[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA, MD., DEL., OHIO, N.C.

[Rick Halperin]

June 3



USA:

A Demented Doctor Of Death----National Review Online: Jack Kevorkian,
Compassionate Eccentric? The Evidence Paints A Darker Portrait


Jack Kevorkian was released from prison Friday. Don't expect Dr. Death to
keep a low profile. He is already scheduled to appear on 60 Minutes, where
he will be interviewed by euthanasia proponent Mike Wallace. After that,
the rest of the media is likely to extravagantly tout Kevorkian as the
compassionate, if eccentric, retired doctor who helped desperate,
terminally ill people put themselves out of their misery.

In actuality, most of Kevorkian's "patients" were not terminally ill, but
disabled and depressed. Several weren't even sick, according to their
autopsies. Moreover, Kevorkian never attempted to treat any of the 130 or
so persons who traveled to Michigan to be hooked up to his suicide
machines to die either by drug overdose or carbon monoxide poisoning.

And as for compassion  forget about it. Kevorkian was never in the killing
business to alleviate unbearable suffering. Indeed, over the course of
decades he repeatedly explained his ultimate goals in professional
journals and in his 1991 book, Prescription Medicide. As Jack Kevorkian
articulately expresses it himself, compassion had absolutely nothing to do
with it.

Kevorkian's adulthood obsession has been to perform live human
experimentation on people he was killing. His first targets were condemned
prisoners. Indeed, as far back as 1959, Kevorkian wrote in the Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminal Political Science:

Capital punishment as it exists today offers a golden opportunity to break
limits [on human experimentation] by introducing into the situation an
involuntary factor without destroying the necessary safeguard of consent.
I propose that a prisoner condemned to death by due process of law be
allowed to submit, by his own free choice, to medical experimentation
under complete anesthesia (at the time appointed for administering the
penalty) as a form of execution in lieu of conventional methods.

25 years later, Kevorkian continued advocating experimenting on condemned
prisoners, which, in light of the advances in organ transplant medicine,
he began to couple with calls to use executed prisoners as organ donors.
In the October 1984 edition of MD, Kevorkian published "Dr. Guillotine's
Example," in which he asserted:

Of course, capital punishment has always been rationalized as being
"retribution"  allowing the condemned to "pay" with their lives. What
nonsense! Payment means transfer of value. With execution there is no such
thing; there is only total loss  and, of course, vengeance.

That no longer need be true. The fortuitous convergence of lethal
injection and of our incredible success with organ transplantation
promises to validate at least the erstwhile repayment. Many of the more
than 1,200 men and women now crowding our states' death rows are eager to
suffer more meaningful death by donating vital organs to dying
patientsHere finally, we have the opportunity to extract true payment
literal transfer of life from the condemned to the dying.

Meanwhile, Kevorkian was still obsessing about human experimentation.
Writing in 1985 in the Journal of the National Medical Association,
Kevorkian sought to wiggle out of the Nuremberg Codes ethical rules for
human experimentation, writing:

Postwar analysis of Nazi experimentation on human beings seems to have
been so excruciating that it blinded the civilized world to a very
important point in the formulation of the Nuremberg Code. Nowhere in the
code is there any reference to experimentation (under anesthesia) on those
who chose and desire it as an act of atonement when condemned to death by
due process of peacetime jurisprudenceIn the United States where death
rows are once again becoming over populated, all condemned persons should
be allowed to choose to submit to experimentation, or to organ donation,
under strictly controlled anesthesia before ultimate death by lethal
thiopental injection. By 1986, Kevorkian had expanded his advocacy for
human experimentation beyond the condemned to people with serious medical
problems, disabilities, and even the depressed. Thus, writing in a 1986
edition of Medicine and Law, Kevorkian asserted:

The so-called Nuremberg Code and all its derivatives completely ignore the
extraordinary opportunities for terminal experimentation on humans facing
imminent and inevitable death...[including] the extraction of medical
benefit from the process of judicial execution from those dying of
irremediable illness or trauma and from suicide mandated by inflexible
religious or philosophical principles or by irrevocable personal choice.
Other potential subjects include comatose, brain dead, or totally
incapacitated individuals as well as live fetuses in or out of the womb.

