April 2



TEXAS:

Smith County judges eye pay increase for court-appointed attorneys in capital murder death penalty cases


The dwindling number of Smith County defense attorneys who are willing to take on capital murder death penalty cases for indigent defendants has prompted local district court judges to consider raising the hourly compensation.

During a recent meeting of the Smith County Council of Judges, Judge Jack Skeen Jr. with the 241st District Court said he believes the number of local attorneys on the list is down because the compensation is not sufficient to take the attorneys away from their regular practice and to make up for the stress they are going to incur while working the case.

In addition, he said, the hourly rate is insufficient to compensate them for their expertise.

"I just think it's time for us to look at it," he said.

The issue has come into play recently with Judge Christi Kennedy of the 114th District Court having to hire 3 out-of-county attorneys to represent defendants in a case in her court.

In another example, criminal defense attorney Jeff Haas, who is representing Gustavo Zavala-Garcia in a capital murder case, said he had been unable to find a 2nd-chair attorney for the case and believed the compensation rates were part of the problem.

Another part of the problem comes down to the circumstances after a conviction, he said.

Because of the mandatory appeals, the case isn't over when there is a conviction, and some attorneys don't want to be as tied up as long as they are when they do this type of case.

The fee schedule as outlined by an October 2001 local order calls for lead, or first chair, attorneys in capital cases, in which the state seeks the death penalty, to be paid $80 per hour for out-of-court time and $100 per hour for in-court time.

Co-counsel, or 2nd-chair attorneys, receive a rate of $50 per hour for out-of-court time and $60 per hour for in-court time.

The order goes on to say the lead counsel shall not receive more than $40,000 in attorney fees for a capital murder death penalty case. Co-counsel shall receive no more than $22,500 in the same situation, according to the order.

That said, the order allows for the district court judges to increase or decrease the fees as they deem necessary.

"Total compensation ... shall be determined by the judge upon the circumstances and complexity of each case," the order reads.

When the local attorneys on the approved list are taken, the district court judges have to look for and hire out-of-county counsel, which often means paying more because of hotel stays, mileage and meals.

Though these rates may make many professionals envious, the amount of time, energy and stress involved in these cases is difficult to match.

"When you're the defendant's lawyer in a capital case, you stand between the defendant and death," said criminal defense attorney Buck Files of Tyler who has represented 9 defendants in 11 capital cases. "It is the most stressful challenge I believe any lawyer can ever have."

Because of the gravity of these cases, the time investment is huge. An attorney puts aside everything else to try to take care of the client, Files said.

Working on one of these cases essentially means an attorney focuses exclusively on this case. In addition, a capital murder case is not over when a guilty verdict is announced and a sentence read.

There are mandatory appeals, and although different attorneys are appointed to represent a defendant on appeal, the original attorneys often find themselves having to defend their work on the trial for years if their former client claims "ineffective assistance of counsel," which they typically do, in post-conviction proceedings.

So, in committing to represent a defendant in a capital murder death penalty case, the attorney is committing for the long haul.

Files said it is not uncommon for expert witnesses to receive much more than defense lawyers get in a case. He said in a case in which a partner in his firm served as defense attorney, the investigator and mitigation specialist got paid more than he did.

"(The) problem from my perspective in a capital murder case (is) the only people who are asked to sacrifice, other than jurors ... are criminal defense lawyers," Files said. "Everyone else gets to draw their standard rate."

The fee schedules for court-appointed attorneys in these types of cases vary statewide, Files said, adding that, to be fair, he has seen Smith County judges pay more in some cases.

For Haas, though, it comes down to a personal conviction as to why he is willing to represent indigent defendants charged with capital murder.

"I have a responsibility to the judicial system to do these cases," he said.

After discussing the issues of compensation rates, the judges ultimately decided to table it. Though they had some proposed rates for 1st- and 2nd-chair attorneys, they had not decided on maximum compensation amounts, or if they wanted them.

Kennedy said she does expect the judges to take up the issue again at their next meeting, which has yet to be scheduled. Like Kennedy, Skeen would like to see changes made.

"I think we have to try to do the best we can for them to be compensated," Skeen said. "I just think the old order is out of date."

