August 15 TEXAS: Krum man arrested after 2 killed, 1 wounded A 42-year-old Krum man was arrested late Friday in the shotgun slayings of two people at a home north of town. Kenneth Wayne Keller was taken into custody by the Texas Department of Public Safety at his home about 10:30 p.m., 2 1/2 hours after the shootings were reported, said Tom Reedy, a spokesman for the Denton County Sheriff's Department. Keller is being held in the Denton County Jail on suspicion of capital murder, with bail set at $200,000. The victims -- a man and a woman in their late 40s or early 50s -- were "killed by close-quarter shotgun blasts to the head and body," Reedy said. Their identities are being withheld pending notification of the next of kin, he said. Another victim, a woman in her early 50s, was taken by helicopter ambulance to John Peter Smith Hospital for treatment of gunshot wounds to the left side of her face, Reedy said. Reedy said the woman's wounds are not believed to be life-threatening. He could not elaborate on her relationship to the 2 others. The Sheriff's Department has not divulged any motive for the shooting. Authorities received two 911 calls about the shooting at about 8 p.m. One of the calls was placed by the survivor on a portable phone, Reedy said. She was standing in the driveway of the home, near Farm Road 2450 and Hopkins Road, north of Krum. Krum is northwest of Denton. About the same time the woman was calling for help, she waved down a passing motorcyclist, Reedy said. The motorcyclist also placed a 911 call, he said. The woman gave the police Keller's name and a description of his car. He was arrested at his home in the 7100 block of Johnson Road about a mile away, Reedy said. The male victim was found in the house, Reedy said. The woman was found in bushes not far from the home. It appeared that she had been shot while fleeing and that someone had dragged her body to an area where it would not be visible from the highway, he said. (source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram) USA: We See It: Recent comments by a Supreme Court justice ought to make Americans question the death penalty The death penalty issue is one of the longest-standing debates throughout the country. Yet it now takes a back seat to abortion and other issues that have been discussed in the aftermath of the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. At one time we counted ourselves among the supporters of capital punishment. We reasoned that some crimes are so vicious that there is truly no alternative to the ultimate punishment. We think of crimes like the kidnapping death of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, or the mass killings of hundreds by Timothy McVeigh, and we consider the death penalty to be not only reasonable but appropriate. But the reality of the death penalty is that it has not been carried out appropriately across the country. Too many convicted inmates on death row have been proved to be innocent. Too many 1st-degree murder convictions have been overturned. No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens now says that capital punishment in America has "serious flaws." He spoke to the American Bar Association in Chicago over the weekend, and although he stopped short of saying the death penalty should be banned, he observed that he no longer trusts the process of how its carried out. According to The Washington Post, Stevens referred to evidence provided by DNA research, which has shown "that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously. ... It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice." According to The Post, death penalty cases dominate the work of justices. All 9 justices at different times have been called on to deal with final emergency appeals - and the time commitment is significant. In order for the death penalty to be effective, it would have to be enforced uniformly and with some speed. Yet neither happens. Stevens told the ABA that the penalty is handed out in a way that varies, particularly because the competence of defense attorneys varies widely. Also, said Stevens, the death penalty carries with it "special risks of unfairness," a reference to such wild cards as racial profiling. Stevens also brought up a modern practice of having a victims family come to court to discuss their ordeal. We understand the reason that victims voices and concerns be heard, but we sometimes wonder whether the involvement of such strong emotion results in the best possible legal result. After all, the law, even criminal law, is supposed to be applied based on legal arguments, and not by emotion. In fact, Stevens told the ABA that sometimes a victims statement "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason." Stevens, 85, has been a member of the high court since he was appointed by President Ford in 1975. His view is an informed one, obviously, and we think that it should be considered seriously in the future as we consider whether capital punishment is appropriate. We consider the death penalty to be a reasonable argument intellectually, but we no longer support it as everyday policy in America today. It has been proved to be too flawed to be continued. (source: Editorial, Santa Cruz Sentinel) ********************** The Roberts Hearing and the Death Penalty The upcoming Roberts confirmation hearings provide an important forum for reviewing the constitutionality of the increasingly controversial death