics of Murphy’s attorneys in this case are not inexcusably
dilatory, it is hard to know what the concept means,” Alito wrote.
And he expressed concerns that by ruling in favor of Murphy, the court “will
encourage this damaging practice” of filing last-minute appeals in death
penalty cases.
Alito said that the claims surrounding religious freedom “are important and may
ultimately be held to have merit."
"But they are not simple, and they require a careful consideration of the
legitimate interests of both prisoners and prisons," he added.
“Prisoners should bring such claims well before their scheduled executions so
that the courts can adjudicated them in the way that the claims require and
deserve and so that states are afforded sufficient time to make any necessary
modifications to their execution protocols.”
Kavanaugh, who had written a concurring opinion with the court’s order when it
was issued, in a separate statement wrote that he “greatly respect[s]” Alito’s
dissent, but maintained that the court should have stayed the execution.
He pointed to Texas responding to the order by changing its rules to no longer
allow any spiritual advisers to be present at executions as showing that the
court’s order was effective.
“Put simply, this court’s stay facilitated the prompt resolution of a
significant religious equality problem with the State’s execution protocol and
should alleviate any future litigation delays or disruptions that otherwise
might have occurred as a result of the state’s prior discriminatory policy,”
Kavanaugh wrote in the statement issued Monday.
(source: thehill.com)
PENNSYLVANIA:
'He's not a monster at all'; Dekota Baptiste death penalty trial
continues----26-year-old convicted of murder
A prosecution witness told a jury that his review of Dekota Baptiste’s
educational and psychological history shows a relatively stable family life,
countering the defense that childhood trauma affected him years later.
Baptiste's sister, meanwhile, tearfully asked a jury to spare her brother's
life.
“I don’t know why you guys want to take my brother’s life from us," Paris
Baptiste said.
On Friday, jurors convicted Baptiste of 1st-degree murder in the February 2017
shooting death of 36-year-old Terrance Ferguson in the parking lot of a Palmer
Township AutoZone.
Arguments began Monday morning in the penalty phase of the case. The same
Northampton County jury that found Baptiste guilty on all 10 counts must decide
if he spends the rest of his life in prison without the chance for parole or
whether he's sentenced to death.
Judge Samuel Murray broke for the day after the final witness testified. Jurors
will hearing closing arguments 9 a.m. Tuesday before deliberating life or death
for Baptiste.
During the week-long trial, the defense didn’t dispute that Baptiste shot into
Ferguson’s car. Instead, they argued that the now 26-year-old acted in
self-defense, firing at the car only when Ferguson tried to run him down after
the two men spoke in the parking lot.
Zakiyyia Al-Shabazz testified that she met Baptiste when they were at Easton
Area High School. They dated for about 10 years, breaking up about two months
before the shooting.
Al-Shabazz said the 2 remained friends and disputed claims that Thressa Duarte
was Baptiste’s girlfriend. Authorities have said Duarte and Baptiste were
involved and that she was the reason Baptiste confronted Ferguson.
"She was nothing to him," Al-Shabazz said of Duarte.
Al-Shabazz also refuted any claims that Baptiste used drugs or was a drug
dealer. She told jurors that he meant everything to her and that he was “a good
person at heart.” The picture that prosecutors have painted of Baptiste is just
not true, she said.
“He’s not a monster at all,” Al-Shabazz said. “He’s a good person.”
Just as the prosecution showed the jury photos of Ferguson, the defense showed
jurors photos of Baptiste with family and as a boy and teenager.
Dekota Baptiste’s younger sister, Paris, and his mother, Lillie, described him
as a loving person, who had a close relationship with his family.
Paris Baptiste told the jury that her relationship with her brother only
strengthened as they grew older and that he adored his 2 nephews.
“What people are painting him out to be, his is not,” she said, crying on the
witness stand.
Psychologist Frank Dattlilio testified earlier in the day about how Baptiste’s
formative years affected him and his future abilities to make decisions. He
specifically spoke to Baptiste’s learning disabilities and the trauma he
experienced from his brother getting shot and his parents’ marital issues.
Lillie Baptiste told the jury that the separation from her husband “really
affected” her son and that he became paranoid after his brother was shot.
During afternoon testimony, Assistant District Attorney Abe Kassis called John
Sebastian O’Brien II, a psychiatrist and attorney, as a rebuttal witness.
