June 25 MISSISSIPPI: Court rejects death sentence appeal Inmate Blayde Grayson contended his attorneys failed to do all they could to prevent the imposition of the death penalty, but the Mississippi Supreme Court said Thursday the lawyers were only following Grayson's instructions. The Supreme Court denied Grayson's request that he be allowed to file more appeals in his 1997 conviction and death sentence from George County. The Supreme Court in 2001 upheld Grayson's conviction and sentence. Grayson was convicted in the 1996 slaying of 78-year-old Minnie Smith during a house burglary. Smith sustained more than 30 stab wounds on the night she died in her rural home at the edge of the Pascagoula River flats. Grayson had confessed to the crime, saying he entered the house through a window and intended to steal a gun to get money for drugs. He said he killed the woman when she woke up unexpectedly. Grayson was arrested in Florida on a probation violation from a previous crime. George County law enforcement officers went to Florida to interview Grayson. Authorities said Grayson signed a wavier of right to an attorney and confessed to the crime after returning to Mississippi. In his appeal, Grayson argued that during the sentencing phase, his lawyers only called Grayson's mother and grandmother to testify. He claimed if his lawyers had conducted an adequate investigation, other evidence could have been found and a different sentence might have been reached by the jury. Presiding Justice Kay Cobb, writing Thursday for the court, said the trial record showed Grayson did not follow his lawyers' advice and instructed them to call only his mother and grandmother. Grayson, himself, declined to testify, the court record showed. In other action Thursday, the high court upheld the dismissal of attempts by death row inmate Joseph Daniel Burns to win a new trial. Burns was sentenced to death for the 1994 murder of Floyd Melvin McBride at the Town House Motel in Tupelo. Justice Chuck Easley said the trial record showed that the performance of Burns' attorney was not deficient. (source: Associated Press) CALIFORNIA: Officer Admits Ignoring Peterson Witness The attorney for Scott Peterson got a police detective to concede he intentionally failed to mention a witness who could help clear the former fertilizer salesman of killing his pregnant wife. Mark Geragos used the admission Thursday by Detective Allen Brocchini to support his contention that the investigation was a sloppily executed effort to implicate Peterson, regardless of the evidence. The witness is a woman who recalled seeing Laci Peterson at the warehouse where her husband stored his small boat. Geragos played an audio tape on which Brocchini dictated notes from a police interview with the witness, who said Laci Peterson used the bathroom at the warehouse the day before she was reported missing. The prosecution contends Peterson hid the recently purchased boat from his wife as part of his plan to kill her and dispose of the body in San Francisco Bay. The woman's story provides an alternate explanation for why a strand of hair that DNA testing indicates might have come from Laci Peterson turned up on a pair of pliers in the boat. That hair is one of the few pieces of physical evidence presented by prosecutors so far. Prosecutors allege the hair fell from Laci Peterson while her body was in the boat after Scott Peterson murdered her in their Modesto home on or around Christmas Eve morning, 2002. They charge he then weighted down the body and tossed it into the bay, only to have the remains of Laci and the couple's fetus wash ashore four months later. The bodies were found two miles from where Peterson, 31, claims he was fishing alone the day his wife vanished. Defense lawyers assert someone else abducted Laci Peterson while she walked the dog, then acted on Scott Peterson's widely publicized alibi to frame him. Geragos implied Brocchini left out the woman's account because it did not fit with the police theory that Laci Peterson had never been near the boat. "Can you tell me how that particular piece of information got excised out of your police report?" Geragos asked. "I excised it," Brocchini replied. "You did?" Geragos replied, seemingly shocked. "I guess I did," a flustered Brocchini said. Experts say the admission could be tough for prosecutors to counter. "The prosecution is self-destructing much the same way we saw in the O.J. case where you have police officers just doing stupid things," said Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson. "One good hit like this can cause jurors to question the remainder of the prosecution's evidence." In a roaming cross examination of Brocchini, Geragos questioned every aspect of the prosecution's case- from faulty paperwork to outright omissions of critical details from witnesses. One witness reported seeing a pregnant woman walking a dog near Peterson's home on Christmas Eve - the day Laci Peterson was reported missing - yet police did not exhaust the lead, Geragos charged during his second day questioning Brocchini. Throughout the 4 weeks of the trial, expected to last six months, Geragos has tried to show jurors that police latched onto Peterson from the beginning while ignoring other leads. Geragos mentioned 2 other witnesses who reported seeing Laci Peterson walk the couple's dog the day before she vanished, a point of contention because prosecutors assert she stopped walking the dog weeks before Christmastime. "I never had information that Laci was seen walking in the park," Brocchini said. (source: Associated Press) NEW YORK: A 4-3 Ruling Effectively Halts Death Penalty in New York New York State's highest court ruled yesterday that a central provision of the state's capital punishment law violated the State Constitution. Lawyers said the ruling would probably spare the lives of the 4 men now on death row and effectively suspend