(source: tylerpaper.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Frein trial will focus on forensic evidence


The case against accused cop killer Eric Matthew Frein isn't so much a question of guilt or innocence as it is of life or death, several area attorneys said.

Facing a mountain of incriminating circumstantial evidence, Frein's attorneys will be hard-pressed to credibly argue for an acquittal at his capital murder trial, which starts Tuesday in Pike County Court, the attorneys said. The real question is whether Frein will be sentenced to death or life in prison, they said.

"He basically gave a confession," said Bob Buehner, former longtime district attorney in Montour County. "You have flight. You have all the forensic evidence that's been meticulously documented. This is a prosecutor's best wish come true."

Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin wants to put Frein, 33, of Canadensis, on death row for the Sept. 12, 2014, sniper attack outside the Blooming Grove state police barracks that killed Cpl. Bryon K. Dickson II, 38, of Dunmore, and wounded Trooper Alex T. Douglass, 34, of Olyphant. Following a 48-day manhunt that spanned Pike and Monroe counties, he was captured on Oct. 30, near an abandoned airport hangar in Monroe County.

Frein is charged with 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, attempted 1st-degree murder, attempted 1st-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, assault of a law enforcement officer, 2 counts each of terrorism and possession of weapons of mass destruction, and 1 count each of recklessly endangering another person, discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure and possession of an instrument of crime.

He pleaded not guilty to all counts. 12 jurors and 6 alternates chosen from Chester County will hear the trial. It is expected to last several weeks.

Years of preparation

The start of the trial culminates 2 1/2 years of preparation by prosecutors and Frein's attorneys, William Ruzzo and Michael Weinstein.

Frein was first identified as a suspect three days after the ambush, when James Novak was walking his dog and stumbled upon a Jeep Cherokee partially submerged in a retaining pond in the woods near the barracks. The Jeep was registered to Frein's parents. Police obtained a search warrant and found Frein???s driver's license, Social Security card, camouflage face paint, flashlights, a black hooded sweatshirt, 2 empty rifle cases, military gear and other items inside the Jeep.

As the manhunt dragged on, many residents of Pike and Monroe counties lived in fear as hundreds of heavily armed law enforcement officers swarmed the region. Schools shut down. Residents, particularly those living near the Seneca Lane home Frein shared with his parents, were ordered to remain inside when authorities responded to sightings. It came to an end when U.S. Marshals scouring the woods came upon Frein outside ahangar and took him into custody without incident.

Frein is not charged with any offenses for fleeing, but the manhunt is expected to play a role in the case because it is evidence of consciousness of guilt, said attorney Peter Paul Olszewski Jr., a former district attorney and judge in Luzerne County.

"You want to establish it's obvious he knew law enforcement was chasing him," Olszewski said. "He was fleeing. Why was he fleeing? Because he (allegedly) shot 2 troopers."

'Hardness of heart'

The case is expected to rely heavily on the massive amount of forensic and physical evidence uncovered while Frein was on the lam and after his capture.

To prove 1st-degree murder, prosecutors must show Frein was the shooter and that the crime was an intentional, premeditated act committed with malice or "hardness of heart."

Tonkin appears to have overwhelming evidence of both, Buehner and other attorneys said.

"What is the defense?" Olszewski asked. "Is it that someone else did it? If not him, then who?"

Ruzzo and Weinstein declined to comment on their defense strategy.

Al Flora Jr., former chief public defender for Luzerne County who previously defended several death penalty cases with Ruzzo, said the defense will cross-examine prosecution witnesses and experts to ensure forensic tests were conducted properly, and that proper procedures were followed. The magnitude of the evidence against Frein will be difficult to overcome, he said.

"They will test the prosecution's case just to make sure the defendant's rights are fully protected," Flora said. "In the end, this is going to be a tough one for any defense lawyer."

Evidence against Frein began to mount as the manhunt to find him continued. Authorities uncovered additional evidence through multiple search warrants, including Frein's home.

There, investigators found a checklist they believe Frein wrote of items he needed to survive in the wilderness, including "undies, sleep clothes and poncho liner." They also found information on computers that indicated Frein researched the attack for more than a year.