O’Brien told the jury that he does not practice as an attorney, but rather
performs up to 300 criminal psychiatric evaluations a year in Philadelphia.
O’Brien testified that a review of Baptiste’s educational records showed his
parents were engaged and concerned about their son’s performance in school and
asked that he be evaluated once they moved from New York into the Easton Area
School District.
He didn’t have a severe learning disability and remained in a general education
classroom, receiving special education services, according to O’Brien. Baptiste
was responding to the intervention and improving in school, he said.
But after going to juvenile detention for conspiracy to commit robbery and
witness intimidation, Baptiste essentially checked out of high school, putting
forth no effort toward school work or future IQ tests, according to O’Brien.
His testimony conflicted that of Dattilio’s, which painted a picture of a
student so frustrated by his learning disabilities that he just stopped trying.
He testified that Baptiste was not diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
and that psychological evaluations didn’t turn up any psychiatric symptoms.
While in Northampton County Prison in 2015, Baptiste displayed no symptoms
following a psychological evaluation and took no medications, O’Brien
testified. After his 2017 imprisonment for the shooting, Baptiste was told he
faced a lengthy prison term and replied, “This is nothing to me, I can do
jail,” according to testimony.
A prisoner with psychological issues can’t just check them at the door, O’Brien
said. He testified that that he didn’t believe Baptiste had a psychiatric
diagnosis that would have affect his future behavior.
When Baptiste shot Ferguson, he quickly left the AutoZone and tossed the gun
out his car window, which shows he was “aware of the criminality of the
situation,” O’Brien testified.
Along with the murder, the jury found Baptiste guilty of attempted homicide,
two counts of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, receiving stolen
property, weapons possession, illegal possession of a weapon, carrying a
firearm without a license and fleeing and eluding.
Before Monday's penalty phase began, the defense informed the judge that
Baptiste over the weekend declined an offer from prosecutors to waive his
appellate rights in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table. The
judge confirmed Baptiste's decision, noting that the offer was off the table
once the proceedings began.
(source: WFMZ news)
***************
Judge keeps Sean Kratz confession in evidence
Bucks County Judge Jeffrey L. Finley denied a motion filed by Sean Kratz’s
attorney to suppress an April 25 confession made to law enforcement for his
role in the alleged killing of 3 men in Solebury nearly 2 years ago.
A statement accused killer Sean Kratz made as part of an abandoned plea deal
for his alleged role in killing three men in Solebury almost two years ago will
remain as evidence in the case, Bucks County Judge Jeffrey L. Finley ruled
Monday.
The judge denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the confession, stating
Kratz, now 22, was told multiple times prior to the April 25, 2018, meeting
that his statements to Bucks County detectives could be used against him if he
refused the deal that would take the death penalty off the table.
“The defendant asked his attorney to arrange the interview date and voluntarily
provided his statement on April 25, 2018,” the opinion states.
“By accepting the terms of the plea deal and agreeing to provide a truthful
statement, the defendant also agreed to the Commonwealth’s condition that the
statement could be used against him should he decide not to plead guilty,”
Finley wrote in his opinion.
Last May, Kratz, of Philadelphia, rejected the offer that included a sentence
of 59 to 118 years behind bars in exchange to pleading guilty to 3rd-degree
murder, and chose to face trial in the 2017 slayings of Dean Finocchiaro, 19,
of Middletown, Tom Meo, 21, of Plumstead, and Mark Sturgis, 22, of Pennsburg.
Prosecutors have since vowed to seek the death penalty.
Kratz’s cousin, 22-year-old Cosmo DiNardo, of Bensalem, was sentenced to four
consecutive life sentences after pleading guilty to killing the same 3 men and
murdering Jimi Patrick, 19, of Newtown Township.
The two allegedly murdered Finocchiaro, Meo and Sturgis on July 7, 2017,
burying them in a shared grave on property owned by DiNardo’s parents; they
were found by investigators after days of searching for the missing men.
DiNardo confessed to killing Patrick on his own earlier that same week.
Finley also denied a motion to use a jury from outside of Bucks County for
Kratz’s trial, and quashed a motion from prosecutors to subpoena Kratz’s former
attorney, Craig Penglase, for the trial.
Penglase was removed from the case last year after he admitted to leaking
recordings of Kratz and DiNardo speaking to investigators to a television
station — a move that Kratz’s current lead attorney, A. Charles Peruto Jr.,
called an attempt by Penglase to make himself famous.
