Dec. 18
MISSISSIPPI:
A strong case for the death penalty
I think idealism is as dangerous as it is essential. Nowhere is this more
obvious than in the endless debates about the death penalty. An article in a
recent edition of The Clarion-Ledger described the execution of a murderer
where the drug used was questioned and the sentiment that it was hoped the
death penalty would be abolished was expressed.
In an ideal world, abolition would certainly be the way to go. In our real
world, I contend again that the death penalty is a very useful tool for law
enforcement as a bargaining methodology, that it is a unique punishment that
recognizes the heinous character of a very few horrific crimes, that it deters
absolutely one lethal offender, that it saves lives even under the present
egregious process, and that it speaks clearly to our valuing the lives of the
murdered and our outrage at the utter unacceptability of their deaths.
I also contend that if we accept DNA as certain proof of innocence then the
same DNA should stand as certain proof of guilt. The logic of this is
unassailable. If we do not accept this as tautology, then we should not be
exonerating anyone based on DNA. This may be a singular time in history when
the death penalty is logically supported. The science reveals and offers remedy
for past mistakes prior forensics. We seem to be attempting to abolish the
death penalty at the very moment logic supports it.
It is my observation as well that the memory of victims and their suffering,
their heartbreaking stories evaporate like mist at sunrise as time passes and
all attention and concern focus on the convicted killer. Most of you will never
know what watching that process feels like - what it's like to sit wide-eyed
and shocked as people flock to prisons to minister to and advocate for the
lethal offender, and, in my experience, fail to even ask after the families of
the dead.
I presume our idealism does not require that.
Ann Pace
Jackson
(source: Letter to the Editor, Clarion-Ledger)
OHIO:
Murder suspect Lance Hundley ruled competent
Judge Maureen A. Sweeney has ruled Lance Hundley competent to stand trial in
his capital murder case.
The Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge made her ruling at the end of a
Friday competency hearing, at which Dr. Delaney Smith, a psychiatrist with Twin
Valley Behavioral Health Care in Columbus, and Dr. Thomas Gazley, a
psychologist with the Forensic Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio in
Austintown, testified they found Hundley understood the legal proceedings
against him and could assist in his defense.
Hundley, 47, of Washington Street, Warren, or Cleveland Street, Youngstown,
could face the death penalty if he's convicted in the Nov. 6, 2015, slaying of
Erika Huff, 41, in her Cleveland Street home on Youngstown's South Side.
Hundley is accused of beating Huff to death, beating her mother and setting the
house on fire.
Police entered the burning house to rescue Hundley and Huff's mother.
Hundley is charged with aggravated murder with a death-penalty specification,
attempted murder, felonious assault and aggravated arson.
In January, the defense requested Hundley's competence to stand trial be
evaluated and filed a plea of innocent by reason of insanity.
"We really haven't been able to get anything accomplished on this case because
we've been jammed up with the competency evaluations, and he's not been
cooperative," Jennifer McLaughlin, an assistant county prosecutor, said of
Hundley.
No scheduled trial date is shown on the court docket for Hundley, but a motion
hearing is set for 8:30 a.m. Jan. 11.
In response to a question from Hundley's lawyer, John Juhasz, Dr. Smith
testified Hundley refused to answer her questions during the competency
evaluation about who his lawyers are and what charges he faced.
"He was able to control his behavior when he chose to," Dr. Smith said of
Hundley's behavior during his 20 days at Twin Valley.
Although Hundley was diagnosed at Twin Valley with anti-social personality
disorder and malingering of mental illness and memory deficits, Dr. Smith said
Hundley showed no signs of major mental illness.
"Anti-social personality disorder is basically a life-long character trait,
where people show a chronic disregard for the rights of others," Dr. Smith
explained.
"He was cooperative in providing some general information about the
allegations, but he declined to provide details about the circumstances and
events in the alleged offenses," Dr. Gazley said of Hundley.
"I don't think he was trying to look as if he was mentally ill, when he
wasn't," he added.
Dr. Gazley said he found no signs that Hundley was mentally ill.
