March 9
TEXAS----impending execution
Death Watch: "No Need" for Mental Tests----James Bigby will be the 4th Texan
executed in 2017
James Bigby, 61, is scheduled to be the 4th Texan executed this year when he
goes to the Huntsville gurney on Tuesday, March 14. The Fort Worth native has
spent the last 25 years on death row after a 2-day killing spree that left 4
people dead.
The murders began on Dec. 23, 1987. Bigby was convinced that several of his
acquaintances were conspiring against him when he arrived at his friend Mike
Trekell's Fort Worth home for dinner. Trekell was cooking when Bigby shot him
in the head, then drowned Trekell's 4-month-old son in the kitchen sink. He
then moved on to the houses of 2 more friends - Calvin Crane and Frank "Bubba"
Johnson - killing both. He was arrested at an Arlington hotel on Dec. 26.
Bigby confessed to the crimes when he was arrested and again later in a written
statement. At his trial, during a recess, Bigby grabbed a gun from the bench,
broke into chambers, and threatened his trial judge at gunpoint. Though he was
disarmed before anything happened, the incident influenced the jury's decision
in determining Bigby's future dangerousness; he was convicted of capital murder
in March 1991, and sentenced to death.
Prior to his killing spree, Bigby had a history of robberies and sexual
assault, which prosecutors focused on during sentencing. His defense argued
their client suffered from schizophrenia and depression, and that he was a
product of a neglectful upbringing. (The defense also addressed Bigby's
newfound reverence for religion.) Appeals have focused on the trial counsel's
failure to address Bigby's family's history - a violation of Bigby's right to
assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Court records indicate that
Bigby's mother gave away each of his siblings to relatives, which caused him to
fear he too would be abandoned. Bigby also detailed his unhealthy relationship
with his mother - noting that she breastfed him until he was 7 - as well as her
alcoholism, and her attempted suicide. None of those hardships have done
anything to sway any appeals court. Bigby has had no sustainable luck finding
relief at the state or federal levels - however, in 2005, the district court
wherein he filed his appeal vacated his death sentence after ruling that his
trial jury was given inadequate instructions regarding death penalty
sentencing, citing the 2001 case Penry v. Johnson. In 2006, he attended a 2nd
sentencing trial and was handed a 2nd death sentence.
In March 2015, Bigby filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, though the effort
was rejected by SCOTUS 2 months later. In September 2016, the state filed a
motion to issue an execution date, but according to the order written by
Tarrant County Judge Robb Catalano, Bigby's counsel requested additional time.
Bigby "had been uncooperative and uncommunicative with him, such that he was
unable to 'rationally evaluate' the Defendant's state of mind or mental
ability," wrote Catalano. Bigby's attorney filed a report stating "no need" for
a mental examination on Oct. 27, 2016 - Bigby "understands the reason for his
execution." An execution warrant was signed a few days later. If all goes the
way the state intends, Bigby will be the 2nd Tarrant County resident executed
this year and 542nd in Texas since the state reinstated the death penalty in
1976.
(source: Austin Chronicle)
*****************************
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----23
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----541
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
24---------March 14-----------------James Bigby-----------542
25---------April 12-----------------Paul Storey-----------543
26---------May 16-------------------Tilon Carter----------544
27---------May 24-------------------Juan Castillo----------545
28---------June 28------------------Steven Long-----------546
29---------July 19-----------------Kosoul Chanthakoummane---547
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
********************
Court affirms conviction, death penalty for Petetan
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday affirmed the April 2014
capital murder conviction and death sentence of Carnell Petetan Jr.
A 19th State District Court jury convicted Petetan, 41, in the September 2012
shooting death of his estranged wife, Kimberly Farr Petetan, a few months after
he was released from a 20-year prison sentence.
8 judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals voted to reject Petetan's 30 points
of appeal, while Judge Elsa Alcala dissented, saying she preferred not to rule
on Petetan's case while the Texas standard for determining whether someone is
intellectually disabled is in legal flux.
The McLennan County jury found that Petetan constitutes a continuing threat to
society and rejected his claim that he is exempt from execution because of
mental impairment.