Toward gaining license to personally experiment on living human bodies, as
he described in Prescription Medicide, Kevorkian traveled the country
visiting prisons, seeking access to condemned prisoners upon whom he
wanted license to practice what he now called "obitiatry," by which he
meant human experimentation coupled with termination of the subject's
life. "No serious experiment on an anesthetized condemned person can be
too 'silly' or 'impractical,'" he wrote on page 114. Nor did he believe
that human experimentation ought to be limited to doctors, but could
include "paraprofessionals" and "qualified lay individuals." His personal
desire, as stated on page 34, was to "study all parts of the living brain"
(Kevorkian's emphasis).

Thwarted by the authorities from experimenting on prisoners being
executed, and rejected by organ transplant programs from coupling
execution with organ procurement, Kevorkian had an inspiration: "I
conceived the idea," he explained on page 189, "of expanding my death row
proposal to include experimentation on willing patients who opt for
euthanasia." He traveled to the Netherlands to explore the idea with Dutch
proponents of euthanasia. Upon his return, "inspired by my visit to the
Netherlands, I decided to take the risky step of assisting terminal
patients in committing suicide." He began advertising for suicide clients
in June 1987.

Thus Kevorkian's entire assisted-suicide campaign was intended to permit
him to engage in "obitiatry." Toward this end, he proposed several
categories of people who would qualify for killing/experimentation, which
he detailed in pages 196-203:

"Optional assisted suicide," which he explained included "individuals,
sometimes in good physical and mental health, who choose to be killed by
another":

The compelling factors may be physical (end stage of incurable disease,
crippling deformity, or severe trauma), mental (intense anxiety or psychic
torture inflicted by self or others), or doxastic (religious or
philosophical tenets or inflexible personal convictions). Also in this
group would be the forebears of Christianity in ancient Rome, whose
"choice" to be killed by hungry lions in the Coliseum was preferable to
the alternative "choice" of renouncing their faith (spiritual death).
"Obligatory Suicide," a category comprised of "those irrevocably condemned
to kill themselves," such as "the Japanese ritual of hara-kiri" required
by "a devout Shintoist guilty of intolerable sin [to] gain access to the
next life."

"Optional Suicide," which differed from optional assisted suicide in that
these would-be obitiatric subjects "are in no way afflicted by illness but
who have arbitrarily and irrevocably decided that they must die."

"Suicide by Proxy," encompassing "the killing by the decision and action
of another, of fetuses, infants, minor children, and every human being
incapable of giving direct and informed consent."

Kevorkian saw those in each of the above categories as not only killable,
but also usable for organ procurement and human experimentation. "I
believe that death in every category discussed can be merciful," he wrote,
"and at the same time yield something of real value to the suffering
humanity left behind. Moreover, he believed that human experimentation
should supplant animal research, writing on page 211 that we should "never
do on any animal anything aimed solely or primarily for human benefit, and
for the performance of which live human subjects are available under
ethically unassailable circumstances."

Kevorkian admitted clearly that he was not in the assisted-suicide project
for the compassion. Rather, as he wrote on page 214:

I feel it is only decent and fair to explain my ultimate aim. It is not
simply to help suffering and doomed persons kill themselves  that is
merely the first step, an early distasteful professional obligation (now
called medicide) that nobody in his or her right mind could savor. [W]hat
I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance
of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under
conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish  in a word
obitiatry.

What kind of experiments? Pure quackery:

If we are ever to penetrate the mystery of death  even superficially  it
will have to be through obitiatry. Research using cultured cells and
tissues and live animals may yield objective biological data, and
eventually perhaps even some clues about the essence of mere vitality or
existence. But knowledge about the essence of human death will of
necessity require insight into the nature of the unique awareness of or
consciousness that characterizes cognitive human life. That is possible
only through obitiatric research on living human bodies, and most likely
centering on the nervous system...on anesthetized subjects [to] pinpoint
the exact onset of extinction of an unknown cognitive mechanism that
energizes life.

Dont expect any of these disturbing issues to be raised by Mike Wallace or
Kevorkians other interlocutors. The media want to tell a fairy tale of
Jack the Martyr jailed for pursuing the enlightened cause of compassion
and "death with dignity." But the truly interesting story that will go
mostly unwritten is how a clearly twisted personality  driven to his
assisted suicide campaign by an obsession with human vivisection and a
desire to exploit the weak and desperate for crass utilitarian purposes
became, for a time, the most famous and popular doctor in the world.