Another big break in the case came on Sept. 29, 2014, when searchers found a makeshift campsite they believe Frein abandoned as searchers neared. The site produced perhaps the most damning evidence against him - pages from a journal in which authorities say he chillingly described the shooting:

"Friday, Sept. 12, got a shot around 11 p.m. ... He dropped. I was surprised at how quick. ... I took a follow-up shot on his head and neck area. He was still and quiet after that. ... Another cop approached the one I just shot. ... As he went to kneel, I took a shot at him, one jumped in the door. His legs were visible and still. I ran back to the Jeep. ... I made it maybe half a mile from the GL (gamelands) road and hit a (police) road block. I didn't expect one so soon. It was only 15 to 20 minutes. ... I did a K-turn a quarter mile from them and pulled into a development I knew had unfinished access road. Hearing helos (helicopters), I just used my marker lights, missed the trail around a runoff pool and drove straight into it. ! Disaster! Made half attempt to stash AK(-47) and ran."

Prosecutors will need to prove Frein penned the writings. The pages were turned over to handwriting experts, who are expected to testify at the trial. Authorities also have DNA evidence that ties him to a water bottle and other items found at the campsite.

Investigators found other incriminating evidence, including the .308-caliber rifle used in the attack, at the airport hangar where Frein was captured. Ballistics reports showed the casings found at the crime scene matched the rifle.

Prosecutors say Frein also made incriminating statements to investigators following his arrest, telling them he committed the crime to "wake people up." It is not known yet if the statements will be introduced at trial because his attorneys filed a motion to suppress them. Pike County Judge Gregory Chelak will rule on that motion before opening statements begin.

Proving terrorism

Other charges against Frein stem from his actions during his time on the run. He is charged with 2 counts of possession of weapons of mass destruction for 2 unexploded pipe bombs searchers found at the campsite where investigators say he stayed as he eluded capture.

He also faces 2 counts of terrorism based on the statements he allegedly made to troopers following his arrest and a letter he allegedly wrote to his parents about a year before the attack. To prove the terrorism charges, prosecutors must show Frein committed the crimes in an attempt to "affect the conduct of government."

The letter was found on a thumb drive discovered at the airport hangar. The letter complains that our nation "is far from what it was and what it should be. ... There is so much wrong and on so many levels only passing through the crucible of another revolution can get us back the liberties we once had." It goes on to say: "Tension is high at the moment and the time seems right for a spark to ignite a fire in the hearts of men. What I have done has not been done before and it felt like it was worth a try. ... I tried my best to do this thing without getting identified, but if you are reading this then I was not successful."

While the case will focus on circumstantial evidence, Buehner said he also expects powerful testimony from Douglass, who has undergone multiple surgeries, and Nicole Palmer, a civilian dispatcher who witnessed the shootings.

"You always try to humanize the case so people can relate to it," Buehner said of Douglass. "This is a person who walked into the state police barracks one night and the next thing you know, his life is shattered. You want to put a human face on that."

In cases where evidence of guilt is strong, a defendant might seek to introduce circumstances that could reduce the charges to a lesser degree of homicide, such as 3rd-degree murder. That is not a viable defense here given the facts of the case, said Olszewski.

"You can't argue it's something other than 1st-degree," he said. "It's 1st-degree or nothing."

Life or death

Given the strength of the prosecution's case, Olszewski, Flora and Buehner said they believe the defense will focus their attention on developing mitigating evidence that can be used in the death penalty phase if Frein is convicted of 1st-degree murder.

In the death penalty phase, jurors would consider aggravating factors - those that make a crime more heinous - against mitigating factors - those that lessen a defendant's culpability. If the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, Frein will be sentenced to death; if not, life in prison without parole.

Tonkin lists 2 aggravating factors: Dickson was a police officer murdered in the line of duty and the shooter created a risk of injury to others by firing into the barracks.

The defense hired a mitigation expert, Louise Luck, early on in the case to uncover evidence, such as a troubled childhood, that might help explain why Frein allegedly committed the crimes.

It is not known yet what evidence Luck has because it remains under seal. It is expected that Luck did a complete background check on Frein, obtaining medical records, school records, speaking to neighbors, friends and anyone else who had extensive contact with him over his life.