Petetan, a Port Arthur native, denied that he broke into his estranged wife's
Lake Shore Drive apartment and shot her in front of her daughter and 2 men who
rode from South Texas with him earlier that day. He also kidnapped the girl
after shooting her mother.
Both of those men and the girl testified that they saw Petetan shoot his wife.
Kimberly Petetan started writing Petetan in prison in 2009 after a chance
meeting with Petetan's brother. A recovering drug addict who was studying to be
a drug abuse counselor, Kimberly Petetan shared her story with Petetan's
brother and he suggested that Carnell Petetan, then serving prison time for 3
violent assaults, could benefit from her kindness.
Petetan was in prison at the time for shooting 2 men and attacking another man
with a chair in separate incidents when he was 16.
Petetan essentially has been locked up since he was 13, being placed on
juvenile probation for attacking a teacher before continuing to do poorly and
being sent to a state juvenile facility in Brownwood.
At his trial, prosecutors established that Petetan sexually assaulted 3 other
inmates while in prison, assaulted guards and was a member of the 357 Graveyard
Crips prison gang.
(source: Waco Tribune)
*******************
Death Sentence Upheld for Man Convicted of Killing Wife
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the conviction and death
sentence of a Port Arthur man convicted of killing his wife in Waco in 2012 a
few months after getting out of prison where he met her as a pen pal,
exchanging letters.
Carnell Petetan was condemned for fatally shooting his estranged wife,
Kimberly. He was serving 20 years for assault and she was studying to be a drug
abuse counselor when they met.
Petetan's attorneys raised 30 points of error from his 2014 trial where defense
attorneys contended Petetan was mentally impaired and ineligible for the death
penalty.
Appeals court Judge Elsa Alcala said Wednesday she would have waited to rule
until the Supreme Court decides another case questioning the constitutionality
of how Texas determines intellectual disability.
(source: Associated Press)
********************
Bill to bar death penalty for mentally ill faces uphill battle----State Rep.
Toni Rose, D-Dallas, has filed long-shot House Bill 3080, which would prevent
offenders proven to have had a severe mental illness at the time of their crime
from being sentenced to death in a capital murder case.
In Texas, as in the rest of the nation, juries can still sentence mentally ill
offenders to death. In a state with one of the busiest death rows in the
country, one lawmaker has filed a bill to change that.
State Rep. Toni Rose, D-Dallas, has filed long-shot House Bill 3080, which
would prevent offenders proven to have had a severe mental illness at the time
of their crime from being sentenced to death in a capital murder case.
The most high profile of such offenders is Scott Panetti, a diagnosed
schizophrenic who killed his wife's parents in 1992 and has lived on Texas'
death row for more than 20 years. Panetti represented himself at his trial,
dressing as a cowboy and trying to call witnesses such as the Pope, John F.
Kennedy and Jesus Christ.
Panetti has not yet been executed because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his
precedent-setting case that a death-sentenced inmate must be able to understand
that he's about to executed, and why. But there is no law governing handing
down a death sentence in the first place; defendants can either plead not
guilty by reason of insanity, or, if convicted, hope the evidence of mental
illness in the sentencing trial is enough to persuade juries to hand down a
life sentence instead.
"These illnesses are not a choice," Rose said Tuesday at a news conference
announcing the bill. "Severe mental illness can cripple an individual and
significantly impair one's ability to make decisions and control their impulses
and understand the consequences of their actions.
Under Rose's bill, a defense lawyer would be able to ask for a hearing at least
30 days before a capital murder trial to determine if a defendant had a severe
mental illness. To qualify as exempt from the death penalty, defendants would
have to prove they had a medical diagnosis or documented symptoms of one of the
following: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorder, bipolar
disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder or depression. They also would have to
prove that they acted as a result of psychotic symptoms that limited their
ability to exercise rational judgment or understand the consequences of their
actions. If mental illness was confirmed, the maximum penalty a jury could hand
down would be life without parole.
Rose's bill, along with others seeking to curb use of the death penalty in
Texas, faces an uphill battle in the GOP-led Texas Legislature.
While The Texas Tribune couldn't get many Republicans to weigh in on the
measure, last year, conservative Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Elsa
Alcala hinted that she wanted the Legislature to look at the issue in her
opinion in the case of mentally ill death row inmate Adam Ward.