(source: Wesley J. Smith ---- reprinted with permission from National
Review Online)

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

Oyez, the court is in sessionSeeing the justices is supreme legal drama.


Every profession has its "rock stars." For techies, Bill Gates and Steve
Jobs fire up the neurons. For architects, Frank Lloyd Wright draws out the
creative spirit. For food experts, Julia Child and Nigella Lawson get the
juices flowing.

And for lawyers, it's a motley crew of characters fondly known as the
Supremes - as in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the eight associate
justices.

If you are going to Washington and want to see the cream of the legal crop
perform their spirited and intense battle of wit and wisdom with talented
advocates for the rich and poor, the famous and unknown, the public and
private, head to the U.S. Supreme Court on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday
between the first Monday in October and late April. That's the only time
the court hears oral arguments, in which lawyers present their sides of
the case and answer questions posed by the justices. Court TV it is not -
it is so much better.

I arrived at the Supreme Court building on an unseasonably warm but
drizzly Wednesday. CNN cameramen were out front shooting a pep rally
complete with large posters held by fans of then-Supreme Court nominee
Samuel A. Alito. Climbing the 1st set of marble steps, I joined a line of
people hoping to hear oral arguments that day.

People visit the court for various reasons. I came out of curiosity and a
desire to see firsthand individuals who had reached the pinnacle of the
legal profession and whose opinions I had read and mulled many times
during my tenure as a Washington employment lawyer. I particularly wanted
to see the first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, before
her retirement.

The gentleman in front of me, an employment lawyer from Memphis, had come
to get the lay of the land in preparation for his argument before the
court. The young woman behind me wanted to hear argument on a
death-penalty case she had worked on as a law clerk. She and I arrived
early enough to get one of the 50 seats reserved for the public. The
Memphis lawyer received special seating privileges as a member of the
Supreme Court bar.

What happens after you've obtained one of the coveted seats? Just as in
every public building here, you proceed through an initial metal detector.
Then, a security officer tells you to check your cell phones, any other
electronic equipment, and virtually every carry-in object. Although
pocketbooks are allowed, the court prefers that you not bring anything
into the courtroom.

You are escorted to a small room with coin-operated lockers for storage,
then upstairs to a second security checkpoint.

Straight ahead are the beautiful, highly polished wood doors leading to
the courtroom. As you are ushered through the doors to your seat, a
genuine solemnity hangs in the air. It's like stepping onto a page in
history - you are a public witness to the highest court in the land, whose
ultimate responsibility is to guard and interpret the Constitution.

The nine justices are seated at the front of the room in black leather
chairs behind a long, slightly curved mahogany bench. It takes a moment to
realize that you are not looking at a photograph. Each of the justices,
including the new chief justice, looks very much at home. Roberts, with
his dark hair and boyish looks, adds a hint of youthfulness to the
ever-graying bench. There's an intensity, energy, focus and liveliness to
all the justices.

The dramatic setting is enhanced by the richness of the decor, from the
heavy maroon drapes with gold braiding and churchlike pews with maroon
cushions to the bronze latticework doors on both sides of the room. A
large-faced antique brass clock hangs from the ornate ceiling, which is
decorated with brightly colored rosettes and 4 marble friezes that
encircle the room.

Because of the ban on electronic devices, there is not a single laptop or
cell phone in sight. The bank of news reporters are scribbling notes on
pads at wooden desks with little lamps. Behind them sits a sketch artist
equipped with pencils, drawing pad, and what looks like a camera lens
attached to his spectacles - the better to see the lawyers' hairlines,
facial features, and perhaps a bead of perspiration.

Although the scene is impressive, it is the interplay between the justices
and the lawyers that grabs your attention. TV legal dramas might lead you
to believe that all lawyers are smooth and debonair and deliver compelling
arguments extemporaneously, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Lawyers who go before the court typically have lived and breathed their
cases for years. They know every inch of hundreds of legal documents and
have conducted moot courts or practice rounds, fielding every conceivable
question.

Even then, the adrenaline flows because the stakes are high. This is the
last stop on the legal road. For lawyers representing a client on death
row, the stakes are life or death.