"They'll use the mitigation specialists to show he was the product of his environment somehow," Olszewski said. "They'll talk about his younger years, if he had problems growing up, if he was deprived of guidance."

The courts have been very lenient on the type of information they will allow as mitigating evidence. Still, Buehner and other attorneys say they believe the defense faces an uphill battle sparing Frein's life.

"Let's face it. The assassination of a state trooper and the attempt on another state trooper strikes at the heart of our civilized society," Buehner said. "This is one of those circumstances the prosecution should ask for the death penalty."

The charges

Eric Matthew Frein is charged with 1st-degree murder; 1st-degree murder of a law enforcement officer; attempted 1st-degree murder; attempted 1st-degree murder of a law enforcement officer; assault of a law enforcement officer; 2 counts each of terrorism and possession of weapons of mass destruction; and 1 count each of recklessly endangering another person, discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure and possession of an instrument of crime.

(source: Standard Speaker)






GEORGIA:

Justice is served when we execute someone


Over the last few decades, one of the most widely debated topics among politicians and social justice groups, with regard to human rights, has been the death penalty. Those who denounce the practice argue it is inhumane and defiant of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from inflicting punishments on criminals that may be considered "cruel and unusual."

Those who support the practice, however, argue support for victims' rights, and assert that studies conducted by economists, sociologists and physicians discredit that the practice is expensive, painful, or an unsuccessful crime deterrent.

The statistical data backing the death penalty as a practice in our criminal legal system is supportive of the practice, yet highly controversial. I would also assert it is impossible for one to argue in favor of or against the death penalty, without partially basing their argument on emotional accounts.

For one to arrive at a clear opinion regarding support or abhorrence of the death penalty, the emotional argument should be the 1st element examined. Personally, my beliefs concerning the death penalty were shaped after Courtney Wilkes, a young lady from my hometown, was murdered during the summer of 2011. Courtney and I had several mutual friends, although, we were not ourselves close. Wilkes excelled in academics and was named to the top of her class. She was also an avid soccer player, dividing much of her time between school, church and the soccer field. Those who knew Courtney said she was "friendly" and "someone we should all aspire to be in life." Tragically, on June 16, 2011, in Sea Grove Beach, Fla., while on vacation with her parents and siblings, Courtney was murdered by a man named Stephen Cozzie.

Growing up the granddaughter of a Southern Baptist preacher, Courtney was reared by conservative, God-fearing parents. Her parents set strict moral standards for dating and social activities, even barring Courtney from dating until the age of 16. Typical high school parties were out of the question for young Wilkes. While on vacation that summer, Courtney met Stephen while spending time at the beach with her family. Her parents, not naturally trusting of boys, took a liking to Stephen, even inviting him to dinner with them that evening.

The following day, Courtney and her family returned to the beach and made the tough decision to let Courtney walk off alone with Cozzie; something they had not previously done. You can imagine young Courtney's excitement as Stephen, who was described as "charming," invited her to spend some time alone. As Stephen and Courtney walked down the beach, eventually disappearing into the sun, her parents did not realize this would be the last time they would see their daughter. Within an hour, Stephen had led Courtney into a wooded area behind a convenience store and raped her several times. He used a large wooden board to beat her and eventually used that same board to genitally mutilate her. When Courtney's body was discovered, authorities claimed she was utterly unrecognizable.

On Oct. 17, 2013, a jury found Stephen Cozzie guilty of 1st degree murder in the brutal slaying of Courtney Ann Wilkes. The judge sentenced him to death.

The death penalty has been a controversial topic in the American criminal law system since the practice was adopted, although the practice itself has been practiced throughout ancient societies since the 18th century B.C. In regards to the beliefs of those on the political spectrum, the left believes the institution itself is "cruel and unusual," something our Constitution rejects, and the far right tends to support capital punishment as a proper form of punishment. For someone like me, who supports the practice, we must turn an eye to how the results of economic and sociological studies support the death penalty, and indicate why capital punishment is actually an effective, logical practice.