penalty. With over 3,400 inmates on death row and public support for the death penalty slipping, the topic deserves front-burner attention in September when the Senate takes up the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. In advance of the hearings, Justice John Paul Stevens last week delivered a speech sharply condemning the countys death penalty system. Reading the "tea leaves" provides few clues on how Roberts might rule on the death penalty if hes confirmed. In 2 years as a federal judge, he didnt decide any death penalty case. In 1993, while serving in the Reagan White House, he wrote a memo suggesting that the Supreme Court could reduce its work load by lessening its scrutiny of death penalty appeals. On the other hand, Robertss wife reportedly belongs to an anti-death penalty advocacy group, and he himself worked on a death penalty appeal while in private practice. Roberts seeks to join a court which recently has outlawed the death penalty against the most vulnerable defendants. In March 2005, by 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit executions of juveniles who committed their crime when under age 18. In its decision, the court noted that today some 30 states prohibit juvenile executions, and in the past ten years, only three states had actually carried out juvenile executions. The court also noted that the U.S. was the only country in the world to "officially sanction" juvenile executions. The court found that "evolving standards of decency" along with the vulnerability and immaturity of juveniles, make these executions unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment." Similarly, in 2002, the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia ruled that the execution of mentally retarded persons violates the Eighth Amendment. Significantly, both the Roper and Atkins decisions overruled contrary decisions that the Supreme Court handed down not long ago in 1989. Polling data suggests that the American public has grown queasier about the death penalty. According to Gallup, the high mark for death penalty support was 1994 when 80 % favored it for murderers (compared to a low of 42 percent in 1966). The most recent Gallup Poll found that a 74 % death penalty approval dropped to just 56 % when those questioned were given the alternative sentence of "life without parole." A new CBS News Poll found those questioned evenly split at 39 % between the death penalty and life without parole. Various 2005 localized polls also find slippage in support for the death penalty. In Alabama, less than 1/2 of those surveyed believed the states death penalty is fairly administered, while 57 % favored a temporary halt to executions while fairness and reliability issues are studied. In Houston, 64 % favored life without parole over the death penalty. A New Jersey poll found that 47 % favored life without parole, and only 30 % favored the death penalty if those serving life without parole made restitution to the family of the murder victim. Support for life without parole over the death penalty is at 63 % in Maryland. And, by a margin of 46-42 %, New Yorkers oppose reinstatement of that states death penalty, while 56 % favor life without parole over the death penalty. However, in surveying state laws, the Supreme Court is unlikely to find an evolution in public attitudes against the adult death penalty so as to render the penalty unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment." Despite increasing public opposition, only 12 states and the District of Columbia have no death penalty. 4 other states with the death penalty have not executed anyone in more than 50 years, and in 2 of those states, courts have invalidated the particular death penalty statute. Since 1976, when a 10-year national moratorium ended with Gary Gilmores firing-squad execution in Utah, 979 persons have been executed in the United States, more than 33 % of those (347) in Texas and about 85 % (873) in southern states. From 1995 through 2005, the numbers have ranged from 45 in 1996 to 98 in 1999. So far in 2005, 35 persons have been executed. (The 979 figure from 1976 to 2005 actually is relatively low compared to the 3,859 inmates who were executed between 1930 and 1967.) In striking down the juvenile death penalty, the Supreme Court took into consideration the practices of other countries. When the same is done for the adult death penalty, many American cringe. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 120 countries, including all European countries, have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In 2004, Bhutan, Samoa, Senegal, and Turkey joined the growing list. 12 other countries sanction the death penalty only in severely restricted circumstances, and in 24 countries, the death penalty option has not been exercised in over ten years. Amnesty International figures that in 2004 the United States, with 59 executions, trailed only China (3,400), Iran (159), and Vietnam (64). There are other grounds on which the Supreme Court could review the constitutionally of death penalty statutes. In the 1972 Furman v. Georgia case, the court held that application of the death penalty could not be "arbitrary." Yet, figures today dramatically show that persons who commit murders are much more likely to be put to death if their crime was committed the south. Studies show that, even within a state, prosecutors in certain counties are much more likely than others to seek the death penalty. Additionally, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, only 2 % of murderers receive the death penalty, and case reviews show that the death penalty is not necessarily imposed for the most egregious murders. Race also plays a role. Statistics from the Death Center Information Center show that 80 % of those executed killed white victims, while only 50 % of murder victims are white. 