As it happened, the second case that day was a death-penalty case: House
v. Bell, which had been featured on 60 Minutes and National Public Radio.
Paul House had been convicted of murdering a Tennessee woman 20 years
earlier, before the availability of DNA testing. The results of new tests
raised questions about the conviction, and the justices were being asked
to decide how strong a case has to be for a convicted murderer to obtain a
new trial.

The exchanges between the justices and the lawyers were intense and
sometimes heated. Little time lapsed between House's lawyer's opening
argument and the justices' barrage of questions. While Justice Clarence
Thomas remained a silent observer, other justices asked about bloodstains,
conflicts between the experts' testimony, and purported inconsistencies in
the recollections of the victim's daughter.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was clearly troubled by evidence that did not
seem to add up, while Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to oppose a new
trial. The chief justice seemed to be most concerned about the proper
standard for reviewing the new evidence. (The court subsequently ruled,
5-3, that House was entitled to a new hearing in federal court.)

It was riveting drama that showed not only our legal system at work at the
highest level but also the justices' human side.

For example, Justice Breyer helped a lawyer who got tongue-tied. And
Justice John Paul Stevens asked a New Orleans lawyer whether "the practice
of law has returned to normal" following Hurricane Katrina, to which
Jeffrey Schwartz responded, "No. It's a struggle. The state court . . . is
really struggling with pulling in jurors. . . . I'm actually still living
in Atlanta."

There were also lighter moments, such as when Scalia made a comment
favorable to one lawyer's position, and the lawyer responded that he
agreed with the justice. Scalia shot back, "I knew you would."

When a lawyer lost track of which justice was asking a question, Stevens
helped out by waving his hand.

"I'm over here."

(source: Philadelphia Inquirer)






MARYLAND:

What Do You Think?


Editor's note: Each week, The Herald-Mail invites readers to answer poll
questions on its Web site, www.herald-mail.com. Readers also may submit
comments about the poll question when voting. Each Sunday, a sampling of
edited reader comments will run in The Herald-Mail.

Last week's poll question was: Do you support the death penalty?

"An executed prisoner gets the easy way out, and because the death penalty
is so rarely used, it is not a true crime deterrent. Rather, I believe
that a prisoner should live a very minimal life. Confine them to a jail
cell 23.75 hours a day; allow them out only to shower; allow them no
interaction with other prisoners; provide meals consisting of only the
required nutrients in their cell; and allow their only reading material to
be the Bible. If someone were to live under these conditions after a first
offense, my guess is that the recidivism rate would be much lower, and
thusly the murder rate would decrease."

"Yes, in some cases? I say yes in ALL violent cases. Life in prison? Why?
I don't want to pay to keep them alive. They're never going to get out and
if they do, they'll just add to the low scum of society!"

"In cases like the Manson murders, killing Charles Manson would've made
him a martyr to his cult following and would've done more harm than good.
But when someone's a multiple killer - and not in self-defense (or if they
kill a child) - they don't deserve to live! The adult justice system is
meant to punish - the juvenile system is meant to rehabilitate. Why is it
that the entire system seems to be going more in the way of the juvenile
system? Are we THAT gutless that we can't make adults fully accountable
for their actions?"

"How about yes in all cases. Any 1st-degree offense (sexual, murder, drug
sales) should automatically get the death penalty, and not as we know it
today. If they receive the death penalty, give them only the nutritional
loaf and water (during) the time they do spend alive in prison. No more
lengthy drawn out appeals process either; 30 days max. If they haven't
proved their innocence by then, take 'em to the gallows pole!"

"Yes and no. Wrongly convicted have been found innocent because of DNA. A
person who kills a child or sexually abuses a child leading to death
should get the death penalty without question. A person who beats up a
elderly person leading to death should get the death penalty. No questions
asked."

"The chance of an error being made at trial is too great to let the
defendant be subject to death as a penalty. Even now with the advances in
technology, occasionally it found that the defendant is innocent, and then
what if he had been executed?"

"Although you will never deter all murderers, the effect of deterrence
will rise as the probability of executions rise. Because as the
probability of executions rises, the fear of that punishment will also
rise."

"I am against the death penalty but for cruel and unusual punishment. If
you kill a child, you should be stuck in a cell with only bread and water.
Also, they should have the cell pasted with pictures of the person you
killed and recordings of their voice. Why should we do it. Let them kill
themselves."