The death penalty has a significant effect on the nation's economic structure. According to available data gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2011, there were 2,266,800 inmates in American prisons. Of the 2,266,800 inmates , 3,125 people were on death row, usually for being convicted of committing a violent crime. According to the Federal Register, the fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for an inmate in the 2011 fiscal year (the latest data available) was $28,893.40. By multiplying the average amount of money it takes to incarcerate an individual on death row and the current number of people facing execution, the average cost of housing these heinous criminals is roughly $90,291,875.00, annually. An inmate slated to die on death row is incarcerated for around 20 years, per information released by the Death Penalty Information Center. The cost of incarceration for that inmate is $577,868.00. Why are these individuals, who have been found guilty by a jury of their peers of inflicting significant emotional and physical harm on others, get rewarded by being allowed to spend a prolonged amount of time living on American tax dollars? As a utilitarian, my question would be whether or not speeding up the death penalty would let us use the money we are spending to incarcerate these criminals to instead fund special counseling programs for non-violent offenders. Could we also somehow use this money to provide services for the families of the victims?

Those who argue in favor of the death penalty also assert there is sociological data that supports the practice works as a deterrent for future crimes to be committed. Does certain, looming death decrease the likelihood someone will commit a violent crime like murder or rape? American economist Isaac Ehrlich would argue yes, that the death penalty does impede violent crimes. In his 1976 manifesto, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," Ehrlich concluded that for every criminal execution carried out and publicized, there are eight murders deterred in the United States. The practice of capital punishment generates fear among criminals. Professor Stephen K. Layson from the University of North Carolina updated Ehrlich's study in 1986, ultimately determining there were 18 murders deterred for every execution carried out and publicized. Can you imagine how high the deterrent rate is in 2017, as television and the wave of social media has soared since the mid-1980s?

Those who oppose capital punishment commonly argue that rather than "murdering" another individual and feeding into the "eye for an eye" conflict resolution method, we should be working to counsel and rehabilitate these individuals to become productive, functioning members of society.

Unfortunately, the data focused on recidivism rates, or likelihood that prisoners will be incarcerated for a 2nd time after release, speaks against that argument. In 2005, a study was conducted by the National Institute of Justice. In the 15 states that were studied, over 2/3 of the convicted criminals initially released from penitentiaries and maximum-security prisons returned within 3 years for committing similar crimes. To be more specific, 49 % of those released were originally convicted of committing violent crimes, and 60 % of them return to prison within three years of their release for committing crimes similar to their 1st offense. Does rehabilitation work? The data speaks against this notion.

I must also reject the assertion of human rights groups that the practice of capital punishment does not align with the Eighth Amendments' conern about "cruel and unusual punishment." There is absolutely no scientific evidence that has been released that proves the lethal injection, which is now the most widely used form of capital punishment, inflicts any pain on the subject.

In a recent statement made by Mike Viesca, who currently serves as spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said medical staff have affirmed the complex combination of drugs administered in lethal injections render a person incapable of feeling any pain. Speaking to this argument in opposition to capital punishment, I feel I should ask, "Who stands up for the rights of the victim and their loved ones?" Did the inmate take care not to treat their victim in a manner which would be described as cruel and unusual? Did Stephen Cozzie take care not to administer cruel and unusual treatment when he was brutally murdering an innocent, bright 15-year-old girl on vacation with her family in Florida?

In all of the debate, I feel the interests of the victim and their loved ones have been lost. Who stands up for their rights, even when they are no longer with us?

By way of legislative action, a number of states have now implemented programs which would allow the families of victims to get the closure they need and to feel justice has been served.

States like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington have adopted programs which now allow for the families of victims to witness the execution of their loved one's murderer.

The question I would pose to the reader, is: Would you witness such an act if you lost your loved one at the hands of a heinously cruel, unremorseful monster? I would.

By interpreting the data now available, one can discern that capital punishment is upheld in every sense of the law, and has proven to be a scientifically, economically and psychologically plausible punishment.

When we choose to humanely remove someone from this Earth who has caused great harm to others, we do the world a great justice.

We do not decrease, but eliminate the chance that someone who is absolutely evil to their core will hurt again. Capital punishment is the only remedy for murder that provides great solace for those who can no longer speak for themselves - people like Courtney Wilkes.