"Individuals who have anti-social personality disorder can certainly make
choices," he said.
"They may not have significant foresight enough to recognize the severity of
any potential consequences at times. They tend to act impulsively," he
observed.
(source: vindy.com)
KANSAS:
Kahler defense, prosecution spar over mental health in death penalty case
In a case where no one challenged that James Kraig Kahler fatally shot his 2
teen daughters, his estranged wife and his wife's grandmother, Kahler's defense
was prejudiced when the judge failed to read an instruction on how jurors
should consider the evidence provided by expert witnesses testifying about
Kahler's mental health, an appellate defender told the Kansas Supreme Court on
Friday.
Kahler's defense in the 4 slayings was that mental illness prevented him from
being able to form the necessary intent or premeditation for capital murder.
Kahler was apprehended in Shawnee County near Auburn within hours of the
slayings.
On Oct. 11, 2011, Kahler was sentenced to death in Osage County District Court
for murdering Karen Kahler, daughters Lauren Kahler, 16, and Emily Kahler, 18,
and Karen Kahler's 89-year-old grandmother, Dorothy Wight. The 4 were shot at
Wight's home during Thanksgiving Day weekend Nov. 28, 2009, in Burlingame.
On Friday, Meryl Carver-Allmond of the Capital Appellate Defenders Office
argued Kahler's convictions and the death penalty sentence should be
overturned.
In Kahler's appeal, appellate defenders contended psychiatric testimony
supporting Kahler "provided sufficient evidence to support giving the (expert
witness) instruction."
Stephen Peterson, a psychiatrist, examined Kahler for his defense and testified
during the trial about Kahler's severe depression, a single episode of major
depressive disorder and his post-traumatic stress disorder, according to
appellate defense records.
Peterson found Kahler was "severely mentally impaired" on Nov. 28, 2009, and
that Kahler's ability to make rational decisions that evening was "heavily
influenced by his major depression," defense records contended. But Peterson
didn't think he was allowed to provide an expert opinion during the trial.
The defense didn't mention a key statement by Kahler "when it sounds like he is
having an out-of-body experience," Carver-Allmond said.
To not allow the defense to point out this piece of key evidence showing
Kahler's mental state is harmful to the defendant, Carver-Allmond said.
However, prosecution witness William Logan, a psychiatrist, did give an
opinion, testifying he didn't see anything in Kahler's initial interview with
law enforcement officers to suggest he lacked the capacity to premeditate or
form the intent to kill.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general for the Kansas attorney
general's office, said a defense attorney did quote Peterson's opinion about
what Kahler said, and the defense attorney got the point into the court record.
"There was no error, there was no prejudice, there was no harm," Ailslieger
said.
Ailslieger said Kansas case law spanning years instructs judges to not give
expert witness instruction to the jury.
Justice Lee Johnson noted 1 expert had expressed an opinion in the Kahler trial
and 1 hadn't, and perhaps it was time for an exception to the rule to have
Peterson express an opinion.
Kahler, 53, who is being housed in the El Dorado Correctional Facility, wasn't
present in the Kansas Supreme Court during the appellate arguments Friday.
Defendants normally aren't present during appellate hearings.
Because Kahler is sentenced to death, defense and prosecution appellate
attorneys had a maximum of 1 hour each to argue their points.
Osage County Attorney Brandon Jones, who prosecuted the case with assistant
attorney general Amy Hanley, sat in the Supreme Court to listen to the
arguments. Tom Haney defended Kahler in the trial.
The couple's son, Sean Kahler - 10 at the time of the slayings - was the only
other survivor.
During the capital murder trial, the boy testified about seeing his father
shoot his mother while he and Karen Kahler were cleaning coins in a kitchen
sink. Kahler allowed his son to escape unharmed.
During the sentencing of Kraig Kahler, 2 notes from Sean Kahler were read to
jurors, both opposing imposition of the death penalty.
It's unknown when the court will issue a ruling on the Kahler appeal.