"From what I've 'heard,' prison life consists of three square meals a day,
exercise room, large screen color TV, up-to-date library, a theater room,
milk and cookies before bedtime, etc. Whatever happened to 'bread and
water.' Oh, I forgot air conditioning."

"I would support the death penalty in violent crime cases, as long as it
had a due and just appeals process (meaning one appeal and one only). I
personally wouldn't support this in animal abuse cases and would vote
against it if I ever was on a jury in which that particular case was being
tried. In response to the first comment, I would think that corporal
punishment (public hand chopping for convicted thieves) would be more
effective than a PowerBar and a Bible in reducing repeat offenders."

"As long as there is life in someone, there is a chance to maybe save
their soul. Many hardened criminals have changed with time. There is
little to be gained by just killing them."

"I believe that there are cases where the death penalty is not only
warranted, but should be mandatory. Taking a life in the commission of a
criminal act, i.e. rape, child abuse, robbery and so on, should qualify a
person to receive the death penalty, and be executed post haste upon
conviction. Now, I'll add to that the person must be guilty beyond any
doubt, not just reasonable doubt. Take for instance the current case,
(Brandon T.) Morris. Lone inmate in the hospital, shoots and kills his
escort, (Roxbury Correctional Officer Jeffery Alan) Wroten, kidnaps a cab
driver. He is the only one capable to commit the crimes that he is accused
of. He is guilty beyond any doubt."

(source: Herald-Mail)






DELAWARE:

Policy on inmate executions criticized----Lawsuit claims state's rules a
'hodgepodge'


No one knows the exact procedure for executing inmates in Delaware -- not
even the people who carry them out, according to attorneys representing
all of Delaware's death row inmates in a federal civil lawsuit.

In a motion filed this week, the attorneys told a judge that after
speaking to the previous and current head of the Department of Correction,
the warden at Smyrna and the people who have actually carried out
executions, there appears to be no oversight, consistency or "quality
control."

Department of Correction spokesman John R. Painter said the department
does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The lawsuit, which has held up all executions in Delaware for more than a
year, charges that Delaware's use of the death penalty violates the
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Former state and federal prosecutor Ferris Wharton, who supports the death
penalty, said it is difficult to know how much weight to give the court
filing without having read the depositions.

"They are obviously advocates for a cause," he said.

The latest revelations came in a motion by the plaintiffs to push back the
bench trial on the case set for Sept. 4.

State officials have responded to the motion, opposing any additional
delay and largely ignoring the plaintiff's charges about execution
procedures.

"A motion to amend a scheduling order is not an appropriate place to
engage in characterization of the evidence thus far produced in
discovery," state attorneys wrote.

"Delaware's system for carrying out executions is a hodgepodge of
practices," wrote attorney Michael Wiseman of the Federal Community
Defender's office in Philadelphia, in the plaintiff's motion. "No one
person thus far deposed seems to know ... who is ultimately responsible
for conducting them; the role of the physician or even matters as
seemingly mundane as the order for mixing of the lethal drugs. ... Without
rhyme or reason, the amounts of lethal drugs injected differ from
execution to execution, and there is an over-arching lack of awareness of
this troubling fact. There is no 'quality assurance' or post-execution
debriefings of those involved to identify the cause of problems, even when
such problems have been identified."

Delaware's last execution -- Brian Steckel on Nov. 4, 2005 -- took nearly
12 minutes, apparently because the injection system or the mix of lethal
drugs did not work correctly. Typically, an inmate dies almost
immediately.

At one point Steckel looked to one of his executioners to say, "I didn't
think it would take this long." And when the lethal drugs finally took
hold, Steckel did not quietly fall asleep, but convulsed and he let out a
loud snort. DOC officials denied that anything had gone wrong.

Class-action suit

All executions in Delaware have been on hold since the case was filed more
than a year ago to stop the execution of Robert W. Jackson, who was
convicted of murdering 47-year-old Elizabeth Girardi with an ax in 1992
during a robbery.

Earlier this year, District Judge Sue L. Robinson changed the case to a
class action lawsuit, including the 15 other people on Delaware's death
row.

The suit is similar to a number of other lawsuits around the nation that
have raised constitutional questions about lethal injections.

In last week's court filing, attorneys also highlighted problems with how
Delaware administers the lethal drugs during executions. Records state
that, according to depositions, lights in the area where the drugs are
mixed and administered "are turned off for all or most of the execution"
and that the way Delaware administers the drugs does not comply with state
standards for administering anesthesia.