(source: Opinion; Andrew Logan Lawrence is a student at Armstrong State University in Savannah----savannahnow.com)






OHIO:

Death-row inmate tells judge about killer Williams' intellectual challenges


Another hearing was Friday in an effort to determine whether killer Andre Williams, 49, should be spared the death penalty on the basis of intellectual disability.

No other hearings are scheduled.

Judge W. Wyatt McKay of Trumbull County Common Plea Court heard from death row inmate Tyrone Ballew, who tutored Williams at 2 state prisons 20 years ago.

Williams was convicted in 1989 of killing George Melnick, 65, and participating in the assault of Katherine Melnick, 64, at the Melnicks' Wick Street Southeast home. Williams was 21.

Ballew said he's known Williams for 25 years, since they were in their early 20s and serving on death row in the Southern Ohio Correctional Institute in Lucasville.

Ballew and Williams would talk to each other during their recreational times, which would consist of a couple hours at a time, a couple times per week.

They also would write notes to each other that were delivered by "porters," which are inmates assigned that job by the prison. Ballew would frequently give Williams sports-related news articles to read, and Ballew gave Williams lessons on his reading and writing, he said. Ballew attended college for about 3 years on a basketball scholarship before going to prison.

Ballew said Williams' problems with writing were mostly with use of capital letters, spelling, run-on sentences and punctuation.

Under questioning from Alan Rossman, an assistant federal public defender, Ballew agreed that inmates and corrections officers made fun of Williams.

"Yes, they did because of his intellectual challenges," Ballew said.

With 2 death-row inmates in the same courtroom at the same time, security in the courtroom was tight, with 6 officers from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections standing close guard.

Other hearings took place in late December and January that focused on testing done by medical professionals to determine whether Williams is intellectually disabled.

The Ohio Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that executing the mentally disabled violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The hearing was ordered in July 2015 by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals, which said McKay must reassess his earlier conclusions that Williams isn't intellectually disabled enough to escape death for his crimes.

The 6th Circuit said Judge McKay and the 11th District Court of Appeals should have considered evidence relating Williams having an IQ score of 67 at age 15. Williams also had IQ scores in the 70s at other times.

(source: vindy.com)






ARKANSAS:

Arkansas can't find enough volunteers to witness back-to-back executions


Over the course of 10 days in April, Arkansas plans to put to death 8 inmates.

The state code requires that no fewer than 6 "respectable citizens" be present at each execution.

There's one problem: It's having a hard time finding enough volunteers to witness them.

The volunteer pool is apparently thin enough that state Department of Corrections Director Wendy Kelley invited members of a local Rotary Club to volunteer.

"Temporarily, there was a little laugh from the audience because they thought she might be kidding," Bill Booker, acting president of the Little Rock Rotary Club, told CNN affiliate FOX16. "It quickly became obvious that she was not kidding."

Kelley's "informal efforts" continue, the department told CNN on Friday.

"We remain confident in our ability to carry out these sentences," spokesman Solomon Graves said.

Who watches executions?

The people who are allowed to witness an execution vary by state, said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

Typically, family members of the inmate and relatives of the victims are present, he said. Sometimes, a state requires that lay people who have no stake in the case are present, too.

That could be a member of the media or a citizen witness, such as in Arkansas.

The Arkansas Code doesn't require that witnesses vary from execution to execution.

So, it's conceivable that some of the volunteers could witness more than one, Dunham said.

"It's not natural watching the intentional taking of a human life," he said. "It has an emotional impact on people."

And witnessing multiple execution more than just doubles the impact, he said.

"It increases exponentially."

One obstacle at a time

The 8 death row inmates will be put to death between April 17 and April 27, a move that death penalty opponents have called "unprecedented."

The series of execution has been attributed to the state's soon-to-be-expire supply of midazolam, a contentious drug that's been blamed for a spate of botched executions in recent years.

The executions would mark the 1st time since 2005 that Arkansas has put an inmate to death.

(source: CNN)






OKLAHOMA:

State should rethink aspect of life-without-parole sentencing


We don't have much sympathy for people serving life without parole in Oklahoma's prisons. There might be a few outliers who deserve some mercy, but we're convinced for the most part that they are guilty and they are where they are for a reason.