(source: Topeka Capital-Journal)
NEBRASKA:
State renews license to get foreign-made drugs, including for lethal injections
Nebraska's corrections director has renewed his department's license to obtain
foreign-made drugs, including those used in lethal injections.
Scott Frakes was issued a new license by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration on November 21st. Voters reinstated the death penalty earlier in
the month after lawmakers abolished the punishment in May 2015.
The Department of Correctional Services has proposed to change the state's
current protocol with a new process that would allow drug suppliers to remain
confidential. A public hearing on the proposal is set for December 30th in
Lincoln.
A spokeswoman says the department hasn't attempted to import lethal injection
drugs since executions were put on hold last year and has no immediate plans to
do so.
(source: Associated Press)
COLORADO:
The facts about the death penalty in Colorado
2 anti-death penalty law professors with negligible experience in criminal law,
who are not even licensed to practice law in Colorado, took to the pages of The
Denver Post on Dec. 11 to make the outrageous claim that the application of
Colorado's death penalty is the product of racial bias and that our law is
unconstitutional. Their specious claim is based on a self-titled "2012 study"
commissioned by criminal defense attorneys for a 2-time murderer trying to
avoid the death penalty.
The "study" produced by University of Denver law professors Justin Marceau and
Sam Kamin has been rejected by every Colorado court in which it has been
offered. One court found the professors' study and conclusion "flaw[ed]" and a
"red herring." Another court was more blunt. It found that the professors used
"a substantially skewed database" and likened their methodology as "GIGO, which
stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out." The court concluded "it is clear it was
not an unbiased study, but one designed to provide support for a particular
position and designed to reach an anticipated conclusion."
A thoroughly researched and vigorously vetted legal article published by the
marquee legal publication of the professors' own school, the University of
Denver Law Review, details the flaws in the professors' study and the reality
of the law in our state. The facts are these:
Coloradans overwhelmingly want to maintain the death penalty by a 2-1 margin,
according to almost every poll.
Colorado's current death penalty statutes make the death penalty more difficult
to obtain than in any other state in the United States, or even in federal
court.
The race of the defendant is not a factor in the death penalty in Colorado.
Going back more than 40 years, the small difference between the percentage of
convicted Colorado murders who are African-American and those receiving a death
sentence is the result of just a single case.
1 more fact for the professors: Last year, I sought the death penalty against a
white guy who had a privileged upbringing.
(source: Opinion; George H. Brauchler is district attorney for Colorado's 18th
Judicial District----The Denver Post)
UTAH:
Trial preparations mark anniversary of 2010 murder case
On Sunday, Leeds resident Ellen Hensley marked the 6th anniversary of her
daughter's death as she does each year, visiting the grave to reflect on the
young woman who would have been 26 by now if not for a grisly
middle-of-the-night slaying in St. George.
"Death day, you just want to forget about that," she said earlier this year.
But she went, alone this time because other family members weren't able to
accompany her to visit the resting place of Jerrica Christensen in a plot near
the Iron County line.
On Friday, the man accused of killing Christensen appeared in 5th District
Court alongside his attorney amid arguments about what testimony should be
allowed at his trial next month, as the years-long proceedings in 35-year-old
Brandon Perry Smith's aggravated murder case near a conclusion.
Hensley sat in the courtroom across the aisle from Smith's family members, who,
like Hensley, have been regular presences during the ongoing court hearings
since Smith was charged in the hours after the incident and taken into custody.
The trial, scheduled to begin Jan. 30 and last for 10 days, will coincide with
what would have been Christensen's 27th birthday - a fact not lost on Hensley.
Hensley stepped out of the courtroom once, briefly, when Friday's discussion
delved into details of Christensen's death.
"Court today was like ripping off a scab! I forgot how much emotion is brought
out when I hear someone discuss the details of Jerrica's death," she said
afterward. "It just got to be too much. I am dreading the trial because (of)
all of the emotion that I had thought was dealt with, that I am sure will come
crashing back down."
