[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA, ALA., TENN.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 25


USA:

Court to decide lethal injection, voter ID cases


The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider the constitutionality of
lethal injections in a case that could affect the way inmates are executed
around the country.

The high court will hear a challenge from 2 inmates on death row in
Kentucky -- Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr. -- who sued Kentucky
in 2004, claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment.

Baze has been scheduled for execution Tuesday night, but the Kentucky
Supreme Court halted the proceedings earlier this month.

"This is probably one of the most important cases in decades as it relates
to the death penalty," said David Barron, the public defender who
represents Baze and Bowling.

The court has previously made it easier for death row inmates to contest
the lethal injections used across the country for executions.

But until Tuesday, the justices had never agreed to consider the
fundamental question of whether the mix of drugs used in Kentucky and
elsewhere violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.

Baze and Bowling say the procedure inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering
on the inmate.

The 2 inmates sued in 2004 and a trial was held the following spring. A
state judge upheld the use of lethal injection and the Kentucky Supreme
Court affirmed that decision. The appeal taken up Tuesday stems from that
decision.

All 37 states that perform lethal injections use the same 3-drug cocktail.
The three drugs consist of an anesthetic, a muscle paralyzer, and a
substance to stop the heart. Death penalty foes have argued that if the
condemned is not given enough anesthetic, he can suffer excruciating pain
without being able to cry out.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled last week that the Tennessee's
method of lethal injection is unconstitutional and ordered the state not
to execute a death row inmate. The state is still deciding whether to
appeal the judge's ruling, but agreed to stop a pending execution.

Justices also agreed to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly
deter poor and minority Americans from voting, stepping into a contentious
partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an
Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their
ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law
unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that
in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down
Missouri's. In June, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out a challenge to
that state's voter ID law but sidestepped a decision on whether the
requirement was constitutional.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law's passage, an
Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a
photo copy of the voter's signature was kept on file for comparison.

"The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting
fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their
votes," Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, "Let's not beat around the
bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to
discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic."

The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in
advance of the start of its new term on Monday.

The court also agreed to review the case of a man who successfully
challenged a drug charge arising from his illegal arrest for driving on a
suspended license.

Many state and federal courts say that failing to follow state law in
making an arrest does not require that subsequently seized evidence be
suppressed. But the Virginia Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the case of
David Lee Moore, and state officials asked the justices to consider the
issue.

2 police detectives stopped Moore for driving on a suspended license, but
under Virginia law they should have issued him a summons and released him
rather than taking him into custody.

The Virginia Supreme Court said the officers could not lawfully conduct
the search that followed his arrest, which turned up crack cocaine.

A trial judge ruled against Moore's challenge to the drug charge and he
was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. The Virginia Supreme
Court subsequently ordered the charge dismissed and Moore was freed.

******************************

Cruel and Unusual? High Court to Decide


The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider the constitutionality of
lethal injections in a case that could affect the way inmates are executed
around the country.

The high court will hear a challenge from two inmates on death row in
Kentucky  Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr.  who sued Kentucky in
2004, claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Baze has been scheduled for execution Tuesday night, but the Kentucky
Supreme Court halted the proceedings earlier this month.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously made it easier for death row inmates
to contest the lethal injections used across the country for executions.

But until Tuesday, the justices had never agreed to consider the
fundamental question of whether the mix of drugs used in Kentucky and
elsewhere violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.

All 37 states that perform lethal injections use the same three-drug
cocktail, but at least 10 states suspended its use after opponents alleged
it was ineffective and cruel, according to the Death Penalty Information
Center.

The 3 consist of an anesthetic, a muscle paralyzer, and a substance to
stop the heart. Death penalty foes have argued that if the condemned
prisoner is not given enough anesthetic, he can suffer excruciating pain
without being able to cry out.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled last week that Tennessee's method
of lethal injection is unconstitutional and ordered the state not to
execute a death row inmate using that method. The state is still deciding
whether to appeal the judge's ruling, but agreed to stop a pending
execution.

A ruling from California in the case of convicted killer Michael Morales
resulted in the statewide suspension of executions.

States began using lethal injection in 1978 as an alternative to the
historic methods of execution: electrocution, gassing, hanging and
shooting. Since the death penalty resumed in 1977, 790 of 958 executions
have been by injection.