A statement Kratz made to investigators on July 13, 2017, will be allowed “with
the exception of those portions mentioning polygraphs or plea bargains ....”
Court documents online did not indicate when Kratz’s next hearing will be held
as of Monday afternoon.
Peruto seemed surprised to hear Finley made his ruling during a phone call with
this news organization, but could not comment on the case due to a gag order.
(source: The Intelligencer)
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Judge denies accused killer Brandon Council’s motion to strike the death
penalty in his upcoming trial
Federal prosecutors can still seek the death penalty for the man accused of
killing 2 employees during the August 2017 CresCom Bank robbery in Conway.
That was the decision handed down in an order filed May 7 in the U.S. District
Court in Florence, denying defendant Brandon Council’s motion to strike the
death penalty in the case against him.
In his motion, Council argued the death penalty: violates the Eighth Amendment
in light of the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society;” it operates in an “arbitrary and capricious manner because
the federal death penalty ‘is so infrequently sought, imposed, or carried
out;’” and it is used “unconstitutionally and disproportionately to those
charged with the murder of white, female victims.”
Council, who is black, is accused of murdering Donna Major and Katie Skeen,
both white, during the robbery.
“He asserts, ‘this case presents a clear danger that the race of the defendant
and/or the race of the victim influenced the decision to seek the death penalty
or will influence the jury’s ultimate decision,’” court documents state.
“Defendant argues the FDPA (Federal Death Penalty Act) is unconstitutional
because it is applied disproportionately to those accused of killing white,
female victims and because it has a ‘demonstrable white-victim effect.’”
U.S. District Judge Bryan Harwell applied case law in his decision to deny
Council’s motion to strike the death penalty.
Harwell also submitted an order on a defense motion to suppress Council’s
visitor logs at the Florence County Detention Center.
According to that motion, with respect to expert witness visitors, federal law
recognized that a defendant is entitled to have access to expert assistance
“without the government’s knowledge.”
In his order, Harwell noted the defendant and the government reached an
agreement on the handling of the jail visitation logs.
That agreement included logs not being produced in the event they exclusively
contain records of visitation by experts or defense team members identified in
a list given to a “taint team” consisting of an FBI agent and an assistant U.S.
attorney, both of whom are not involved in the case.
The stipulation here is if an individual is identified by defense counsel as a
testifying witness or expert, the log entries identifying those visits can be
made available to the prosecution, according to the order.
Council’s trial is currently scheduled for September.
(source: WMBF news)
GEORGIA:
Judge asked to toss death penalty case due to illegal jury selection
State capital defenders on Monday asked a judge to dismiss a murder case
because Floyd County prosecutors illegally assembled an all-white jury to put a
black man on death row and then covered up their misconduct for decades.
Timothy Tyrone Foster was found guilty 32 years ago of killing an elderly white
woman in Floyd County. The case drew a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court,
which in 2016, strongly criticized prosecutors for striking every possible
African-American from Foster’s jury and then giving trumped-up explanations as
to why they excluded them.
“This is a case where for 30 years the prosecution perpetrated a fraud on the
court,” said Jerry Word, one of Foster’s attorneys and head of the state
capital defender office. “Even to this day the prosecution doesn’t acknowledge
the extent of its misconduct.”
Word asked Superior Court Judge William Sparks to either dismiss the murder
case against Foster or bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty if they
retry him again.
Assistant District Attorney Kevin Salmon, who asked Sparks to deny the
requests, sought to downplay what happened at Foster’s trial. The prosecution’s
misconduct wasn’t as bad as “hiding evidence” or “manipulating witnesses,” and
it does not justify the relief sought by Foster’s lawyers, Salmon said.
The case is now before Sparks because after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Foster
was granted a new trial and Floyd County prosecutors announced they would once
again seek the death penalty against him. Prosecutors say Foster, then 18,
sexually assaulted and strangled Queen Madge White, 79, at her home in August
1986.
In its 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court relied on notes prosecutors used during
jury selection of Foster’s case, in which a “B” was put next to the name of
each prospective black juror. On one sheet of paper, the state listed 6 people
as “definite NO’s” for the jury — with the first 5 being the remaining
African-Americans in the jury pool.
During Monday’s hearing, a former Floyd County prosecutor testified that
District Attorney Stephen Lanier was determined to get an all-white jury in
Foster’s case.