The hearing dealt with three motions the prosecution filed to bar testimony
defense attorney Gary Pendleton hopes to introduce in the trial. The testimony
would involve evidence Smith may have been experiencing the legal definition of
"extreme emotional distress" at the time of Christensen's slaying, that he may
suffer a socialization difficulty that makes him vulnerable to manipulation,
and that notes confiscated from an inmate at the Purgatory Correctional
Facility during the initial months after the incident show Smith's codefendant,
Paul Clifford Ashton, may have intended to harm Smith if Smith didn't cooperate
with him.
Ashton was convicted and sentenced to life without parole 3 years ago for
killing another woman and non-fatally shooting a man in his home immediately
before Christensen's death there.
"All of these motions go to the crux of our defense - our defense is extreme
emotional distress," Pendleton said. "There's a whole laundry list of types of
emotional distress. They include panic, fear, anything that overwrought you to
the point where your ability to think rationally as a human being is impaired
by emotional distress."
Judge G. Michael Westfall questioned how Smith's alleged actions - driving to
Ashton's house to provide him with the gun and later beating and cutting
Christensen until she died - would qualify under the emotional distress
definition.
"If that (emotional) situation is created by your own conduct that leads up to
the creation of that, you don't have a defense," Westfall said.
Pendleton agreed, but said he is challenging the prosecution's theory Smith
went to Ashton's house "ready, willing and able to participate in a criminal
act." Instead, he hopes the testimony will show Smith was manipulated and lied
to in order to draw him into the incident, and that he then reacted in a highly
emotional way under impaired judgment that another "reasonable, average person"
might also experience.
Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap argued that elements of Pendleton's
plan appear to be a "backdoor" way of asking the jury to find Smith suffered a
mental illness, just under a different name since Pendleton does not plan to
argue that Smith is mentally ill.
The intercepted jailhouse communications would substitute for testimony by
Ashton, in the event that Ashton refuses to testify about the incident at the
trial. The attorneys on both sides have stated they don't consider Ashton to be
a reliably truthful witness anyway, but Pendleton argued Friday that the notes
allegedly written by Ashton prior to his conviction indicate he wanted to
silence Smith and any other potential witnesses, going so far as to suggest
paying someone to kill them.
Belnap argued there is no evidence Smith knew of the notes and therefore
couldn't have been intimidated by them. Pendleton argued the notes suggest
Ashton's state of mind during the killings may be inferred from the notes as
hostile toward Smith.
Belnap also argued the inmate who received the notes said he could not state
with certainty who wrote them.
3 other motions against planned evidence are still pending - 2 by the
prosecution against witnesses who are medical professionals acquainted with
Smith, and 1 by the defense asking the court to bar "gruesome" photo and video
evidence of the crime scene that it considers prejudicial.
The attorneys are working with the court to resolve the issues without further
delaying the trial. Westfall said he expects to rule on Friday's arguments in
the near future.
On Tuesday, the state's Indigent Defense Board voted to approve funding for
Pendleton and co-counsel Mary Corporan above the public defense attorneys'
normal cap because of "unforeseen circumstances" in Smith's case.
Death penalty off the table in Smith murder trial
In January, the state funding board approved raising the $60,000 cap to $95,000
- just shy of the $100,000 cap for death penalty cases - to cover outstanding
bills and further anticipated costs. In February, the prosecution announced
that it was dropping its push for the death penalty with Hensley's consent.
Under the current public defense contract, that would end funding for
Corporan's involvement, but no such limitation existed at the time the contract
for Smith's case was signed so in March the board voted to let Corporan
continue assisting Pendleton.
Tuesday's vote added an additional $35,000 through the end of trial - raising
the bar to the $100,000 death penalty cap and adding an additional $30,000 for
unforeseen complications in the case.
(source: The Spectrum)
NEVADA:
Man sentenced to death in fatal Las Vegas Strip shooting gets new trial in
rape, robbery case
Ammar Harris, a self-proclaimed pimp sentenced to death for a shooting and
fiery crash that killed 3 people on the Strip, has been granted a new trial by
the Nevada Supreme Court on a previous rape and robbery conviction.