Baze and Bowling sued in 2004 and a trial was held the following spring. A
state judge upheld the use of lethal injection and the Kentucky Supreme
Court affirmed that decision. The appeal taken up Tuesday by the U.S.
Supreme Court stems from that decision.

"This is probably one of the most important cases in decades as it relates
to the death penalty," said David Barron, the public defender who
represents Baze and Bowling.

The office of the Kentucky attorney general had no comment Tuesday on the
case.

Baze, 52, has been on death row for 14 years. He was sentenced for the
1992 shooting deaths of Powell County Sheriff Steve Bennett and Deputy
Arthur Briscoe.

Bennett and Briscoe were serving warrants on Baze when he shot them. Baze
has said the shootings were the result of a family dispute that got out of
hand and resulted in the sheriff being called.

Bowling was sentenced to death for killing Edward and Tina Earley and
shooting their 2-year-old son outside the couple's Lexington, Ky.,
dry-cleaning business in 1990. Bowling was scheduled to die in November
2004, but a judge stopped it after Bowling and Baze sued over the
constitutionality of lethal injection.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted other cases to review, as well,
including:

- A challenge to a voter photo ID law that opponents say unfairly deters
the poor and minorities from voting.

- Virginia's appeal of a man's successful challenge to a drug charge
arising from his illegal arrest for driving on a suspended license.

- Electricity contracts that a Nevada power company and a county in
Washington state seek to invalidate because they were signed at the height
of the 2000-2001 Western energy crisis.

- 2 age discrimination disputes, one on whether federal law bars
retaliation against federal employees who complain of age discrimination,
another on whether age can be used as a factor in determining
disability-retirement benefits.

- A dispute in which Taiwanese companies accuse a South Korean rival of
misusing its patents to collect royalties it is not entitled to.

(source: Associated Press)

***********************************

Murders, robberies and other violent crimes nearing 5-year peak, FBI
reports


Violent crime rose nearly 2 percent last year, the FBI reported Monday in
nationwide data that show a slightly higher increase than expected.

The number of big-city murders also increased, by 1.8 % - the same rate as
homicides nationwide. Robberies and arson also rose in large population
centers, but the number of rapes and car thefts dropped, FBI data show.

The new numbers confirm that crime rates continued on a 2-year upward
trend after a relative lull in violence between 2002 and 2004.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse cast the report as a good
news in the effort to combat gangs, guns and violence, pointing out that
the rate of crimes per 100,000 people had declined to its lowest level in
30 years.

"While there's encouraging news in the latest crime rates from the FBI's
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, violent crime remains a challenge for
some communities," Roehrkasse said in a statement.

The Bush administration has pledged to spend $50 million this year to
combat gangs and guns, and is pushing Congress for new laws to let the
federal government better investigate and prosecute violent crime.

Read the 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report :
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html

Overall, violent crime rose by 1.9 % in 2006 - slightly higher than the
1.3 % increase reflected earlier this summer in preliminary FBI data.

A 5-year look at crime rates show that the number of murders, robberies,
rapes and other violent offenses committed in 2006 is returning to the
peak reached in 2002. Crime dropped dramatically after that, the FBI data
show.

In 2006, for example, an estimated 1,417,000 violent crimes were committed
across the country. That was a sharp rise from the 1,360,000 crimes
reported in 2004 and approaches the estimated 1,425,000-mark reached in
2002.

(source for all: Associated Press)

****************************

High Court Is Set for High Drama


Challenges to the power of the president, Congress and the judiciary, from
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to state death rows, will provide early drama and
potential landmark rulings in the new term of the still-evolving Roberts
Court.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to decide only the two cases
involving the tension between Congress' Military Commissions Act of 2006,
governing treatment of Guantanamo detainees, and the judiciary's federal
habeas corpus jurisdiction, those cases likely would be enough to make the
term stand out in court history books.

The justices, however, also have agreed to decide important questions
concerning:

The president's authority to require states to comply with international
treaty obligations when they affect state criminal processes.

Sentencing judges' ability in the now-voluntary guideline era to weigh the
controversial crack-cocaine sentencing disparity.

The First Amendment implications of certain state election systems,
including how New York chooses judicial candidates.

Requirements for filing job bias charges with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission as well as the admissibility of so-called "me, too"
evidence -- issues raised in separate age discrimination challenges.