“It was well known in the office that Stephen Lanier would not put a black
person on the jury,” said Harold Chambers, who worked for Lanier in the DA’s
office from 1985 to 1991.
A few years before Foster’s trial, Lanier allowed an African-American minister
to sit as a juror in a death-penalty trial, said Chambers, now a federal
administrative law judge. The minister was the lone holdout in an 11-1 vote for
a death sentence, and because there was no unanimous verdict the defendant got
a life sentence.
“From that point on, it was Mr. Lanier’s position he would never put a black
person on the jury,” Chambers said.
During Foster’s trial, Chambers said, he overhead a heated conversation between
Lanier and Clayton Lundy, an African-American investigator for the DA’s office.
It occurred as the lengthy jury selection process was winding down.
“They were arguing with each other,” Chambers testified. He then repeated what
he heard.
“You have to put a black person on this jury,” Lundy said.
“I’m not going to do it,” Lanier replied.
Even though Lundy kept insisting, Lanier wouldn’t budge, Chambers said. “He
kept saying it over and over: ‘No, I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to put
a black person on this jury.’”
Lundy then told Lanier something that proved to be prophetic: “If you don’t put
a black person on this jury, this is going to come back to haunt you.”
Lanier, who served as district attorney from 1985 to 1996, died last year.
Lundy, who would later be convicted of accepting bribes from suspects for
getting their charges dismissed, could not be reached for comment.
Foster’s trial took place after the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruled in Batson v.
Kentucky that prosecutors could not strike jurors because of their race. The
high court also said when there is a pattern of strikes being made along racial
lines, prosecutors must give race-neutral reasons to justify them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the Foster opinion, found Lanier’s
justifications for striking some of the black jurors to be based on pretext.
One African-American woman, for example, was “too young” because the
prosecution team was looking “for older jurors that would not easily identify
with the defendant,” Lanier had explained.
But Garrett was 34 and Foster was 19, wrote Roberts, who pointedly noted Lanier
had allowed a 21-year-old white woman to sit on the jury.
Chambers suggested there may have been a method behind Lanier’s explanations.
After the Batson ruling came out, Chambers said, seminars were held for
prosecutors with training to help them deal with the decision.
“Here’s a list of racially-neutral reasons you can offer to a judge,” Chambers
recalled. “It was designed for prosecutors to exclude blacks and give a reason
for it.”
Chambers said he decided to approach Foster’s lawyers after he heard the
Supreme Court was considering the jury misconduct claims.
“It was about as clear a Batson violation as I’ve ever seen in my life,” he
said. “An egregious violation.”
Sparks said he would issue a ruling in the case sometime soon.
Timothy Tyrone Foster murder case
In 1987, Foster was convicted and sentenced to death for sexually assaulting
and strangling a Rome woman inside her home.
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme ruled Floyd County prosecutors illegally excluded all
potential African-American jurors from the trial and then gave trumped-up
explanations to try and justify it. The decision led to Foster winning a new
trial.
On Monday, a Floyd County judge held a hearing on a motion by capital defenders
who want the case against Foster dismissed on prosecutorial misconduct grounds.
(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
FLORIDA:
Man accused of kidnapping and killing 9-year-old is trying to avoid death
penalty----Attorneys for Jorge Guerrero-Torres filed a motion asking the judge
to hear argument on the legality of the death penalty.
The man facing the death penalty accused of kidnapping and killing a 9-year-old
wants his maximum sentence to be life in prison.
Attorneys for Jorge Guerrero-Torres filed a motion asking the judge to hear
argument on the legality of the death penalty.
Guerrero-Torres is accused of kidnapping Diana Alvarez nearly 3 years ago, in
May 2016. Alvarez lived with her family in their San Carlos Park home when she
disappeared.
Law enforcement spent days searching for her, eventually requested an Amber
Alert, and even search across county lines in Polk and Okeechobee counties.
Alvarez has never been found.
Guerrero-Torres was in court on Monday for a pretrial conference.
At issue in the case in front of Judge Margaret Steinbeck has been a demand for
a case management plan.
The defense team filed a motion to extend deadlines in the plan, stating that
it’s not feasible in a death penalty case.
The judge will hear arguments on that motion next week. She continued the
pretrial conference scheduled for Monday to the motions hearing date.
Guerrero-Torres was federally convicted of possession of child pornography for
explicit photographs found on his phone of the then-9-year-old. He was
sentenced to 40 years in federal prison.
