Oct. 30 NEW YORK: Barbaro supports death penalty for terrorists ----Fossella camp says the Democratic challenger for House seat has flip-flopped on a critical issue Democratic congressional candidate Frank Barbaro wants the record set straight -- he supports the death penalty for terrorists. The 76-year-old former state assemblyman and Supreme Court judge, who faces Rep. Vito Fossella in Tuesday's election, said that while he's opposed the death penalty in general, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks convinced him terrorists should be an exception to that rule. But Barbaro says his record has been distorted by Fossella, who recently sent out a campaign flier accusing Barbaro of being weak on terrorism. The flier showed photos of the 19 suicide hijackers and asked if they deserve the "ultimate punishment." The flier stated: "Frank Barbaro opposes the death penalty -- even for terrorists like Osama bin Laden." "He distorted my position," Barbaro said yesterday. "They should not be able to get away with this." In a statement yesterday, Fossella spokesman Craig Donner claimed Barbaro said this summer that he opposed the death penalty for terrorists. Earlier this month, Island Republicans said they had an audiotape where Barbaro told student interviewers, outside an Eltingville diner, that he opposed capital punishment and it "wouldn't matter" even if the prospective death penalty case involved a terrorist. "Now in the waning days of this election, he's trying to deceive the people of Staten Island by flip-flopping on this critical issue," Donner stated. Barbaro responded that he was "set up" by Republicans in the student interview, which he said became a "blur." He said he's been consistently supportive of the death penalty for terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001. Later in the day, Barbaro moved to another front and went on the offensive, attacking Fossella for not fighting harder to keep Bayley Seton Hospital from closing. Joining several members of the Coalition to Save Bayley Seton Hospital in front of the Clifton complex, Barbaro slammed Fossella for not fighting harder to enforce a federal covenant governing the use of Bayley Seton, which was sold to the Sisters of Charity in 1981 for $1 with the proviso it be kept operating as a hospital until 2012. "When I went to law school a covenant was sacrosanct," he said. Advance news reporter Tim Gray contributed to this report. (source: Staten Island Advance) WASHINGTON: Prosecutors won't seek death penalty in murder Prosecutors won't seek the death penalty against a man accused of murdering a couple in their East Hill home a year ago and severely wounding their then-7-year-old daughter with a large knife. John Quentin Morimoto is charged with 2 counts of aggravated 1st-degree murder in the Oct. 17, 2003, deaths of Loc "Michael" Phan, 46, the owner of Seattle night club and a well-known businessman in the region's Vietnamese community, and his wife, Phoung Dung "Michelle'' Phan, 34. Morimoto, who was living with his parents just a half-block up the street from the victims' home, also is charged with attempted 1st-degree murder of the couple's daughter, Cindy Phan, who was hospitalized for several days while recovering from severe cuts to her abdomen. All of the victims suffered multiple stabbing and cutting wounds. Under state law, prosecutors may seek the death penalty for a charge of aggravated 1st-degree murder only if there are no mitigating circumstances that merit leniency in the case. In convicted of aggravated murder, the mandatory sentence is life without possibility of parole. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, in a statement issued Friday, said only that he wouldn't seek the death penalty based on the state's standard. A spokesman for his office said prosecutors would have no additional comment while the case is pending. Long delays are common in decisions whether to seek the death penalty. Defense attorneys usually file extensive "mitigation packages" explaining why they believe the death penalty isn't merited. The packages often include detailed social and psychological histories, information about family and childhood and other details. Such information generally isn't made public and prosecutors usually don't comment on the reasons for their decision. Morimoto, 34, is scheduled to make his next appearance Nov. 22 in Superior Court at the King County Court House in Seattle to set a trial date. He is being held in a high-security unit of the county's downtown jail. According to charging papers, Morimoto entered the home and attacked family members, then took jewelry, a computer and other items. He drove away in a new Hummer, a luxury sports utility vehicle the family had recently purchased. On the morning of Oct. 17, 2003, staff at Cindy's school called the Phan home several times to find out why she wasn't in class, then called a relative on their call list. That relative went to the family's home, found the body of Michelle Phan and called police. The distinctive black Hummer taken from the home was found later that day by police near a shopping center in Auburn. Police staked out the parked vehicle and arrested Morimoto when he returned. Items from the Phan home were later found in his family's home. (source: King County Journal) USA: DNA/Death Penalty Reform Bill Poised To Become Law This Weekend Capping 4 years of effort by a bipartisan House and Senate coalition that includes both supporters and opponents of the death penalty, modest but rare reforms in the way the death penalty is used in the criminal justice system are expected to take effect this weekend, when the Justice For All Act becomes law. The deadline for signing the bill is Saturday, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a co-author of the package and original sponsor of its Innocence Protection Act section, said he believes that President Bush will sign it, rather than let it become law without his signature. The Administration opposed aspects of the death penalty reform sections of the bill, which cleared Congress earlier this month. The Justice For All Act includes elements of the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act, first introduced 4 years ago by Leahy in the Senate and later in the House by Reps. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). The Justice For All Act is a package of DNA and victims' rights reforms, sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and by Leahy, the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. Hatch is the panel's chairman. The package was sponsored in the House by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.). Other leading cosponsors in the Senate are Sens. Joseph Biden (D- Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mike DeWine (D-Ohio), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and many other sponsors and cosponsors of other portions of the package. "This bill is a rare example of bipartisan cooperation for good causes," said Leahy. "It reflects many years of work and intense negotiation. This is the most significant step we have taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. DNA is the miracle forensic tool of our lifetimes. It has the power to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. It can end the suffering of people like Kirk Bloodsworth, who endured years on Maryland's death row before finally getting the chance to prove his innocence. And as DNA has become more available, it also has opened a window on the flaws of the death penalty process. This is a bill to put this powerful tool to greater use in our police departments and our courtrooms. It also takes a modest step toward addressing one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions in capital cases, the lack of adequate legal counsel. These reforms, to put it simply, will mean better, faster and fairer criminal justice." "I am glad that this long effort has yielded some good results and that our work will now become the law of the land," Leahy continued. "I will be pleased if the President signs our bill. Republicans and Democrats joined together in asking President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft to support our effort 4 years ago. Had they helped us then, this could have become law far sooner." A section-by-section summary of the Justice For All Act is available in the press section of the Leahy website, http://www.leahy.senate.gov (source: US Newswire) *********************************** Even with changes, court's shift might only be marginal Despite talk of changes on the Supreme Court stirred up by the news that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has cancer, many court observers believe the sheer intensity of confirmation battles in the Senate in recent years would make it difficult for any president to put an ideological stamp on what is now a moderate-to-conservative court. Barring an unexpected landslide, both parties will have enough clout in the Senate to block judicial nominations using filibuster rules. And people on both sides of the bitter confirmation divide say they hope that fact alone would motivate either President Bush or John F. Kerry to choose broadly acceptable Supreme Court nominees. Nonetheless, the news of Rehnquist's treatment for thyroid cancer sent a tremor through a campaign in which judicial nominations -- the political vehicle to discuss such social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay marriage -- have so far taken a back seat to terrorism and the economy. Some activists on both sides seized on Rehnquist's illness to warn of dire consequences if the other party got to choose his replacement. And some political observers predicted that changes on the Supreme Court would be a motivating tool to get some voters to the polls. "The prospect of a court opening would have some effect on the vested interests -- and abortion is the biggest vested interest in any court fight," said Rick Davis, a Republican consultant working with Arizona Senator John McCain. "Prochoicers, who fear change on the court, will be motivated to go out and vote. The prolifers, who want a change on the court, would be more motivated to vote." The next few years could easily mark a changing of the guard on a court that has been less of an ideological force than a tribunal dominated by moderates such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer, who wrestle with thorny issues and seek consensus. There have been two decisions in recent years likely to stir debate for decades, however. One was the 5-to-4 vote to end the Florida recount and grant the presidency to George W. Bush. The other was the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas to grant sweeping "due process" protections to gay people. The Lawrence decision, by a 6-to-3 vote, provoked an angry dissent from the court's reigning conservative, Antonin Scalia, and has become a touchstone for voters opposed to judicial activism. Otherwise, the court has been more likely to bite around the edges of controversial matters. It granted some procedural protections to "enemy combatants" at the military's Guantanamo Bay prison, but stopped short of providing full judicial review. The court's affirmative action decisions in 2003 allowed consideration of race in university admissions, but ruled out quotas. A split court banned the death penalty for the mentally retarded. On business issues, the court has been more conservative, limiting the scope of the government's power to regulate interstate commerce for the 1st time in decades. Meanwhile, the