And, major securities, federal pre-emption, arbitration and other issues
with significant ramifications for business and consumers.

By the end of last term, the high court had agreed to hear arguments in
only 28 cases (26 argument hours because of cases consolidated). That
amount is well behind the number of certiorari grants in prior terms and
is insufficient to fill the Court's argument calendars through December.
But the number should increase after the justices' summer conference, held
Monday, when they went through more than a thousand petitions seeking
their review.

"I can't think of any theme running through the term's cases so far," said
constitutional law scholar Burt Neuborne, legal director of the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, which is handling
one of the election challenges.

No theme, but potential drama as the views of the Court's newest justices
-- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. --
continue to be revealed in new areas of the law.

There also will be some drama outside of the Court as the new term opens.
Oct. 1 marks the publication of a memoir by the most silent justice on the
high court bench -- Justice Clarence Thomas.

GUANTANAMO REDUX

The Supreme Court is now no stranger to the legal fallout from the
nation's war on terrorism. Since 2004, the justices have considered five
challenges to the Bush administration's approach to detaining enemy
combatants -- both citizens and aliens.

The latest cases -- Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S.,
No. 06-1196, which have been consolidated for argument -- involve the
congressional response to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the court in 2006
struck down military commissions authorized by the president because they
violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

Congress subsequently enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The
Boumediene and Al Odah detainees ask, among other questions, whether that
act's bar on their seeking federal habeas review violates the
Constitution's suspension clause.

The cases are important legally as well as politically, noted high court
scholar Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University School of Law.

"They are in play now in so many venues," he said. "The [issues] will be a
topic of conversation in the confirmation hearings of Michael Mukasey for
attorney general. There is now debate in Congress itself about the
amending the act to restore habeas corpus."

Kmiec suggested that reported problems with the current military
commissions, as well as an administration's legal argument that is complex
and not entirely in keeping with the Great Writ's history, do not bode
well for the government in these cases.

The justices also confront a familiar case with serious domestic and
international implications in Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled in a case involving 52
Mexican nationals on death row in the United States that U.S. authorities
had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to
inform the Mexicans of their right to consult their consuls when arrested.
Jose Medellin raised that issue in his 1st Supreme Court case after
failing to win federal habeas relief on that issue.

Before the Supreme Court could reach the merits, President Bush in 2005
issued an executive memorandum, ordering the Texas state courts to comply
with the ICJ judgment. Medellin applied for a habeas writ. But in November
2006, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied it, saying that ICJ
decisions are not binding on U.S. courts, and that the executive
memorandum demanding state compliance exceeded presidential authority. The
high court now has Medellin's 2nd appeal.

"The case poses important questions about how the court will see the
balance between states' rights under the banner of federalism and the
foreign affairs powers of the president, including the treaty power," said
international law scholar Duncan Hollis of Temple University James E.
Beasley School of Law. There are precedents supporting both sides, he
noted, but they have never "crossed paths" in a case until now.

"In other words, this is a big case -- not simply because it involves the
death penalty," said Hollis.

After last term's major job bias ruling -- Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 127 S.
Ct. 2162, a pay discrimination challenge that the worker lost -- civil
rights lawyers "are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst," said
Gilliam Thomas, senior staff attorney with Legal Momentum, about the new
term's two age bias cases.

In Federal Express v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322, the justices will decide
what qualifies as filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. In this
case, a group of FedEx Corp. workers, believing they were victims of age
discrimination, filed an intake questionnaire, not a formal "charge"
document, with the agency. The EEOC, however, never notified FedEx or did
anything else. After waiting 60 days as required by law, the workers filed
suit.

In Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, a worker, who
believed her age was the reason for her layoff, sought to introduce
evidence from 5 other Sprint employees who had been laid off -- but by
different supervisors -- and also believed they were age bias victims. The
lower courts have divided on the admissibility of this "me, too" evidence.

Both cases are important, said employment litigator Debra Katz, partner in
Washington's Katz, Marshall & Banks.