"As is the case with intellectual disability, the preferred course would be for
legislatures rather than courts to set standards defining the level at which a
mental illness is so severe that it should result in a defendant being
categorically exempt from the death penalty," Alcala wrote in the March 2016
opinion. Republican state Rep. James White, chairman of the House Corrections
Committee, said this week that he wants to look at the bill, but wasn't sure
his GOP colleagues would be interested.
White has filed his own bill to create a state-funded office to help represent
death penalty defendants during their appeals. That bill - which could be
difficult to pass in a tight budget year - will be considered by the House
Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Monday.
Todd Hunter, the Republican chairman of the House Calendars Committee and vice
chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, said Wednesday he hadn't yet
heard about Rose's bill and is open to learning about any legislation. He added
that in the last couple of years, more people have become educated on the death
penalty in general.
Alongside bill supporters from the mental health and religious communities on
Tuesday, Rose argued that people with severe mental illness should get the same
protections from the death penalty that minors and people with intellectual
disabilities get. She also touted the bill's fiscal impact, arguing it would
save taxpayer money by eliminating a sentencing trial if the defendant is ruled
severely mentally ill, and cut down on appeals of mentally ill death row
inmates.
7 other states have filed or plan to file similar legislation this year,
according to the Death Penalty Information Center. No states have passed it.
"We know of examples of people who ended up on death row despite being
profoundly ill," said Greg Hanch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
"Some are eventually executed. Others are ping-ponged back and forth in the
appeals process for years, even decades, while the taxpayer foots the bill."
(source: Texas Tribune)
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
A long fight against the death penalty
Mike Farrell, an activist and actor best known for playing Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt
on the classic TV show M*A*S*H, was in Concord on Friday night at the
invitation of the New Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
The Monitor was there, too, to be recognized along with the Portsmouth Herald
and the Keene Sentinel for our "persistent editorial advocacy of death penalty
repeal." We have tried many times over the years to raise awareness about the
most barbaric component of a deeply flawed criminal justice system, but our
contribution feels infinitesimal compared to what Farrell has been doing all of
his life.
For those who lost track of Farrell after M*A*S*H ended its run in the 1980s,
you should know that he has continued to do what he has always done, even
before he gained television fame: tirelessly fighting for human rights.
"I learned more in jails and prisons that crush already wounded souls," he told
the audience. "It schooled me, opened my eyes and my heart, and kick-started a
life of investigation and involvement around issues that chew people up."
Farrell exudes kindness and empathy, but he is no bleeding heart. If we are
angry that the death penalty still exists here in New Hampshire, and we are,
Farrell is apoplectic. "I hate this system," he said. And then he said it
again, and again, and again.
"I believe we are committing a kind of national, moral suicide by accepting the
idea that disposing of certain human beings is right, proper and consistent
with our principles," he said.
As Farrell will tell you, it's difficult to argue with a death penalty
supporter. You can cite statistics on wrongful convictions, racial bias, the
cost of executions versus life imprisonment and how capital punishment has
never nor will it ever deter violent crime, but they cannot see beyond "an eye
for an eye." To many of them, the death penalty is justice in its purest and
simplest form. Death penalty supporters long for a utopia where the threat of
execution is enough to prevent murder. When that theory is revealed as fantasy,
they comfort themselves with the idea that capital punishment eliminates, one
by one, the worst among us, the unredeemable.
But what they don't see is the truth that is so clear to Farrell and other
abolitionists, and so many others before them.
Albert Camus, who wrote for a French resistance newspaper during World War II
and was witness to the worst human atrocities imaginable, put it this way in a
post-war editorial series titled "Neither Victims Nor Executioners": "The world
people like me are after is not a world in which people don't kill one another
(we're not that crazy!) but a world in which murder is not legitimized."
That is the purest, most unassailable argument against the death penalty.
Whether you believe somebody deserves to die is irrelevant; the state shouldn't
be in the business of taking lives. Capital punishment is murder legitimized.