(source: WBBH/WZVN news)
ALABAMA----impending execution
Execution set this week for Alabama inmate
The execution of an Alabama inmate is scheduled for Thursday, the Alabama
Department of Corrections announced Monday.
Michael Brandon Samra, 42 was convicted in 1998 of the killings of 4 people in
Pelham in 1997. He was 19 at the time of the killings.
According to court records as reported by al.com, Samra killed Randy Duke, his
fiancée Dedra Mims Hunt, and her 2 daughters, 6-year-old Chelisa Nicole Hunt
and 7-year-old Chelsea Marie Hunt, as part of a murder plot hatched by Duke's
son when Duke refused to allow his son the use of a pickup.
(source: Dothan Eagle)
*********************
Inmate asks governor for clemency ahead of Thursday execution
An Alabama inmate set to die on Thursday asked the governor for clemency,
arguing his age at the time of the quadruple slaying he was convicted of should
prohibit him from being executed.
Michael Samra, 42, is set to die by lethal injection at William C. Holman
Correctional Facility in Atmore for his role in the 1997 slayings of 2 adults
and 2 children at their Pelham home. He has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
for a stay of execution and a review of his case, but the nation’s highest
court has not yet ruled.
Last week, 1 of Samra’s attorneys sent a letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking for a
reprieve until another state’s supreme court can decide whether offenders who
committed their crimes under the age of 21 should be eligible for the death
penalty.
Samra was 19 when he and his co-defendant, then 16-year-old Mark Duke, were
charged with killing Mark Duke’s father Randy Duke, his fiancée Dedra Mims
Hunt, and her 2 daughters, 6-year-old Chelisa Nicole Hunt and 7-year-old
Chelsea Marie Hunt. Samra was convicted of capital murder in 1998 and was
sentenced to death for his role in the killings.
Samra’s attorneys Steven Sears and Alan Freedman have argued in court filings
that the Eighth Amendment bans the execution of offenders- like Samra- who were
under the age of 21 at the time of their crimes.
Sears wrote in a letter to Ivey, “The question of whether the U.S. Constitution
permits the execution of 18-to-21-year-old offenders is percolating in the
courts and is currently pending in the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Kentucky
case arose after a trial court judge ruled that the reasoning supporting the
U.S. Constitution’s ban on executing juvenile offenders extends to those over
the age of 21. To prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure that Alabama does
not carry out an unconstitutional execution, Samra respectfully requests a
reprieve until the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled on the question that would
determine whether Samra is categorically eligible for the death penalty.”
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court banned execution for people who were under the
age of 18 at the time of their crimes. Sears has said this ruling should be
modified due to “evolving standards of decency.”
In his latest petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Samra’s attorneys argue the
2005 rule should be extended to 21 and again mention the Kentucky case. “The
mitigating qualities of youth do not dissipate the day a youthful offender
turns 18 years old,” the petition states. “Since [the 2005 decision],
scientific studies have shown that during a person’s late teens and early 20’s,
the brain continues growing and undergoes rapid changes in self-regulation and
higher-order cognition.”
The petition continues, “Also, there is a burgeoning national consensus against
executing young adult offenders. Since [the 2005 ruling] was decided, only 13
states have handed down 4 new death sentences to offenders under 21, and a
majority of states, 30, would not permit the execution of a youthful offender.
Notably, one Kentucky court, surveying the scientific research and national
consensus, has concluded that Eighth Amendment line drawn in Roper must now be
drawn at 21.”
“In the 14 years since this Court decided [case law], society’s standards have
evolved rapidly to the point that the line drawn [in the 2005 case] can no
longer be justified. Accordingly, Samra has shown a reasonable likelihood that
he will prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim... Before it is too late, this
Court should ensure that the Eighth Amendment does not categorically preclude
him from receiving the law’s most severe and irreversible penalty.”
The state has replied to the petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing about
the high court’s jurisdiction over the claim and calling Samra’s argument
“meritless.”
“Finally, to the extent that Samra relies on a supposed national consensus
against imposing capital punishment on persons who were under the age of 21
when they committed capital murder, his claim is meritless. There is no such
consensus, which is made most obvious by Samra’s failure to point to a single
state that has specifically eliminated the death penalty for defendants who are
between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one when they murder their victims,”
the Alabama Attorney General’s Office wrote.