"The EEOC is not a plaintiff-friendly agency and it's not easy to file a
charge," she said. "The idea that somehow you will impose a requirement on
who can file a charge based on a formality seems very problematic."
Sprint, she added, is about proving discrimination, which is rarely done
by offering direct evidence of discrimination. Limiting evidence that
shows context, environment, and tone from the top, Katz said, "cuts the
feet out from under one of the primary tools plaintiffs have in proving
their case." But there is a "really strong argument" that "me, too"
evidence doesn't go directly to the state of mind of the person who made
the job decision, said Paul Smith, partner in the Washington office of
Chicago-based Jenner & Block. In the Federal Express case, Smith added, he
thinks this court will say the statute says to file a "charge," and the
worker did not file one.

Although both cases arise under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
their outcomes will have an impact on discrimination claims under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

The Court's two major sentencing cases present issues stemming from the
justices' sentencing revolution of nearly a decade now.

Kimbrough v. U.S., No. 06-6330, asks whether a sentencing judge can
consider the 100-to-1 disparity in sentences for crack-cocaine offenses in
relation to those involving powder cocaine, as well as recent reports by
the U.S. Sentencing Commission on that disparity in imposing sentences.
Gall v. U.S., No. 06-7949, asks whether a judge must justify a deviation
from the sentencing guidelines for the sentence to be held "reasonable."

Both cases are "critical," said Ryan King, policy analyst with The
Sentencing Project. "Although the Gall case is probably more broadly
important for regular sentencing mechanics, Kimbrough is particularly
interesting because it touches on an issue that has been contentious in
judicial circles for 21 years and comes at a time when there is
considerable attention to crack-cocaine on [Capitol] Hill."

The justices have a trio of election cases this term. The Court in a 2000
decision held that a blanket primary -- where all voters could vote for
any party's candidate regardless of the voter's affiliation -- violated
the First Amendment association rights of political parties, but a truly
nonpartisan primary with the top 2 winners going to a runoff probably
would not.

In Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party, No. 06-713,
consolidated with No. 06-730, the justices will review a circuit decision
that Washington's top-2 primary, which allows candidates to use their
party "preference," violates the First Amendment.

N.Y. Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, No. 06-766, challenges lower
court rulings striking down New York's convention system for selecting
candidates to its trial-level state supreme courts. The political parties
control the nominating conventions and judicial hopefuls not favored by
party leaders will not get on the ballot.

The 2nd Circuit decision is "pretty aggressive," said election scholar
Edward Foley of Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law.
"It calls for use of the 14th Amendment to invalidate state law and policy
on not only how to structure a voting process but also your judicial
system," he said. "In that sense, I could imagine the court asking whether
it's appropriate to federalize this issue of state governance."

OTHER CASES TO WATCH THIS TERM:

Dept. of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, No. 06-666. Does a state violate the
dormant commerce clause by giving more favorable tax treatment to income
earned by bonds it has issued than income earned by bonds of other states?

Danforth v. Minnesota, No. 06-8273. May state courts rely on their own
state laws or constitutions to decide when U.S. Supreme Court decisions
apply retroactively to a broader class of defendants than under the
Supreme Court's standard?

U.S. v. Williams, No. 06-694. Do provisions of the PROTECT Act of 2003,
which criminalize the noncommercial pandering of images of "virtual child
porn" and of nonobscene actual children, violate the First Amendment?

(source: Law.com)





***********************************

Why we should abolish death penalty


Detainees sit in a holding area during their processing into the temporary
detention facility inside Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prisoners like
these could easily end up on death row.

26-September-2007: Amnesty International has been fighting since its
foundation for the universal abolition of the death penalty. In the next
weeks, the UN General Assembly will be voting on a resolution calling for
a global moratorium on executions.

Amnesty's campaigner Martin Macpherson makes no predictions to Julio
Godoy, European correspondent of IPS. But the UN vote will be an historic
milestone in the campaign to end capital punishment.

Q: Why does Amnesty International want the UN General Assembly to adopt a
resolution calling for abolition of the death penalty?

Macpherson: Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases
and without exception, believing it to be a violation of the right to life
and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The death
penalty legitimises an irreversible act of violence by the state and will
inevitably claim innocent victims. Amnesty therefore demands unconditional
and worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

A resolution by the UN General Assembly a universal body representing the
entire UN membershipcalling for a moratorium on executions as a step
towards abolition would be an important international milestone in the
campaign to abolish the death penalty worldwide.

Q: Why is there a push for this resolution on the death penalty just now?