A 3-judge panel, in an order dated Thursday, said Clark County District Judge
Kathleen Delaney erred by not allowing Harris to represent himself at his trial
for the June 2010 sexual assault and robbery of a woman in Las Vegas.
Justices Michael Cherry, Michael Douglas and Mark Gibbons reversed Harris'
conviction and sent the case back to District Court. The justices said the
lower court denied Harris' motion to act as his own attorney "solely on its
belief that Harris lacked the legal skills and knowledge to represent himself."
The Supreme Court said the "deprivation of the right to self-representation is
reversible, never harmless error."
"The right to represent yourself is a fundamental right," Harris' attorney,
Robert Langford, said Friday. "Just as you have a right to have an attorney,
you have a right to reject an attorney."
Clark County prosecutor David Stanton said no decision has been made on whether
Harris will be retried. He said his office will evaluate the order in the
coming weeks before making a determination.
"I'm disappointed in the decision but understand it," Stanton said.
He said the prosecution was not allowed in the courtroom when Delaney held a
hearing to consider Harris' motion on self-representation, and he noted that
the transcript of the hearing then was sealed by the court. Stanton said his
office only received a redacted version of the proceeding.
"We were disappointed that we weren't permitted to be in the hearing at least
at the time she made her final ruling because we would have raised our concerns
about the misapplication of the standard," he said.
Harris received a sentence of 16 years to life in prison after a jury convicted
him of 3 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of robbery.
In January he was formally sentenced to death for a deadly shooting and fiery
crash that left 3 people dead on the Strip in February 2013.
Prosecutors said Harris pulled alongside Kenneth Cherry Jr.'s car on the Strip
and shot the 27-year-old, killing him. Cherry's Maserati then slammed into a
taxi, causing an explosion that killed driver Michael Boldon, 62, and his
passenger, Sandra Sutton-Wasmund, 48, a mother of 3 from Washington.
Stanton said the previous rape conviction was not used as an "aggravator" by
the prosecution in arguing for the death penalty in the murder case.
(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)
CALIFORNIA:
Murder most foul: The execution of Charles Russell
The Charles Russell murder case of 1872 split The City over the death penalty,
pitted minister against minister and sold a lot of newspapers.
At first glance, it seems like an odd dispute. Neither Russell nor his victim,
James "Short-haired Jimmy" Crotty, could be considered peace-loving citizens. A
convicted burglar and San Quentin alumnus, Russell had been recently arrested
for drawing a deadly weapon. Crotty, a political thug, had been recently jailed
for assault.
But fate brought them together on Aug. 2 of that year - with fatal results.
Russell and Crotty were drinking together in Cady's saloon when Russell started
reminiscing about the bad ol??? days. Russell accused Crotty of being a robber;
Crotty reminded Russell of his time in prison. Both men started fighting and
threatened each other, but the 2 were quickly separated. Russell left the bar,
had dinner and ran into a friend. The men returned to Cady's a few hours later.
Russell saw Crotty standing at the bar, facing the bartender. Russell walked up
to the bar, pulled out a gun and shot Crotty in the head, mortally wounding
him. Russell was arrested the next day and charged with murder.
At his trial in January 1873, Russell claimed he thought that Crotty was
reaching for a gun and shot him in self-defense. But the bartender and others
testified that Crotty never saw Russell until he was shot. The jury took only
an hour to find Russell guilty of 1st-degree murder. But by the time of his
sentencing just a few weeks later, the tone of the press coverage had changed.
"He was neatly dressed, but looked haggard and dejected. He wore a light
overcoat, dark pants and coat and his whole appearance was quite tasty,"
pronounced the San Francisco Chronicle.
As Judge John W. Dwinelle pronounced the death sentence, he described Russell
as "a young man in the prime of life, with a countenance beaming with
intelligence who might have been an ornament to society."
Russell's gentlemanly appearance and his forlorn situation - alone, friendless
and facing imminent death - brought him much sympathy. His service in the Civil
War, where he fought in many battles and was promoted to the rank of sergeant,
also helped change public opinion.
Then, new allegations arose.