“Simply put, Samra’s allegation does not withstand scrutiny. His ‘national
consensus’ and ‘clear and growing trend’ are made up out of whole cloth. Rather
than citing to any instance in which any state has adopted his position, Samra
points to 2 red herrings… What Samra ignores is that all of the states that
fall in these categories still retain the death penalty as a sentencing option
for persons who committed capital murder between the ages of 18 and 21. At
bottom, Samra has failed to show a ‘clear and growing trend’ because there is
none.”
According to a spokesperson, the governor has received the request and “is
carefully reviewing it.”
The execution is set to take place at 6 p.m. Thursday.
(source: al.com)
**************************
Alabama Execution Protest Denied by High Court as Doomed
Revisiting a case whose handling prompted a scathing dissent last month from
Justice Stephen Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court declined any further action
Monday in the planned execution of Alabama killer Christopher Lee Price.
Convicted in Alabama for the 1991 sword-and-dagger murder of pastor William
Lynn, Price waited until Jan. 27, 2019, to ask that he be executed by poisonous
gas rather than the state’s planned method of lethal injection.
Price’s efforts were initially unsuccessful, but a federal judge granted him an
injunction on April 11, approximately two hours before Price was set to be
executed at 6 p.m. local time. The 11th Circuit entered its own stay as well,
but the Supreme Court opted to vacate the stays in the wee hours of April 12.
In yet another reprieve for Price, however, the order came after the warrant to
execute had expired. Justice Breyer lamented the court’s hasty action at the
time — saying they should have waited a few hours to discuss the case during a
conference on the morning of the 12th — but Justice Clarence Thomas pushed back
against this criticism Monday after denying Price a writ of certiorari.
“Justice Breyer framed the issue before the court as ‘the right of a condemned
inmate not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment,’’ Thomas wrote. “That framing was incorrect. The issue before
the court was whether the lower courts abused their discretion in staying the
execution. For three independent reasons — all raised by the state in its
application — the state was entitled to vacatur. The dissent failed to
adequately address any of them.”
Appointed to the bench by former President George H. W. Bush, Thomas described
the brutal details of the murder Price committed, including Lynn’s body being
discovered by his wife as she came home from church just three days before
Christmas.
As for Breyer’s complaints about how Price’s stay request was handled by the
prison warden — Price was allegedly given the form only 72 hours before his
deadline for appeal — Thomas called such criticism “irrelevant.”
“The warden at Holman Correctional Facility, went beyond what the statute
required by affirmatively providing death-row inmates at Holman a written
election form and an envelope in which they could return it to her,” Thomas
wrote. “No fewer than 48 other inmates took advantage of this election.
Petitioner did not, even though he was represented throughout this time period
by a well-heeled Boston law firm.”
Aaron Michael Katz, an attorney for Price with the Boston firm Ropes and Gray,
did not return request for comment.
Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall argued last month that Price’s legal
fight had compounded harm to Lynn’s family.
“Justice will be had for Pastor Lynn and his family,” Marshall said last month.
“As for Christopher Price, his day of justice will come.”
Marshall reportedly asked the Alabama Supreme Court to waive the usual 30-day
notice for death warrants, but it appears the court ignored the request and set
Price’s execution for May 30.
Price’s appeal came only a few weeks after the Supreme Court refused a similar
challenge to lethal injection from Russell Bucklew, a Missouri inmate with a
rare blood disorder.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the case that “courts should
police carefully against attempts to use such challenges as tools to interpose
unjustified delay.”
(source: Courthouse News)
*****************************
Joined by 2 other justices, Thomas rejects liberal colleagues' criticism in
case of death-row inmate
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says “there is nothing of substance”
to 4 colleagues’ allegations of unfairness last month in the U.S. Supreme
Court’s handling of a stay request.
Thomas concurred Monday in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case of
Alabama inmate Christopher Lee Price. His opinion rejected the criticisms in
Price’s case last month by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Thomas’ concurrence was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M.
Gorsuch.
Joined by the court’s 3 other liberals, Breyer’s April 12 dissent had
criticized the Supreme Court’s majority for lifting the stay of execution in a
“middle of the night” decision that didn’t allow for discussion Friday morning.
Price was seeking to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia rather than lethal
injection.
Thomas countered Monday that “an accurate recounting” of the circumstances
makes clear that Price’s execution “was set to proceed in a procedurally
unremarkable and constitutionally acceptable manner.”
Thomas wrote that Price was represented “by a well-heeled Boston law firm” when
he failed to sign a form indicating he wanted to die by nitrogen hypoxia rather
than lethal injection.