Macpherson: A death-penalty-free-world is increasingly becoming a real
possibility. But to achieve that goal there must be strong political
leadership and a well-crafted strategy to create global support.

This past year has seen renewed debate on the use of the death penalty
prompted in part by the execution of Saddam Hussein. A time has been
reached when it should be possible to adopt a resolution in the UN General
Assembly calling for a moratorium on executions.

131 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Only 25
countries actually carried out executions in 2006.

In 2006, 91 % of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq,
Pakistan, Sudan and the U.S.

Amnesty Internationals statistics also show an overall decline in the
number of executions in 2006 -- a recorded 1,591 executions, compared to
2,148 in 2005. These figures demonstrate that there is now a real momentum
to end capital punishment.

Statements by both the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the High
Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour have supported the "trend in
international law and in national practice towards a phasing out of the
death penalty."

Q: Has the General Assembly ever taken a position on the death penalty?

Macpherson: To date, the UN General Assembly has not adopted a resolution
either calling for a moratorium on executions or abolition of the death
penalty. It has adopted standards to limit the application of the death
penalty and safeguards to protect the rights of those facing the death
penalty.

One of these standards is the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty. 61 states have now ratified this Protocol
and a further eight are signatures to it.

Amnesty International believes the UN General Assembly should now call for
a global moratorium on executions as a key step towards the ultimate goal
of abolition.

Q: Calls for a UN General Assembly resolution on the death penalty failed
in the past. Why should the efforts be successful this time?

Macpherson: Yes, there were unsuccessful attempts in 1994 and 1999. But
since then the number of abolitionist states in law or practice has
increased. At the UN General Assembly in 2006, Finland, as the President
of the EU, delivered a statement supported by 95 states which expressed
deep concern at the continuing use of the death penalty around the world.

The statement went on to call on states that still maintain the death
penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to establish a
moratorium on executions.

The international trend is towards abolition. But fierce opposition can be
expected now from some states that retain the death penalty who will seek
to defeat the resolution on the grounds that this is not a human rights
issue that affects the right to life but a question that solely falls
within the domestic jurisdiction of states.

They will attempt to defeat the resolution, for example, by introducing
"wrecking amendments" as happened in the past.

Q: What is a "wrecking amendment"?

Macpherson: "Wrecking amendments," sometimes called "killer amendments,"
seek to undermine the purpose of the resolution.

They are neither friendly nor made it good faith. "Wrecking amendments" in
the past have sought to undermine the draft by denying that the question
of the death penalty resolution is a human rights issue of concern to the
world community and by introducing language which reaffirms the
sovereignty of states to decide on issues of criminal justice and
sentencing.

Q: Surely, though, it is for each UN member state to decide for itself
whether it uses the sanction of capital punishment?

Macpherson: The promotion and protection of human rights is a concern for
the international community as a whole. It is not solely a matter for
individual states.

Amnesty International has declared its total and unconditional opposition
to the death penalty, and consequently the organisation does not accept
that states have a right to execute people in any situation. Even the best
judicial systems are fallible, and innocent people will invariably be put
to death.

Q: Your critics may say this is just another instance of rich countries
and their non-governmental organisations seeking to impose their values on
developing countries. How would you reply to this?

Macpherson: Opposition to the death penalty is not exclusive to any
particular region, political system, world religion, culture or tradition.

States that have abolished the death penalty are to be found in all
regions and cut across religious divides.

Furthermore, international human rights law and standards on the death
penalty has been elaborated by international and regional bodies,
including the UN General Assembly and the development of those standards
draws on many different experiences and legal systems.

Q: The next UN General Assembly the 62ndopens in the last week of
September. We can expect, then, that the moratorium initiative will be
introduced into the new Assembly for a vote in the coming weeks. What will
it take for it to be successful?

Macpherson: It must build a strong, broad cross-regional support and be
carefully prepared in order to secure a successful outcome.

A number of the states that are opposed to such a resolution are
influential and determined to defeat or distort it with wrecking
amendments.

With strong political leadership and a well thought out strategy it will
be possible to achieve a resolution on a universal moratorium.

Q: Will the resolution you are expecting make any difference to states
which are now executing people?

Macpherson: A UN General Assembly resolution by itself will not prevent a
state carrying out an execution as such resolutions are not legally
binding.