We do have sympathy for Oklahoma taxpayers, however, and it's becoming apparent that our state's habit of sending prisoners away forever without recourse is extraordinarily expensive and might not always be worth the price.

An analysis in last Sunday's and Monday's Tulsa Worlds by reporters Ginnie Graham and Curtis Killman shows that the state is spending at least $17 million a year on its 885 life-without-parole prisoners.

That doesn't include medical costs, and as the forever-and-ever prisoners get older - the current median age is 45 - those medical costs will skyrocket. The state has to pay 100 % of those costs, while the same prisoners would be eligible for federally underwritten entitlements outside the walls.

Beyond the medical issues, we see three points that seem self-evident:

-- Life-without-parole prisoners are, by definition, a greater challenge and more expensive to manage. They have no incentive not to continue acting criminally in prison and are presumptive escape risks.

-- When jurors opt for life without parole, they base their choice on the person in front of them at the moment of deliberation. They cannot possibly know what will become of the same person in the future. Good stewardship of state resources demands that there be some means of subsequent review for those who are no longer dangerous because of age, infirmity or, in a very few cases, genuine reformation. We absolutely must keep the ones who are still a menace to society, but we need to rethink what to do with those who have outlived their danger.

-- In a small portion of cases, people are serving life-without-parole sentences because of revised sentencing laws designed to target drug dealers. Pending legislation would allow prisoners serving life-without-parole sentences on nonviolent crimes to seek sentence modification from a district judge after 10 years. That seems reasonable to us.

The state's fiscal house is in shambles. If reducing costs is part of the solution to that situation, the best possible place to save money is in the state corrections department, where costs are being driven ever higher by the state's addiction to incarceration. The big savings should come from reducing the number of petty and reformable criminals serving prison time, but a part of the solution should also include a modest rethinking of life without parole

(source: Editorial, Tulsa World)






CALIFORNIA:

Trying to speed up executions could swamp California Supreme Court in appeals


If a November ballot measure to speed up executions goes into effect, the California Supreme Court will have to decide hundreds of death penalty appeals in rapid succession.

That mandate would turn the state's highest court into what analysts say would be "a death penalty court," forced for years to devote about 90% of its time to capital appeals.

Proposition 66, sponsored by prosecutors and passed by 51% of voters, gave judicial leaders 1 1/2 years to make new legal rules and then 5 years to decide a crushing backlog of appeals.

"Prop. 66 would require the California Supreme Court to decide virtually nothing but death penalty appeals for at least the next 5 years - almost no civil cases at all and no criminal cases other than capital murder," said Jon Eisenberg, president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Legal analysts and four bar associations say the measure would inundate all the courts with extra work but hit the top court's 7 justices hardest.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, 11 law professors and a nonprofit legal center contended Proposition 66 would "grind the wheels of justice to a halt" in California.

Death penalty advocates acknowledge the measure would mean extra work for the courts, but say that it is necessary to fix a system that has produced the largest death row in the country and no executions in more than a decade.

They contend the workload will be tolerable, and that the courts will have some flexibility in meeting the deadlines.

The California Supreme Court is considering whether the measure can go into effect.

2 opponents of the measure sued in November, contending it illegally usurped the powers of the judicial branch and violated a constitutional rule that says ballot measures must deal with one subject only.

The California Supreme Court put the measure on hold until the justices resolve the case, probably within the next few months.

The appellate lawyers' academy takes no position on the death penalty but opposed the initiative on the grounds that it would disrupt the courts and prevent litigants in civil matters from having their cases decided in a timely manner.

It joined the bar associations of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and San Francisco in a January letter written to the state Supreme Court saying that Proposition 66 "threatens to deal a mortal blow" to California's courts.

California law guarantees each death row inmate both an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court and a separate habeas corpus challenge.

The direct appeal is based on what happened at trial. The habeas raises issues that were not reflected in the trial transcript, such as newly discovered misconduct by jurors or prosecutors.

The California Supreme Court has been unable to keep pace with these cases.

Given a backlog of more than 300 death penalty appeals already at the court, the justices would have to decide at least 66 of them each year for the next several years just to catch up, Eisenberg said.