48 other inmates signed the form by the statutory deadline, but Price didn’t
ask to die by nitrogen hypoxia until 6 months later, 2 weeks after the
execution date was set, Thomas said. In addition, lower courts had failed to
consider how Price’s “unjustified delay” in presenting new evidence favoring
nitrogen hypoxia factored into a decision on a stay.
Thomas also said Price was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim,
which attacked a lethal injection method that already has been upheld by the
Supreme Court.
“Given petitioner’s weak position under the law, it is difficult to see his
litigation strategy as anything other than an attempt to delay his execution,”
Thomas wrote. “Yet 4 members of the court would have countenanced his tactics
without a shred of legal support.”
Price has not been executed yet because the Supreme Court lifted the execution
stay last month after Price’s execution warrant expired, requiring the state of
Alabama to seek a new execution warrant. His new execution date is May 30,
according to the Montgomery Advertiser.
“Of course, the dissent got its way by default,” Thomas wrote. Price’s
“strategy is no secret, for it is the same strategy adopted by many death-row
inmates with an impending execution: bring last-minute claims that will delay
the execution, no matter how groundless. The proper response to this
maneuvering is to deny meritless requests expeditiously.”
(source: abajoaurnal.com)
***********************
Thomas Launches Latest Volley in Death Penalty Wars
There’s “nothing of substance” to Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s claims last month
that the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court was arbitrary and
unfair in its middle-of-the-night handling of a death penalty case, Justice
Clarence Thomas said May 13.
Joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, Thomas concurred in
the denial May 13 of Alabama death row prisoner Christopher Lee Price’s high
court petition challenging his execution on grounds of cruel and unusual
punishment.
Thomas took the opportunity to launch a statement back at Breyer, who made
waves last month when he said his conservative colleagues deviated from basic
principles of fairness in ruling against Price without proper deliberation and
overruling lower court decisions in his favor. Price had challenged his
impending execution on grounds of cruel and unusual punishment, seeking lethal
gas instead of lethal injection.
“An accurate recounting of the circumstances leading to the now-delayed
execution makes clear that petitioner’s execution was set to proceed in a
procedurally unremarkable and constitutionally acceptable manner,” Thomas wrote
for the trio May 13.
“Of course, the dissent got its way by default,” Thomas said, noting that the
time it took to rule against Price last month led to the expiration of the
warrant at midnight, forcing the State to call off the execution for the time
being.
“Perhaps those who oppose capital punishment will celebrate the last-minute
cancellation of lawful executions,” Thomas wrote. But the Constitution allows
capital punishment, he said, “and by enabling the delay of petitioner’s
execution on April 11, we worked a ‘miscarriage of justice’ on the State of
Alabama, Bessie Lynn, and her family,” the justices said, referring to the
victim’s widow, citing a statement from the Governor of Alabama chastising the
delay.
The case is Price v. Dunn, U.S., 18–1249, review denied 5/13/19.
(source: Bloomberg Law)
LOUISIANA:
Trial date tentatively set for man accused of killing SPD officer
A Caddo Parish judge has penciled in a June trial date for the man accused of
killing Shreveport Police Officer Thomas LaValley.
A hearing for Grover Cannon will be held on June 3. His trial is scheduled to
begin on June 17, according to an order dated Friday, May 10.
Earlier this year, jury selection in the death penalty case was moved to East
Baton Rouge, to protect Cannon’s constitutional right to a fair trial by an
unbiased jury.
But his defense team raised questions about the process in which the jury pool
was selected, when it was learned no one under the age of 26 was called to
possibly serve as a juror due to a computer request.
Cannon’s lawyers argued before the trial court and Louisiana’s 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeal that the jury pool should be thrown out, and a new pool
selected, because excluding an entire age group of people violated state law
and his constitutional rights.
While both lower courts disagreed, the Louisiana Supreme Court sided with
Cannon on April 18 in a short one-page opinion, tossing out the jury pool,
which had been narrowed to less than 70 persons, and sending the case back to
the trial court to start all over.
Grover is accused of killing LaValley in 2015 after the officer responded to a
suspicious person call in Shreveport in the Queensborough neighborhood.
Cannon was wanted for attempted second-degree murder for allegedly trying to
kill someone else in July 2015.
Cannon faces the death penalty if convicted of 1st-degree murder.
(source: KSLA 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