But a clear call from the UN's highest political body for a moratorium on
executions would carry considerable moral and political weight.

It would be a valuable tool in convincing reluctant states to implement a
moratorium as a significant step towards worldwide abolition.

For us at Amnesty, it would be an important advocacy tool in the campaign
for worldwide death penalty abolition.

(source: IPS)


ALABAMA:

Riley fails test, again


THE ISSUE: Once again, Gov. Bob Riley has refused to order DNA testing
that could shed light on a death-penalty case. This is a pattern that
needs to be broken.

Unless courts step in or something else intervenes, the state of Alabama
will execute Thomas Arthur. This much we know: That something else won't
be Gov. Bob Riley.

For the 2nd time in as many months, Riley has refused to delay an inmate's
execution to allow for DNA testing that might shine light on the crime.
Riley's refusal is beyond disappointing, and it's beyond logic. The
testing could have been ordered 2 weeks ago without even requiring a delay
of the execution, according to the Innocence Project.

While there is some evidence implicating Arthur of involvement in the 1982
murder of Troy Wicker, there are certainly reasons to wonder if the crime
went down as prosecutors claim. Even Wicker's family wonders what really
happened and has expressed support for DNA testing that could shed some
light on Wicker's death.

"I would like to see this evidence subjected to DNA testing," Peggy Wicker
Jones said in an Aug. 21 statement. "I would like to have as much
information as possible about what happened on the day my brother Troy was
murdered."

The Innocence Project, the famed New York organization whose DNA work has
cleared more than 200 inmates across the country, doesn't take the
position Arthur is innocent. But it does argue the evidence in Arthur's
case should be subjected to the best scientific testing available.

DNA testing, which had not been developed when Arthur was tried, might
merely confirm his guilt. But it might also implicate someone else,
someone who has so far not been held accountable for the slaying. Either
way, it's a win.

Governors in other states have ordered DNA testing in similar death
penalty cases. Among them was a former Texas governor named George W.
Bush, as well as his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But not Riley.

In a statement criticizing Alabama's governor, the Innocence Project
pointed out that 15 of those cleared nationwide by DNA testing were on
death row and that some of them were days away from execution when they
were exonerated.

"If any of those 15 people had been in Alabama, they would be dead today,"
Innocence Project co-director Peter Neufeld said last Wednesday.

Neufeld called it "unconscionable" that Riley won't insist on using the
best science to determine the truth before putting inmates to death.
Neufeld is right.

Before inflicting a punishment that can't be undone, the state of Alabama
should be eager to order DNA testing in cases where any biological
evidence is available. Indeed, such testing in old cases should be
available by law, as it is already in 42 states.

Unfortunately, in Alabama, the test rests in the hands of the governor.
Once again, Riley has failed that test.

(source: Opinion, The Birmingham News) ***********************

Attorney general out of line in capital case


ATTORNEY GENERAL Troy King has behaved foolishly and vindictively in a
capital murder case, and has damaged his reputation in the process.

Here's the background. 2 people were murdered during a robbery of a
pawnshop in Shelby County in 1996. Marcus Presley, then 16, and his cousin
and accomplice, LaSamuel Gamble, then 18, were sentenced to death.

But in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles could not be
executed. Because of that ruling, Mr. Presley's death sentence was
commuted even though he, not Mr. Gamble, pulled the trigger.

Last month, a judge vacated Mr. Gamble's death sentence -- a move
supported by Shelby County District Attorney Robby Owens, a Republican, on
the reasonable grounds that it was no longer fair to sentence to death the
man who didn't actually pull the trigger.

Said Mr. Owens, "It would be manifestly unjust if in this particular case
Gamble was sentenced to something other than life without parole when
Presley received that."

Heeding the highest court in the land and arguing for equal treatment for
2 murderers hardly makes Mr. Owens soft on crime. Although Mr. Gamble has
yet to be formally resentenced, it's safe to say these 2 killers will
never get out of prison.

But to hear Mr. King tell it, Mr. Owens and the Alabama District Attorneys
Association, which has supported Mr. Owens, are wrong and he alone is
righteously pursuing justice for the victims' families.

To that end, Mr. King, a fellow Republican, has loudly removed Mr. Owens
from any involvement in the normal appeals process of a capital case.