We leave the final words to Farrell: "Please consider 4 simple hypotheses: One,
no matter how deeply it may have been buried, there is intrinsic value in every
human being. 2, no one is only the worst thing she or he has ever done. 3, no
matter the horror of the circumstance presented, there is always a reason for
human behavior. And 4, state killing lowers the entire community to the level
of its least member at his or her worst moment."
(source: Editorial, Concord MOnitor)
CONNECTICUT:
Justice criticized for death penalty ruling reappointed by lawmakers
The legislature has confirmed the reappointment of Connecticut Supreme Court
Justice Richard N. Palmer, but not without criticism from some Republicans that
he overstepped his authority in controversial rulings, notably the repeal of
the death penalty.
Palmer's confirmation easily cleared the House with a 101-46 tally, but saw a
19-16 vote in the Senate that fell largely along party lines on Wednesday.
The legislature unanimously confirmed Gregory T. D'Auria, Gov. Dannel P.
Malloy's other nominee to the state Supreme Court. D'Auria replaces Justice
Peter T. Zarrella, who retired at the end of last year.
Even Palmer's supporters noted concerns about his tenure as a justice, which
began with his 1st appointment in 1993 by then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker.
Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
expressed concern about Palmer's courtroom style and demeanor in some of his
opinions. Tong said Palmer addressed those concerns while fielding tough
questions during the Judiciary Committee's hearing last month.
Republicans focused their attention more on some of Palmer's more controversial
rulings. He was part of majorities that legalized gay marriage in Connecticut
and abolished the state's death penalty.
"I do not believe it is appropriate for judges, especially supreme court
justices, to legislate and attempt to set policy from the bench," said Rep.
William Petit, R-Plainville. "We expect our judges to interpret our laws and
not politicize their decisions."
Other Republicans characterized Palmer as having a similar approach, pointing
to the majority opinion he wrote in support of the 2015 ruling that repealed
the death penalty for those on death row.
Lawmakers approved a bill in 2012 that abolished the death penalty for all
future cases but upheld sentences for those already on death row. Many
legislators, including those who voted for the bill, said they didn't want to
get rid of death sentences for the 2 men who killed Petit's wife and daughters
after invading their Cheshire home in 2007.
Palmer cited that law as part of his reasoning to repeal existing death
sentences, but also said capital punishment "no longer comports with
contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate
penological purpose."
Sen. Len Suzio, R-Meriden, said that logic allows judges to second guess any
laws passed by a legislative body.
"When you take that approach, then you've undermined the meaning of any law and
any part of our constitution," he said. "You basically have arrogated the power
to yourself and taken it away from the lawmakers and the people who wrote those
documents."
Tong defended Palmer's ruling, saying Palmer was able to explain how the ruling
was based in law. He also said rejection by a federal court of President Donald
Trump's initial ban on travelers from 7 predominantly Muslim nation's shows the
need for judges who aren't "flinching in the face of tough decisions."
"We're getting, as a nation, a master's class in separation of powers," he
said.
Malloy agreed, saying Palmer has served "honorably and well," and people should
not focus on select rulings when voting on his reappointment.
"I don't think individual disagreements with decisions is the measurement of
whether someone continues on the bench," Malloy said.
(source: myrecordjournal.com)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Accused Gunman in Poconos Barracks Ambush Faces Death Penalty as Trial Gets
Underway
In a courtroom 150 miles from the crime scene, lawyers are to begin picking a
jury in the capital murder trial of an anti-government sharpshooter charged
with killing a Pennsylvania State Police trooper and critically wounding
another in a 2014 ambush at their barracks.
Eric Frein, 33, who led police on a 48-day manhunt in the Pocono Mountains
before his capture by U.S. marshals, could face the death penalty if he's
convicted in the attack that killed Cpl. Bryon Dickson II and injured Trooper
Alex Douglass.
Jury selection will take place Thursday in Chester County, outside
Philadelphia. The prosecution and defense agreed to pick an outside jury
because of blanket news coverage of the Sept. 12, 2014 sniper attack in
northeastern Pennsylvania, and its prolonged aftermath.
A defense lawyer who has tried death penalty cases said Frein's lawyers have a
daunting task ahead.
The ambush "was planned. It was thought out," said Joseph D'Andrea, who is not
associated with the case. The gunman, he said, "laid in wait to randomly
(shoot) 2 troopers."