the death penalty in New York. The 4-to-3 ruling from the State Court of Appeals in Albany went well beyond the particulars of a single case, giving opponents of the law an important victory. Besides the 4 death-row inmates, lawyers said, it could spare the lives of 9 defendants fighting capital cases and more than 30 others whose murder cases are in early stages. Because the case was decided on state constitutional grounds, it is also expected to provide a broad new legal foundation for untold future challenges to the state's death penalty. The ruling left the capital punishment law itself intact, providing that the Legislature repairs the provision that the court said was flawed. But the court's majority said, "Under the present statute, the death penalty may not be imposed." No one has been executed under the law, which was passed in 1995 with the fervent support of Gov. George E. Pataki. Some juries have resisted imposing capital punishment and some district attorneys have declined to seek it at trial. The last execution in New York, under a previous death penalty law, was in 1963. The court's majority said the Legislature improperly required judges to tell jurors in capital cases that if they deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict during the penalty phase of a trial, the judge would impose a sentence that would leave the defendant eligible for parole after 20 to 25 years. The decision said that instruction had the effect of coercing jurors to vote for execution, because they might fear that a vote against it would lead to the eventual release of people charged with extraordinarily violent or otherwise shocking murders. "The deadlock instruction," the majority said, "gives rise to an unconstitutionally palpable risk that one or more jurors who cannot bear the thought that a defendant may walk the streets again after serving 20 to 25 years will join jurors favoring death in order to avoid the deadlock sentence." The majority decision, by Judge George Bundy Smith, said the deadlock provision violated the State Constitution's guarantee of due process of law. Lawyers said yesterday's ruling left little ground for review by any federal court. Including yesterday's decision, the Court of Appeals has overturned a death sentence 4 times since the law was enacted. The governor and legislative leaders said yesterday that they would move quickly to repair the law. The leaders of the State Senate and Assembly have both said they favor the death penalty. But legislative politics and the volatility of the capital punishment issue left it unclear how quickly the penalty might be restored. Some prosecutors said yesterday that they were working on amendments to the law that could quickly revive the death penalty. Several of them said publicly that they believed that the remaining death-row inmates might be able to be resentenced to death under a new law. But several of them conceded that the courts might not approve such death sentences. The dissent, by three judges all appointed by Governor Pataki, said the decision reflected an effort by the majority to stall the application of the death penalty in the state. "Today's decision, in our view," the dissent said, "elevates judicial distaste for the death penalty over the legislative will." The ruling affirmed the conviction of Stephen LaValle, a former Long Island roofer who raped and killed a Suffolk County schoolteacher, Cynthia Quinn, in 1997, stabbing her 73 times. But the court sent the case back for sentencing of Mr. LaValle, now 37. The court said a trial judge was to sentence him to a life term, perhaps one that included the possibility of parole. Critics of capital punishment maintained even during legislative debates about the law in 1995 that the deadlock provision, which the Court of Appeals said was unique among the nation's capital punishment laws, coerced jurors to vote for death, but some critics say such legal arguments gained little traction in a Legislature convinced that the public strongly favored capital punishment. Some prosecutors say the deadlock provision was intended to encourage jurors to make the difficult choice between life without parole and death that is presented to them in capital cases. These prosecutors say the provision has helped some death penalty juries reach a decision by suggesting that a defendant may someday go free if they do not reach a verdict. But in a statement yesterday, the Suffolk County district attorney, Thomas Spota, whose office prosecuted Mr. LaValle's case, said juries needed to be able to be sure "that in the event of a deadlock, the defendant whom they found guilty of 1st-degree murder would be sentenced to life in prison without parole." He added that he believed that such a sentence would be rational "in these specific circumstances." The decision was a major victory for the New York Capital Defender's Office, a state-financed legal office that handled the appeals of Mr. LaValle and the 3 other men whose death sentences have been overturned by the Court of Appeals since the law went into effect. Death penalty supporters have said the capital defenders are working to get what amounts to a moratorium on the death penalty by deluging the court with one technical legal argument after another. Mr. Pataki yesterday called the ruling disappointing, while Joseph L. Bruno, the Republican Senate majority leader, called it irresponsible, adding that it "could ultimately jeopardize the lives of New Yorkers by placing dangerous, violent criminals back on the streets." Some prosecutors around the state criticized the decision, saying the judges appeared to be searching for reasons to avoid approving any death sentence. "From the perspective of a prosecutor, there's tremendous frustration right now," said Mike Green, the Monroe County district attorney. "In case after case, it seems they're looking for a way to set the death