42 % of the current 3,415 death row inmates are black. Studies also suggest that many times death penalty defendants are represented by inadequate court-appointed legal counsel. This data led Justice Sandra Day OConnor in 2001 to claim that the death penalty "is being unfairly administered," and to call for minimum qualifications and better pay for attorneys handling death penalty cases. Moreover, in his speech last week, Justice Stevens cited "erroneous convictions" as a reason for halting executions. The Death Information Center has documented 119 cases since 1973 where convictions of death row inmates have been reversed. Stevens also expressed concern over the fairness of having elected judges preside over death penalty trials, and over the impact on juries of victim-impact statements. Of course, Judge Roberts at his confirmation hearing will not disclose how he will vote in death penalty cases. Nevertheless, these cases are among the most important cases decided by the Supreme Court. The confirmation hearings provide senators with an extremely valuable opportunity for shining the national spotlight on the on-going death penalty debate. (source: OpEdNews; Richard McCartan is a lawyer and freelance writer living in Olympia, Washington) MASSACHUSETTS: Wrongful conviction: 12 filers 12 men have filed for compensation under the state's wrongful conviction law: Ulysses Rodriguez Charles: Spent almost two decades in prison for rape, robbery and other charges. He was released in 2003 after new DNA evidence came to light. He is also suing the city of Boston and others in federal court. Stephan Cowans: Convicted for the 1997 shooting of a Boston police officer and a subsequent home invasion, and spent more than 6 years in prison. He was released after DNA tests and a second fingerprint analysis excluded him as the perpetrator. Last month, Cowans filed suit against the city of Boston and several police officers, saying they botched the fingerprint work and then covered it up. Lawyer Johnson: Sentenced to death in 1972 for 1st-degree murder and spent 2 years on death row until a second trial resulted in a 2nd-degree murder conviction. He served more than 10 years in prison until a witness identified the killer as a man who had testified against Johnson at trial. He is seeking $500,000 from the state, but his attorney said too much time has elapsed to pursue any other lawsuits. Dennis Maher: Spent almost 20 years in prison after he was convicted of raping two Lowell women and an Ayer woman in the early 1980s. He was released after a law student found long-lost evidence from the cases in a courthouse basement, and subsequent DNA testing excluded him as the rapist. The state said on Friday it was willing to pay Maher $550,000, less than the $1.5 million he sought in 3 separate claims. Neil Miller: Spent a decade in prison after he was convicted of aggravated rape and robbery at a Boston apartment in 1989. He was released in 2000 after DNA testing showed the semen collected from the apartment didn't match his DNA. He is also suing the city of Boston and police department employees in federal court. Another man pleaded guilty to the crime last week. Marvin Mitchell: Served 7 years for the 1988 rape of an 11-year-old Dorchester girl, despite a semen test that failed to prove a match. He won his release in 1997 after DNA tests confirmed the semen taken from the victim did not belong to him. Marlon Passley: Received a life sentence for killing a man and wounding 2 others in a 1995 shooting incident in Dorchester. He had served 4 years when new information about the case surfaced and helped win his release in 1999. Louis Santos: Was convicted of the 1983 shooting death of a social worker in a Dorchester robbery. He got out of prison after 3 years when a higher court threw out his conviction, and a jury acquitted him in a 1990 retrial. Eric Sarsfield: Convicted in 1987 of a Marlborough rape, spent a decade in prison. DNA tests cleared him in 2000, after he was out of prison. In addition to the $500,000 state settlement announced Friday, he also has a federal suit pending against the city of Marlborough and the officers who investigated the rape. John Scullin: Convicted of child rape in 1996 from what his lawyer says were false allegations made in a divorce battle. He served just under 2 years, and the indictment was dismissed in 1998. At this time, he has no plans to file any other suits. Peter Vaughn: Convicted for serving as the lookout in the 1983 robbery of a Boston supermarket, even though a similar crime, involving a similarly described suspect, took place soon after while Vaughn was in jail. A state appeals court ordered his release in 1986. Eduardo Velasquez: Convicted in 1988 on aggravated rape and several other charges involving the assault of a woman in Chicopee the year before. He spent 13 years in prison until DNA tests excluded him as the attacker. The state announced a $500,000 settlement for him on Friday, and he is suing Chicopee in federal court. (source: MetroWest Daily News)