Prosecutors say Frein spoke of wanting to start a revolution in a letter to his
parents and called Dickson's slaying an "assassination" in a police interview
after his arrest. Frein allegedly told authorities he wanted to "wake people
up" and "make a change (in government)."
Defense lawyers are trying to get Frein's videotaped confession suppressed,
arguing he invoked his right to remain silent and wasn't told by investigators
that his family had hired a lawyer.
Authorities have said there is a wealth of physical evidence tying Frein to the
crime, including spent shell casings in his SUV that matched those found at the
crime scene.
Police also recovered a journal allegedly written by Frein in which the gunman
describes how he opened fire on 2 state troopers - watching 1 of his victims
fall "still and quiet" - and then made his escape.
Frein, who has pleaded not guilty, will be held in Chester County for the
duration of jury selection. Opening statements are scheduled for early April.
After the jury pool is whittled down during the initial phase, potential jurors
will be questioned individually.
Prosecutors will be looking for jurors who say they can impose a death
sentence. The defense, D'Andrea said, hopes to find a juror who "may be
sympathetic and just wouldn't be able to, if he's convicted, vote for the death
penalty."
(source: nbcphiladelphia.com)
ALABAMA:
Alabama moves step closer to ending judicial override on death penalty
Lawmakers moved a step closer to passing legislation that would prohibit judges
from imposing a death sentence when a jury has recommended life imprisonment.
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that had already
cleared the Alabama Senate.
Alabama is the only state that allows a judge to override a jury's sentence
recommendation in capital murder cases
The bill by Republican Sen. Dick Brewbaker of Pike Road would give the jury the
final say, instead of the judge.
According to the Montgomery-based Equal Justice Initiative, since 1976, Alabama
judges have overridden jury recommendations 112 times. In 101 of those cases,
the judges gave a death sentence.
The legislation would only affect future capital cases, not inmates currently
on Alabama's death row.
(source: al.com)
ARKANSAS:
Cathy Torres Takes Plea to Avoid Death Penalty in Son's Murder
Cathy Torres took a plea of agreement on Wednesday to avoid the death penalty.
Torres pleaded guilty to capital murder and battery and was sentenced to life
without parole for the capital murder charge and 20 years for the battery
charge, according to Benton County Prosecutor Nathan Smith.
Torres was accused of brutally abusing her son until he died. She was facing
capital murder and 1st degree battery charges.
In November 2016, Torres's husband Mauricio was found guilty of capital murder
and sentenced to the death penalty. In his trial, the defense argued that
Mauricio didn't know his actions killed Isaiah. During his trial, Torres'
children and step children described to the jury what life was like growing up
in the Torres household.
Many gave tearful testimonies that said Mauricio sexually abused them growing
up.
(source: nwahomepage.com)
CALIFORNIA:
'Serial killer' convicted in 3 Perris-area slayings; could face death penalty
A Perris man described by authorities as a serial killer was convicted of 3
counts of murder on Wednesday, March 8, after less than a day of deliberations
by jurors.
David Rey Contreras, who will turn 29 on March 16, also was found guilty of
special circumstances in the slayings of three people just weeks apart in late
2012 and early 2013. Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin is seeking
the death penalty in the case, DA spokesman John Hall said in a news release.
Contreras is accused of killing a mother and daughter in Nuevo in February 2013
and a man walking his dog in Perris in December 2012. DNA evidence found on
items at his home, including a dog leash taken from one of the victims, linked
him to the crimes. He also lived within walking distance of both crime scenes.
Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Dan DeLimon said there was no readily
identifiable motive behind the deadly attacks, which appeared to be random acts
of violence.
The first victim, Jose Apreza, 53, of Perris took his pit bull out for a walk
the morning of Dec. 29, 2012, and never returned. His wife reporting him
missing, and he was found dead in a field near his home.
The Coroner's Office found the victim had been stabbed roughly two dozen times
in the torso, back and thighs.
Maria Gonzalez, 51, and her 25-year-old daughter, Consuelo Gonzalez, also were
on a walk near their home when they were stabbed repeatedly Feb. 4, 2013, on
Central Avenue near Ramona Avenue in Nuevo.