Before the murder, Russell had been working for and living at the house of
James Page, a restaurant owner who had helped Russell after his release from
prison. In February 1873, Page discovered that Russell had been having an
affair with his wife. Page gave the newspapers an intimate letter that Charles
had written to his wife from his jail cell:
In the depths of woe and darkness
To my lost idol, my pet. What might have been, I know is not.
What must be, must be borne. But ah! what has been, will not be
Forget? Never! Henceforth, I am alone, alone! I have seen my first
and holiest love depart, and the hand of death is creeping on my heart ...
Though you should look back upon your love for me as foolish, still I will be
with you, and my love will ever be the same for eternity."
2 weeks later, in a fit of jealousy, Page shot his wife and killed himself.
Mrs. Page survived and continued to visit Russell in his jail cell.
Despite this news, Russell's support continued to grow. In June of that year,
Russell became a born-again Christian. Delighted by the redemption of a
notorious sinner, ministers flocked to Russell's side.
One minister in particular, Rev. Dr. Carpenter, became obsessed with the case
and believed all of Russell's claims of innocence.
Carpenter, along with 2 women missionaries, stayed with Russell almost
constantly during the last 2 weeks of Russell's life. On his execution day,
Carpenter went so far as to mount the scaffold, stand on the trap and put his
head in the noose.
Russell's execution, on July 25, 1873, was a social event. Hundreds of
visitors, invited by the sheriff, crowded around the gallows.
After the hanging, Dr. Carpenter angrily called it, "Murder most foul!" and
spoke accusingly to newspaper reporters who he said had lied about Russell.
Carpenter's behavior ignited a storm of angry criticism from fellow ministers
and others who had a much less forgiving view of murder - more of an Old
Testament view of justice.
As a result, Dr. Carpenter's views on capital punishment became increasingly
vague, and Charles Russell faded from public memory.
(source: Paul Drexler is a crime historian and director of Crooks Tour of San
Francisco----San Francisco Examiner)
USA:
The Demise of Capital Clemency
Over the last four decades, numerous commentators have criticized the
institution of executive clemency. Opponents of capital punishment have been
particularly vocal. Their principal complaint has been that, with a few
isolated exceptions, far too many chief executives have granted condemned
prisoners clemency far too infrequently. This is an unfortunate development -
critics argue - one due entirely to the politicization of criminal justice,
particularly on the subject of capital punishment. Governors are unwilling to
risk their political future by commuting the sentences of condemned prisoners
absent proof of their innocence - the argument goes - because they anticipate
receiving few political benefits from extending mercy to killers, and they fear
being tarred with the label "soft on crime" in their next campaign. Perhaps
what frightens governors most of all - critics maintain =- is the prospect that
commuting a condemned prisoner's sentence could ultimately lead to his release
and his commission of new, horrific, but preventable, crimes.
This Article maintains that these criticisms are unfounded or overstated. Part
II describes the new procedures that the federal and state governments have
instituted to satisfy constitutional capital sentencing requirements that did
not exist when governors regularly granted condemned prisoners clemency. Part
II also identifies some of the criticisms leveled against the use of clemency
in capital cases over the last forty years. Part III addresses the question of
whether governors should use their clemency power whenever there is a risk that
a condemned prisoner is innocent. Part III concludes that a governor should not
merely grant clemency, but also issue a pardon to any offender who proves to be
innocent of his crime, but notes that the instances in which that scenario
might occur are few and far between. Part IV deals with the argument that chief
executives have failed to sift out those cases in which death is an
inappropriate penalty for a particular offender. It concludes that, given the
numerous opportunities for the jury and state courts to spare those offenders,
there is far less need today for a governor to second-guess the unanimous view
of the local community and state judiciary that a death sentence is the
appropriate punishment. Finally, critics do not address the horrific facts of
some capital cases - facts that can signify that death is the appropriate
penalty.
see full article at:
http://lawreview.journals.wlu.io/the-demise-of-capital-clemency/
(source: Paul Larkin, heritage.org)
_______________________________________________
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