Calculations based on the court's typical annual production indicate the justices would be spending 90% of their time on capital cases, Eisenberg said. Civil case rulings would decline from about 50 a year to just a handful, he said. "That leaves virtually no time for anything other than death penalty cases," Eisenberg said.

Lower courts, as well as the California Supreme Court, would be disrupted, the bar associations said.

The measure would require Superior Court judges to appoint lawyers to handle habeas corpus challenges and to decide those cases quickly.

The letter noted that 110 condemned inmates from Los Angeles County would have to be given lawyers within a year. The clock would start once the Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the court, establishes rules to implement the initiative.

"We are not aware of there being 110 qualified capital habeas corpus practitioners within the Los Angeles County area," the letter said.

Kirk C. Jenkins, an appellate lawyer who studies and writes about the California Supreme Court for the law firm Sedgwick LLP, said the bar associations were right.

"The time limit that is built into Prop. 66 is completely unworkable, and that is not a matter of one's position on the death penalty," Jenkins said. "It is simply unworkable."

The only way to meet the deadlines of Proposition 66 would be for the court "to get out of the business of deciding civil cases" at least for several years, Jenkins said.

UC Berkeley's David A. Carrillo, director of a center that studies the California Constitution, described the initiative as a new unfunded mandate.

"There is no way the courts can get through the existing backlog in 5 years with their current resources," Carrillo said.

Law enforcement groups have filed several friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the initiative, arguing that voters have made their will clear.

"California voters have elected to retain the death penalty every time the issue has been placed before them," the leaders of several county prosecutor groups reminded the court in 1 brief.

The lawsuit against the measure named the Judicial Council as a defendant, forcing Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Ming W. Chin to recuse themselves from the case. The chief justice heads the council, and Chin serves on it.

2 of the5 other justices will appear for confirmation on next year's statewide ballot: Justice Carol A. Corrigan, 1 of the more conservative members, and Justice Leondra Kruger, appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown 2 years ago.

California voters have voted down justices on the ballot only once. The issue was the death penalty.

"Despite the abiding and long-standing will of the voters, death penalty opponents have used the legal process as a mechanism to frustrate imposition of the death penalty," the prosecutors argued in their brief.

Lawyers on both sides of the debate expect the court to hold a hearing on the case. 2 justices from intermediate courts of appeal likely would be asked to fill in for the recused justices.

Kent Scheidegger, who helped write Proposition 66, said the portrait of court chaos predicted by the bar associations and some analysts was overblown.

Although the measure would require the California Supreme Court to move quickly to dispatch the backlog of capital appeals, the initiative would also shift initial responsibility for habeas challenges from the high court to trial judges, he noted.

That provision, Scheidegger argued, would save the court time.

Rulings by Superior Court judges on those cases would likely be appealed to intermediate appellate courts and up to the state Supreme Court, but Scheidegger said the trial judges would do the heavy lifting.

"I know that all judges hate time limits, but I do think that moving the habeas cases is a reform that most of the justices probably would agree with," said Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which advocates for the death penalty.

Even if the Supreme Court were to strike down the measure's deadlines, other requirements of the initiative would still speed up executions, he said.

He cited a provision that would limit public review of the state's lethal injection method. Legal challenges involving the method have kept the execution chamber empty since 2006.

18 inmates who have exhausted their appeals could be executed immediately once that part of the initiative took effect, he said.

Former El Dorado County Supervisor Ron Briggs and the late former Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, who filed the lawsuit, argued that the entire measure should be tossed because it violated the rule limiting initiatives to a single subject.

In addition to setting new deadlines and easing approval of an execution protocol, Proposition 66 would require death-row inmates to work to pay compensation to victims' families and bar medical associations from disciplining doctors who participate in executions.

It also would place a state agency assigned to represent death row inmates under California Supreme Court control and permit the corrections department to distribute condemned inmates among the general prison population.

The law says a measure's provisions must be "reasonably germane" to the purpose of the initiative.

Polls show support for the death penalty in California has declined since 1986, when voters ousted the late Chief Justice Rose Bird and two colleagues after a campaign that charged they were not enforcing capital punishment.

Still, voters narrowly rejected a 2012 ballot measure to abolish capital punishment and turned down a similar initiative in November, with 53% of voters opposed.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to