About a week after the slaying of the Gonzalezes, Contreras was detained near
the Nuevo crime scene. He had a baseball bat concealed in the back of his
sweatshirt and a kitchen knife under a back-brace belt he had on.
He denied involvement in the stabbings, and wasn't charged with murder for
months, until DNA evidence linked him to the crimes.
When charges were filed in August 2013, then-Riverside County sheriff's
homicide Lt. Joe Borja said the law enforcement definition for a serial killer
is 3 victims or more.
"There's nothing that connects the victims or the suspect in this case. It's
totally random and unprovoked," Borja said at the time. "I would say his
actions - they account for what you would consider a serial killer. And if not
stopped, I believe there would have been more victims in the area."
Progress in the case was delayed for more than a year after questions were
raised about Contreras' mental competency. Court records detailing the
investigation painted a picture of a disturbed individual whose family had
begun to question his mental stability. Contreras' brother, who lived with him,
told investigators that Contreras said "he has seen the devil," according to
the documents.
Prosecutors, however, argued that Contreras had successfully completed a
program to become a certified welder and had a Facebook page that suggested he
was able to maintain a fairly normal social life. Judge John M. Monterosso
ruled Contreras was fit to stand trial.
The penalty phase is set to begin Tuesday, March 14, in Monterosso's courtroom
at the Southwest Justice Center in French Valley. Jurors will hear testimony
and determine whether Contreras should be sentenced to death or to life in
prison without the possibility of parole, according to Hall.
(source: Press-Enterprise)
USA:
Federal prisoner facing possible death penalty prosecution loses attorney
A 37-year-old Oklahoman accused of murdering a fellow prisoner Nov. 6, 2015, at
U.S Penitentiary Hazelton has lost one of his attorneys.
Marricco Sykes had been represented by Claire G. Cardwell of the Richmond,
Virginia, firm of Stone, Cardwell & Dinkin PLC.
Cardwell has been elected by the Virginia General Assembly to serve as judge in
Virginia's 13th Judicial District. She begins that posting July 1.
U.S. District Judge Irene M. Keeley has asked the remaining attorney for Sykes,
Assistant Federal Defender Nicholas Compton, as well as Assistant U.S. Attorney
Andrew Cogar, to file briefs on "whether new learned counsel" should be
appointed to replace Cardwell.
Those court filings are due at the end of this week to Keeley, who's seated in
Clarksburg.
Sykes was indicted by federal grand jurors on March 1, 2016. He's facing a
1st-degree murder charge that, if convicted, could carry the death penalty.
The court file indicates the office of then-U.S. Attorney William J. Ihlenfeld
II had sought guidance from the Department of Justice on whether to pursue a
death penalty prosecution. The Department of Justice makes all such decisions.
There is no indication in the court file whether that decision has been made.
The office of Acting U.S. Attorney Betsy Steinfeld Jividen declined to comment
on whether a decision had been handed down from the Department of Justice.
Meanwhile, the court file also indicates that Keeley has received 2 psychiatric
reports on Sykes, last June 10 and last Oct. 27.
No trial date has been set yet, according to court filings, although several
entries on the electronic docket have been sealed.
Cardwell is one of the leading defense attorneys in the Richmond area and has
handled high-profile cases in that role, according to published reports. She
also previously worked as a prosecutor.
The FBI and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Special Investigative Services have
accused Sykes of killing inmate Zakii Wahiid, 60, by assaulting and strangling
him.
The Preston County News & Journal previously reported that Wahiid was serving 5
1/4 years for bank robbery out of the Northern District of Illinois and had
been in custody at Hazelton since Aug. 3, 2015.
Sykes was 18 when he was sentenced to 220 months (over 18 years) in federal
prison on May 21, 1998, out of the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Sykes' sentence was for possessing a firearm during the Nov. 9, 1997, robbery
of a Tulsa Git-N-Go convenience store and a Nov. 12, 1997, robbery of the Tulsa
Jump Start Club, the Tulsa World reported on May 22, 1998.