court has gone 10 years without an opening and is getting old. 8 of the 9 justices are older than 65. The eldest -- liberal stalwart John Paul Stevens -- is 84. Bush has not made an appointment, though he has signalled his desire to remake the judiciary by placing conservatives on lower courts. About 200 Bush appointees have been confirmed, but Democrats in Congress invoked the filibuster rule to block 7 of Bush's most prominent appointees to appellate judgeships. Another one, former federal prosecutor Miguel Estrada, withdrew under fire, while Bush placed two others as recess appointments, meaning they can serve until January before facing confirmation. In the second presidential debate, Bush elaborated on his vision of a Supreme Court justice: "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." While some watchdog groups rate Bush's appointees as more conservative than Ronald Reagan's, the name most often mentioned as a Bush Supreme Court pick -- White House counsel Alberto Gonzales -- carries a reputation for moderation. Michael J. Horowitz, a former Reagan administration counsel and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said he believes Bush has not stressed judicial nominations enough in the campaign, particularly since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision to grant gay marriage provided an opening to question Kerry on whether he would appoint judges who would rule the same way. "The whole issue of courts and democratic government has been presented as a political gift to Bush by 4 judges of the Massachusetts supreme court," Horowitz said. Kerry has not mentioned possible Supreme Court justices, but has gone further than some past Democratic presidential contenders in promising to appoint those who would uphold abortion rights. "Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?" asked Kerry in the 2nd debate. "These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law." But Kerry, too, has drawn fire from supporters who believe he hasn't stressed the dangers of the right-wing judicial agenda often enough. Ralph Neas, president of the watchdog group People for the American Way, said Democrats would be foolish to rely on the Senate to block conservative Bush nominees, especially when the next president could have many picks. "There's a tremendous risk in saying, 'Don't worry about the court because the Senate would block another Scalia,' " said Neas, noting that Scalia won a near-unanimous confirmation while highlighting his pride in being the first Italian-American nominee. Still, the nominating process has gotten far more contentious in the two decades since Scalia was confirmed: During the Clinton administration, Republican senators refused hold committee hearings on nominees they disliked, and during the Bush years, Senate Democrats have launched filibusters that require a super-majority of 60 votes to end. Such tactics have "poisoned the atmosphere up there but also given senators 2 powerful weapons to block presidential appointees," said William P. Marshall, who served as deputy counsel in the Clinton White House. And even Horowitz, of the Hudson Institute, said he believes the prospect of a losing confirmation battle would auger against strongly ideological choices. (source: Boston Globe ("Critical choices" articles examining the candidates' stands on health care, the economy, fiscal policy, civil liberties, energy and the environment, gay marriage, Social Security, the war on terror, foreign affairs, nuclear proliferation, and Iraq can be viewed at www.boston.com/politics. ) PENNSYLVANIA: DA seeks death penalties for 2 men----City pair charged in abductions and slayings of teenage girl and her boyfriend 2 Pittsburgh men will face the death penalty if convicted of 1st-degree murder in the abductions and slayings in July of a teenage girl and her married boyfriend. Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. announced yesterday that prosecutors would seek the death penalty against Lester Jamar Johnson, 20, of Garfield and East Hills, and Jaurvon James Hopkins, 21, of East Hills. Johnson, following a coroner's inquest last month, has been ordered to stand trial on the charges. He is being held in the Allegheny County Jail without bail for the homicides and on 2 counts each of kidnapping, unlawful restraint and criminal conspiracy. Hopkins still had not been apprehended yesterday. Though his arrest warrant is outstanding, he has been arraigned, in absentia, on the same charges as Johnson. The 2 are accused of ambushing Shawnte Betts, 17, of Beltzhoover, and James R. Jones, 26, of Wilkinsburg, at about 8:20 p.m. on July 25 near Lincoln and Lemington avenues. The bodies of Betts and Jones were later found in Wilkinsburg. A witness said that he had been talking with two other men when they saw Betts and Jones being accosted. He said Hopkins clutched Betts by the hair or neck and forced her into her own vehicle. Jones struggled with Johnson, but was forced at gunpoint to join Betts in the back seat of the vehicle, the witness said. Jones was shot in the leg before he tried to run away. As he fled, limping, Johnson fired several more rounds until Jones collapsed. Hopkins and Johnson then dragged the wounded Jones into the vehicle. Within minutes, the abductors used Betts' cell phone to call Jones' wife, Annette. Annette Kennedy Jones said that she and her daughter heard a female voice screaming in the background as the caller made demands for money and drugs. Wilkinsburg police found Jones' body the next day in a vehicle on Copeland Way. He had bullet wounds of the back, arm and leg. Betts' body was found July 30 on a hillside behind a property in the 1500 block of North Avenue. She had been shot once in the forehead. (source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