Execution foe talks of 'paradox'

Dr. Jonathan I. Groner, an Ohio pediatric surgeon and death penalty
opponent who lectures on the topic, said he was not surprised by what
attorneys have discovered.

Groner said the questions about procedure and responsibility are common in
many states. He compared it to the practice used by firing squads where
one of the shooters is given a blank cartridge so no one knows who
actually fired the lethal shot.

Groner said killing is "fundamentally immoral and it is easier to commit
an immoral act with this diffusion of responsibility." Many share a tiny
chunk, he said, but no one person carries blame.

As for the darkened room where drugs are mixed and administered, Groner
said the same thing was going on in California. In that case, Groner said
the lights were dimmed so that the people observing the execution could
not see the faces of those carrying it out.

"It makes no sense," he said. "It is a medical charade. Who, in a real
health care setting, would inject a drug in the dark? Who, in a real
health care setting, would inject a drug where they are in one room and
the patient is in another?"

In his talks against the death penalty, Groner calls the situation the
"Hippocratic paradox": Prisons need the expertise of medical personnel to
carry out executions in a humane and professional manner. But medical
professionals are morally and ethically prohibited from being involved in
a procedure that is designed to kill.

Wharton, the former prosecutor, sees it another way.

"I think there needs to be some appreciation that what we are talking
about is executing someone and that necessarily will not be a completely
pain-free process," he said. "In all the years I was there [in the
Delaware Attorney General's Office] I never heard there was any chaos
associated with carrying out lethal injections."

(source: News Journal)






OHIO----female faces federal death penalty trial

Wife's death-penalty case unusual----Akron federal court to try woman
accused of arranging murder


A salacious murder trial that is to get under way this week in U.S.
District Court in Akron will break ground as the local court's 1st murder
and death-penalty case, authorities said.

It also will be the 1st murder trial in more than 25 years in the
district, which covers northern Ohio.

"It's unusual in this region. There just aren't many of them,'' said Bill
Edwards, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Cleveland.

Donna J. Moonda, 47, of Hermitage, Pa., is accused of arranging the murder
of her millionaire doctor-husband along the Ohio Turnpike in May 2005. Dr.
Gulam Moonda, 69, was shot by a gunman who emerged from another vehicle
after the couple had pulled off the highway in Broadview Heights.

The gunman, Damian Bradford, 25, of Monaca, Pa., pleaded guilty in July to
interstate stalking and a gun charge. He has said that Donna Moonda hired
him to kill her husband and promised to split any inheritance. Bradford
and Moonda had met in drug rehab and were lovers, authorities said.

Moonda is charged with murder for hire, interstate stalking and 2 counts
of use of a firearm in a crime of violence resulting in death.

The case ended up in federal court because of the interstate stalking
charge.

The most recent murder trial in the northern Ohio district, which includes
Akron, Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown, was in 1979 in Cleveland, Edwards
said. It involved the slaying of FBI agent Johnnie L. Oliver.

Another murder trial is expected to begin in federal court in Toledo in
October. That case involves a drug conspiracy, Edwards said.

The Akron trial before Judge David D. Dowd Jr. is to begin with jury
selection Monday. Because of the possibility of the death penalty, Dowd
has set aside 2 weeks for jury selection, with opening statements
scheduled for June 18.

In what is an unusual step locally, the judge has issued "media
guidelines'' because of the high interest expected among media in the
Pittsburgh and Youngstown areas. (Dr. Moonda was a urologist at Sharon
Regional Health System in Sharon, Pa.) The guidelines state, for example,
where interviews can be conducted and note that there will be only 6
courtroom seats available for journalists.

The Moonda trial probably will generate the most media interest at the
courthouse since the case against Fawaz Damra, a Cleveland imam who was
convicted in 2004 of lying about his ties to terrorist organizations, said
Traci Lancy, a deputy clerk who has been directed by Dowd to handle media
inquiries because of the volume of questions and requests.

A Youngstown State University professor who has followed the Moonda case
compared some aspects to the murder trial involving Cynthia George, the
Akron millionaire socialite who was convicted -- and later acquitted upon
appeal -- of hiring a lover to kill another lover.