sentences aside.' But the chief Capital Defender, Kevin M. Doyle, called the decision a victory for common sense. Mr. Doyle, acknowledging that some critics of the court had said its prior rulings overturning death sentences were made on technical grounds, argued, "Nobody can claim the provision that was found unconstitutional was anything but dangerous and unfair." Some trial judges have held that the deadlock provision is unconstitutional and have refused to tell juries in advance that in a deadlock, the law requires judges to impose sentences that may permit release on parole. But the majority in the Court of Appeals ruling said the failure to give that jury instruction did not fix the problem, because jurors should not be left to speculate about the possibility of a killer going free someday on parole. The dissent, written by Governor Pataki's most recent appointee to the court, Judge Robert S. Smith, called the ruling "an astonishing holding" that improperly supplanted the role of the Legislature. The other dissenting judges were Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read. The dissent said the majority had invented a new constitutional right ensuring that a jury in a capital case would be told in advance that a deadlock would mean a sentence of life in prison without parole. "The existence of such a right finds no support in precedent, and none in logic except on the premise that death penalty defendants are constitutionally entitled to every procedural advantage the human mind can devise," the dissent said. Judge George Bundy Smith and 2 of the other judges in the majority, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, were appointed by Governor Pataki's Democratic predecessor, Mario M. Cuomo. The only Pataki appointee in the majority, Albert M. Rosenblatt, a former Dutchess County district attorney, is viewed by some lawyers as ambivalent about capital punishment. Some prosecutors said yesterday that they were still studying the decision. The Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, said he was "not prepared to draw any conclusions" as to whether the death sentence obtained by his prosecutors would stand for John B. Taylor, who was convicted of murder in a massacre at a Wendy's restaurant in Flushing in 2000. The 2 other men on death row are Robert Shulman, who bludgeoned and dismembered 3 prostitutes on Long Island in 1994 and 1995, and Nicholson McCoy, who sodomized and killed a female co-worker at a Suffolk grocery store in 1998. Michael A. Arcuri, the president of the New York State District Attorneys Association, said his members had concluded that the legal problem identified by the court could be repaired by the Legislature. But some legal experts said it seemed clear that yesterday's decision meant that capital punishment in New York was essentially back to Square 1. "The problem in this case," said James S. Liebman, a Columbia University law professor, "exists in every single death penalty case in the state, and, in effect, there is no viable or valid death sentence in New York until they get it straightened out." Some death penalty supporters and prosecutors said they were more concerned about the court's general recognition of due process rights for capital defendants under the State Constitution than about the specific decision on the deadlock provision. Several said that ruling would open new challenges to the capital punishment law. "We don't know what the full scope of this new constitutional right is," said Mr. Green, the Monroe County district attorney, "and we won't know for years." (source: New York Times) ******************** State's high court leaves death penalty in limbo The state's death penalty was put on hold Thursday by a ruling of the state's highest court that found a key sentencing provision of the 1995 capital punishment law unconstitutional. The court's 4-3 decision, which voided the death sentence in a Long Island murder case, also tosses out the sentences of 3 others on death row, including a man convicted of killing 4 people at a fast-food restaurant in Queens, legal scholars say. Under the ruling, 9 others who had faced possible death penalties now can receive a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole. Even if the Legislature revises the law, the the state's first execution lethal injection still might be a decade away. "While the Legislature may vote to have a death penalty, it cannot create one that offends constitutional rights," Judge George Bundy Smith wrote for the court's majority. Gov. George E. Pataki, whose support of the death penalty helped him win election in 1994, condemned the decision as "disappointing" and said he was studying options. Within hours of the ruling, legislators were scrambling to determine how to revise the law and to determine whether the death penalty has political backing nine years after it was restored. State Sen. Dale M. Volker, R-Depew, author of the 1995 Senate bill restoring the death penalty, criticized the court. "This decision is going to cause some people to die," predicted Volker, who accused the judges of letting personal opposition to the death penalty drive their decision. Court officials said no death penalty cases are pending in Erie County. But elsewhere, the decision left prosecutors handling nine capital punishment cases scrambling. "From a prosecutor's perspective, it's very frustrating," said Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green, who criticized the court for chipping away at the death penalty law. Four straight death sentences brought before the court since 1995 have been overturned without, Green said, deciding the broader constitutional issue: Can the state allow the death penalty? "You can't help it but sit here as a prosecutor and say how long is this going to go on?" he added. Thursday's ruling involves a provision of the law requiring judges to instruct