The attorney general was far out of line in accusing Mr. Owens of "acting
on the side of the criminal" and in accusing the other district attorneys
of sounding "the retreat of common sense and justice."

Mr. King played on the emotions of relatives of one of the victims by
putting them on display at a news conference.

In addition, Mr. King ignored his own legal brief in the 2005 Supreme
Court case, in which he cited this very case in arguing in favor of
capital punishment for juveniles. It would be a "bizarre result" under the
Eighth Amendment if trigger man Marcus Presley were not put to death but
Mr. Gamble was, Mr. King wrote at the time.

What's changed since 2005? Well, Mr. Owens supported Mr. King's opponent
-- Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr., a Democrat -- in the
2006 campaign for attorney general. At the time, Mr. Tyson said Mr. King
was dangerously inexperienced in criminal cases, and now he says Mr. King
is proving it.

Speaking of experience, Mr. Owens notes that Mr. King has never tried a
case before a jury, let alone a death penalty case. And as the appeals
process moves forward, Mr. King has ensured that his office will not rely
on the advice of the prosecutor who handled the case and who is far more
familiar with it than Mr. King.

Mr. King has also sent a message to Alabama's district attorneys that he
will not back them up in major criminal cases if instead he can play
politics.

And it is even more troubling that Randall Hillman, the executive director
of the District Attorneys Association, says his members have had other
problems with Mr. King and that "the working relationship is practically
nonexistent."

If that's true, then justice doesn't benefit. Criminals do.

(source: Opinion, Press-Register)

********************

ALABAMA VOICES: DAs wrong on law----By Troy King


LaSamuel Gamble has been convicted of murdering three people in cold
blood. District Attorney Robby Owens sounded the retreat of common sense
and justice when he testified to free this monster from death row where a
Shelby County jury had sent him 10 years ago.

Owens says he was compelled to do so. He is wrong -- wrong on the facts,
wrong on the law, and wrong on his duty. Whether 30 DAs or 42 DAs call for
me to do so, I will never turn my back on Alabama's victims or desecrate
the graves of those who Gamble murdered.

Here are the facts about the man whom Robby Owens is leading the effort to
remove from death row.

His name is LaSamuel Gamble. By the time Gamble arrived at John's 280 Pawn
Shop on July 25, 1996, he had participated in a 3-month long crime spree
across Shelby, Chilton and Jefferson Counties during which he had robbed
at least 10 stores, four people had been killed, including one Gamble
himself pulled the trigger to kill, and 2 others had been injured, one of
whom Gamble had shot 3 times.

Gamble was the one who picked out John's 280 Pawn Shop to rob, and he is
the one who planned the crime. Gamble was no innocent observer. He was
armed and ready to kill. In fact, he shot at John Burleson when his
accomplice Marcus Presley's gun jammed. Thanks to Gamble's poor aim,
District Attorney Owens would now give him a free pass from the sentence
he earned.

Crime has soared in this state because people have made excuses for
criminals and because consequences are slow in coming if they come at all.
In the past, those making excuses have been criminal defense lawyers.

Incredibly, they have now been joined by those who claim to be ministers
of justice -- Robby Owens and the district attorneys who proudly condone
his actions. They stood together last week to support each other -- to
complain that one of their own had been attacked.

I take my stand with the law and with the victims of crime. Together, we
say that there is still right and there is still wrong. And we make no
apology for it.

Owens says that Gamble cannot be put to death because his accomplice
cannot be put to death. But when determining a defendant's punishment, a
court cannot consider his accomplice's sentence. That is not my opinion.
That is the law. And it has been the law in Alabama for 25 years.

Robby Owens and his DA friends have attempted to justify their actions by
taking arguments we made in the Roper case out of context. We did argue
that if the Supreme Court freed juvenile killers from death row, it would
produce a bizarre result relative to their adult accomplices. These DAs
and I have never agreed beyond that.

Robby Owens believes that once Roper was decided, Gamble should also be
set free. He is wrong. I have never, and I will never, excuse a convicted
capital murderer from paying the price he owes for his evil deeds.

In the capital cases my office and I have prosecuted, we have sought and
won the death penalty every time. Never once have we returned to court and
asked that our work be unnecessarily undone. Never will we. Instead, I
have been proud to enforce the law and honor victims by personally making
the sentencing arguments and winning justice for them.