In imposing the 20-year term, a senior U.S. district judge "said he considered
grand jury testimony which indicated that Sykes may have attempted to shoot at
a Git-N-Go employee during the Nov. 9 (1997) robbery," the Tulsa World reported
back in 1998.
The senior judge "also said he had heard that Sykes" had been "an 'aggressive'
prisoner while awaiting sentencing," the Tulsa World reported in 1998.
Sykes discharged his prior sentence March 14, 2016, but has remained in Bureau
of Prisons custody pending prosecution on the murder charge. Sykes is being
held at Federal Medical Center Butner in Butner, North Carolina, according to
Bureau of Prisons records.
(source: The Exponent Telegram)
******************
Stephen Breyer vs. the Death Penalty----In a dissent, the Supreme Court justice
makes a stirring case to eradicate capital punishment.
On Tuesday night, Rolando Ruiz was executed in Texas after spending more than 2
decades on death row. The legal team representing Ruiz, who killed Theresa
Rodriguez as part of a murder-for-hire scheme in 1992, filed multiple petitions
with the Supreme Court for a stay of execution, one of which argued that his
fate constituted cruel and unusual punishment. All of those petitions were
denied.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented from his colleagues' denial of
certiorari, believed Ruiz's Eighth Amendment claim was "a strong one" and worth
a closer look. "This Court long ago, speaking of a period of only 4 weeks of
imprisonment prior to execution, said that a prisoner's uncertainty before
execution is 'one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected,'"
wrote Breyer. Ruiz, Breyer notes, endured that uncertainty for 22 years.
Ruiz was 1 of the nearly 40 % of death row prisoners in the U.S. who have spent
20 or more years awaiting execution. Breyer pointed out that like most inmates
sentenced to death, Ruiz lived in solitary confinement, where he suffered
hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, and depression. These psychological symptoms
are common among prisoners placed in solitary confinement, and they run rampant
among Texas inmates. As I described in a piece published earlier this week,
death row inmates in Texas "spend 23 hours per day isolated in 60-square-foot
cells. They exit only to shower or exercise and are handcuffed, stripped naked,
and subjected to a full body search when they do leave their cells." Combining
that isolation with a looming and uncertain execution date, Breyer argued in
his dissent, does profound psychological harm.
In part because of the poor representation so frequently provided to capital
defendants, a lengthy appeals process is unquestionably necessary. Without it,
a defendant's potentially valid legal claims may never be heard in a court of
law.
Ruiz's case is a telling example. A federal district court judge in 2005
recognized that "the quality of representation petitioner received during his
state habeas corpus proceeding was appallingly inept. ... [Ruiz's] counsel made
no apparent effort to investigate and present a host of potentially meritorious
and readily available claims for state habeas relief." These potentially viable
claims included allegations that his trial lawyer should have presented
mitigating evidence that might have convinced a jury to sentence him to life.
Ultimately, that court ruled that the claims were procedurally barred - another
complicated and devastating aspect of our nation's death penalty laws.
This is not the 1st time Breyer has challenged the constitutionality of long
delays before execution or the use of solitary confinement. In a dissent in the
2015 case Glossip v. Gross, he stressed that "excessive delays from sentencing
to execution can themselves 'constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited
by the Eighth Amendment.'" And prolonged isolation, Breyer wrote, "produces
numerous deleterious harms."
Justice Anthony Kennedy has also expressed grave concern about the confinement
of death row prisoners. In a 2015 case about jury selection, Kennedy dedicated
4 pages of his concurring opinion to questioning solitary confinement. The
defendant, Hector Ayala, had spent more than 25 years in isolation. "Research
still confirms what this Court suggested over a century ago: Years on end of
near-total isolation exact a terrible price," wrote Kennedy.
Pointing to Kennedy's opinion in Ayala, Breyer wrote this week that Ruiz's case
is an opportunity to consider solitary confinement with "constitutional
scrutiny." In the last paragraph of his 3-page dissent, Breyer noted, "If
extended solitary confinement alone raises serious constitutional questions,
then 20 years of solitary confinement, all the while under threat of execution,
must raise similar questions, and to a rare degree, and with particular
intensity."
(source: Rebecca McCray is a writer in New York and a journalism and research
fellow with the Fair Punishment Project----slate.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