"It has all of the variables of sex and murder and drugs and interstate
and violence, and it's lurid and it's juicy,'' said Fred Owens, professor
of telecommunications at the school. "I could see how the national media
would find great content here... If I was the assignment editor, I would
be all over it.

(source: Beacon Journal)

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

Retrial Delays will kill Kenny Richey


The campaign team for death row Scot Kenny Richey believe the US
authorities are trying to kill him by dragging out a decision on his
freedom until he dies behind bars from a degenerative heart condition.

Richey has been devastated to learn it could be 2 years before his current
appeal for a retrial is recieved - a process which has been ongoing for
over 2 years already.

The 42 year old Scot has been suffering chest pains and has had 3 heart
attacks in the past five years. It is believed he is currently undergoing
an operation to replace a stent- a wiremesh tube that holds the coronary
artery open.

Richey's former fiancee Karen Torley, who still runs a website and the
campaign dedicated to securing his freedom, says that the ongoing legal
wrangles and the uncertainty they produce are taking a severe toll on his
health.

"Kenny says that they are stringing this out as long as they can to avoid
any chance of a retrial". She said, "They are not in any rush to rectify
the mistake they have made. This case is an embarrasment to them".

The irony is that Richey's legal team are supremely confident that they
can overturn his conviction - if they are ever given their day in court.

The Scot's Boston based lawyer, Ken Parsigian says they can present
evidence that will prove his innocence.

"We have scientific proof that will confirm beyond reasonable doubt that
he is innocent.", he says.

"Our experts are ready to give evidence that will secure him a not guilty
verdict."

However, Parsigian has had to tell Richey it might be 2 years before they
get the opportunity to do that.

A decision is expected this Summer on their Appeal to the Sixth Circuit US
Court of Appeal. Even if that is in their favour it will be referred back
to the US Supreme Court, which may take a year and then months further to
set up a retrial.

(source: Sunday Post)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Ling's alleged killer will not face death penalty


More than a year after the death of renowned kidney disease physician and
researcher Brian Ling, the fate of his alleged killer has yet to be
decided.

John David Beavers is scheduled to go on trial in September on a charge of
first-degree murder. Hes charged with shooting and killing Brian Ling.

District Attorney Ron Moore said Beavers, the father of one of Ling's
patients who died days before the killing, won't face the death penalty.
Moore said he didn't find any of the aggravating factors set out by North
Carolina law that a jury may consider in deliberating a death sentence.

Police said Beavers, 48, of Zirconia in Henderson County, shot Ling at
least twice on March 10, 2006, in an exam room at the doctors practice,
Mountain Kidney Associates on McDowell Street. Medical staff heard the
gunfire, wrestled the suspect down, took his revolver and held him until
police arrived. Ling, 50, died a short time later at the hospital.

"It's just like it was yesterday," said Keith Vinson, who was a close
friend of Ling. "There's no excuse for what this person did."

Police haven't offered a motive for the slaying. But the defendants
stepdaughter, Michele Jackson, said he was "very grief-stricken" over the
death of his son. Michael Beavers, 25, a patient of Ling's who suffered
from kidney disease and other ailments, died at the hospital 6 days before
the shooting.

Possible penalty

Beavers remains in the Buncombe County jail without bond. If convicted of
first-degree murder, he would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison
without the possibility of parole. The presiding judge also could allow
the jury to consider a conviction on lesser charges like 2nd-degree
murder.

"Many people including myself were disappointed in the death penalty being
taken off the table," Vinson said. "This was cold-blooded murder. I don't
know what the death penalty is for if not for this."

North Carolina general statutes list 11 aggravating factors that jurors
can consider in deciding whether a defendant should receive the death
penalty following a 1st-degree murder conviction. These include the crime
being especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; that the defendant had
previously been convicted of a violent felony; and that the crime was part
of a course of conduct that included other violent crimes.

Moore said he found none of the factors apply to the crime that Beavers is
charged with committing.

Colleagues of Ling decided to name a new dialysis center off Chunns Cove
Road in his honor, said Steve Jones, regional operations director for
DaVita Inc., which operates the center. Ling was widely published and had
a national reputation for his work in nephrology.

"He was definitely a quiet leader among his group," Jones said. "He was
well-respected by everyone around him. His research would have continued
to help provide good quality care for patients."

(source: Ashville Citizen-Times)