With their claims that I took over a case that I was already responsible
for, the DAs are again attempting to spin and distort and to draw
attention away from the real issue. The real, and the only, issue here is
that they say killers like Gamble don't deserve a death sentence. I say
they do. Since Mr. Owens continues to question the motives for my actions,
however, let me explain.

On Sept. 5, the judge ordered a new penalty phase trial for Gamble. Had I
not taken this case, this portion of the trial would have been returned to
Mr. Owens for prosecution.

Because Mr. Owens has publicly stated that he would side with Gamble's
attorneys at the re-sentencing and fight against the death sentence Gamble
earned and received, I had no choice but to take this case and to be the
voice of the law and the people of this state. That is why I took this
case, and that is why I would do it again.

Robby Owens and his allies claim that no attorney general has ever
publicly criticized a district attorney. Perhaps this is because Alabama
has never seen such a shocking disregard for victims and for the law by a
district attorney.

Mr. Owens has said that if I am going to be his boss, I should be able to
do his job. As to LaSamuel Gamble, that is exactly what I am doing. After
all, somebody needs to. That is the same thing we did with Jeremy Jones
and Jimmy Lamar Killingsworth -- 2 more capital murderers that this office
sent to death row after taking those cases from local district attorneys,
men who stood with Robby Owens, and who themselves refused to do their
jobs.

It is unfortunate that the working relationship these DAs profess to miss
with my office was one that they and their paid lobbyist repeatedly chose
to abandon when they were asked to pick sides in the battle to protect
Alabama's children from predators.

To the detriment of our children, the DA's association took the side of
criminals over children when they stripped the new sex offender law of
minimum mandatory sentences for class C felonies involving children.

The DA's association did it again when they worked against my legislation
allowing child victims to testify by closed-circuit television rather than
forcing them to endure the nightmare of facing their abusers in an open
courtroom. They did it again when they opposed protecting unborn children
in this state from violence and giving conscientious prosecutors the
ability to prosecute those who harm them.

Alabama is safer, not because of their efforts, but in spite of them, as
the Alabama Legislature sided with me and gave our people these important
new protections. And now the DA's association and its elite leadership are
trying to do it again as they work to free LaSamuel Gamble from death row,
arguing that their authority to determine the appropriate sentence must be
"unquestioned."

Under the power grab contained in that one sentence, those historical
checks and balances -- juries and judges who recommend and pronounce
sentences -- upon which our justice system rests would no longer be
needed. That is frighteningly un-American.

It is time to mean what we say, and what we must say is: No more. No more
standing with criminals. No more excusing criminal conduct. No more
coddling criminals. No more standing against victims.

The death penalty is the public's strongest deterrent to murder.

If an adult puts a gun in the hand of a juvenile and sends him to kill,
the adult should be held fully accountable. We must resist efforts that
would encourage adults to recruit children so that they can engage in
their evil and murderous plans without fear that a DA in Alabama will give
them death so long as their juvenile pawn cannot receive it.

That is the issue here. To the district attorneys across Alabama who
turned their backs on victims in order to stand with Robby Owens, know
this -- if you won't enforce the law, I am able, I am willing, and I will
do it for you.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser -Troy King is attorney general of Alabama)






TENNESSEE----impending execution

State Supreme Court sets new execution date


The Tennessee Supreme Court has reset the upcoming execution of death row
inmate Edward Jerome Harbison.

The state attorney general's office asked the higher court to move the
execution date so it could respond to a federal judge's ruling that the
state's method of lethal injection is unconstitutional.

Harbison was scheduled to be killed Wednesday morning. The new date is
Jan. 9, 2008.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled last week that the state's method
of lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also agreed to hear arguments in another lethal
injection case from Kentucky.

(source: The Leaf Chronicle)

***************************

State asks court to delay execution for Harbison


The state attorney general's office has asked the Tennessee Supreme Court
to cancel a scheduled execution date for a death row inmate.

Edward Jerome Harbison was scheduled to be executed Wednesday for the
beating death of an elderly woman in 1983.

But a federal judge ruled last week that the state's method of lethal
injection is unconstitutional and ordered the state not to execute
Harbison.

The state is still deciding whether to appeal the judge's ruling, but
agreed to stop this week's execution. The Supreme Court must approve the
stay.

(source: Associated Press)