jurors during the sentencing phase of a capital case that they can sentence the defendant to death or life without parole. But the judge also must tell jurors that if they fail to agree unanimously on one of the options, the court will impose a life sentence that would make the defendant eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 20 to 25 years. New York is the only state that requires a lesser sentence if jurors are deadlocked, the court noted. That, the majority ruled, amounts to presenting jurors with what the judges called a "Hobson's choice." "A juror who has found defendant guilty of a capital crime, and has heard weeks of arguments and a summation reviling the defendant and detailing the pain he has caused, is more likely to choose death than risk the prospect of defendant ever harming anyone in society again," the decision says. Writing for the 3 dissenting jurists, Judge Robert S. Smith, a recent Pataki appointee who as a lawyer had defended clients in death penalty cases, said the majority was tipping the balance in the favor of defendants. "Today's decision, in our view, elevates judicial distaste for the death penalty over the legislative will," Smith wrote. The case before the court involved Stephen LaValle, who was sentenced to death for raping and beating a Suffolk County high school track coach and stabbing her 73 times with a screwdriver. The court ordered that he be resentenced to life without parole or 20 to 25 years, with the chance of parole. "It is of great importance," Kevin Doyle, head of the Capital Defender Office, which represents many of the state's capital-case defendants, said of the decision. "It recognizes both an equitable and a constitutional problem in the statute." (source: The Buffalo News) ******************* Death-row defenders fear not "Nobody's updating their resume or packing their boxes." So said Kevin Doyle, who heads the state's Capital Defender Office in response to yesterday's Court of Appeals ruling that a sentencing provision of the state's capital punishment law is unconstitutional. Not that Doyle, whose office represents people alleged to have committed crimes eligible for the death penalty, believes he'll need to defend any of the nine people awaiting trial in capital cases around the state. "They can't be tried under the statute as it was," Doyle said. "And when the Legislature creates a new statute, they can't be tried under that because it wasn't in effect when the crime was committed." He also doesn't believe any of the 4 killers on death row faces execution any longer. But Doyle, whose office was created by the 1995 law reinstating the death penalty in New York State, admits that a change in the statute could bring it into constitutional compliance. Until a new law takes effect, Doyle said, there will still be plenty of work for his 26 lawyers, plus support personnel. Take the case of a Binghamton man whose capital case was in jury selection when the Court of Appeals decision came down. Doyle said the judge now plans to try it in July as a noncapital case, but the judge still wants the Capital Defender's office, which has worked on the case, to represent the defendant. (source: Newsday) MONTANA: McGrath praises death-row ruling; others see it as a setback Attorney General Mike McGrath praised a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday refusing to overturn the death penalty sentences of more than 100 inmates - including 4 in Montana - who claimed they were wrongly sentenced by judges to die. Two years ago, the court ruled jurors and not judges should weigh factors that determine whether a particular killing merits death or life in prison. In a 5-4 decision Thursday, justices said the 2002 ruling, Ring v. Arizona, does not apply retroactively to inmates who have exhausted their regular criminal appeals. McGrath praised the ruling. Some defense attorneys and death penalty opponents called it disappointing. "For Montana, this is a good decision," McGrath said. "For the past two years the state has maintained that the Ring decision applied only to future cases. We welcome the Supreme Court's clarification." He also said circumstances surrounding the state cases would have insulated them. Four Montana prisoners - Ronald Smith, David Dawson, William Gollehon and Daniel Johnson - have been sentenced to death by judges. Their court proceedings had been on hold pending the ruling. Michael Donahoe, a federal public defender who represents Gollehon, was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision, but he said it appeared reasonable and was based on precedent. "It is the law of the land now, so it will apply to anybody in those circumstances and any death penalty case now and in the future," he said. Scott Crichton, executive director of Montana's ACLU chapter, called the ruling "confounding," and said he hoped it would expose the death penalty's capricious nature to the public. "I am not shaken in my resolve that at some point we're going to prevail (so) people will see the folly and futility of thinking that in a very imperfect justice system something like this can be applied," he said. Montana is 1 of 5 states, that had left it exclusively to judges to determine whether someone can be sentenced to death. Juries simply reached a verdict, and judges determined the sentencing. But in 2002, the Supreme Court heard Ring's appeal and ruled that it is up to juries, not judges, to decide whether execution is warranted. Because of the Ring ruling, Montana has put in place what officials call a "dual system." State laws passed in 2001 and 2003 require jurors to determine beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravated circumstances that would make death a possible penalty, but still leaves the penalty up to a judge. Montana and 4 other states had asked the high court for clarification on the retroactivity issue. (source: Associated Press)
