July 8
NEW YORK:
THE NYC BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES PRESENT:
CRISIS IN THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY
Monday, August 11: 10 a.m. to Noon at NYC Bar Association, 42 West 44th
Street, (between 5th and 6th Avenues)
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
There's been a marked increase in federal death penalty prosecutions
during the last 8 years. What has caused this? What systemic problems has
this revealed & exacerbated? What are solutions? An superb panel with
various experiences & perspectives tackles these issues.
FEATURING: HONORABLE FREDERICK BLOCK, United States District Judge, EDNY.
......-Judge Block has presided over several capital trials and authored
an op-ed column in The New York Times, critical of DOJ capital policy.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, partner at Hogan & Hartson and former United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
JEAN BARRETT, partner at Ruhnke & Barrett, experienced capital defense
attorney and Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel.
MICHAEL MANNHEIMER, professor, Salmon P. Chase College of Law and author
of When the Federal Death Penalty is Cruel and Unusual.
Moderated by RUSSELL NEUFELD, Law Office of Russell Neufeld and former
Attorney-in-Charge of the Capital Division of The Legal Aid Society.
(source: NY Bar Association)
KENTUCKY:
Suspect in chief's slaying may face death----Mental exemption denied by
judge
The man accused of killing a small-town police chief can face the death
penalty if convicted, a judge ruled yesterday, dismissing arguments by
defense lawyers that their client should be ineligible for execution
because of mental retardation.
Jury selection begins today in the capital murder trial of Jamie Barnett,
38, who is charged with fatally shooting Clay City Police Chief Randy Lacy
at point-blank range from the back seat of Lacy's squad car during an
arrest last year.
Powell Circuit Judge Frank Fletcher's ruling on the death penalty came
after a 3-hour hearing in which the defense called 3 of Barnett's older
sisters to testify about early signs their brother was mentally impaired.
Diane Stamper recalled her brother lit the kitchen on fire several times,
once putting a can of corn in the microwave and leaving it for hours. Just
5 or 6 years ago, she said, Barnett nearly burned down her home early one
morning when he put a packaged ham on an open skillet.
"I woke up and my house was full of smoke," Stamper said. "He was sitting
on the floor, and the pan was just burning."
The oldest sister, Marlene Jones, said Barnett was born about the same
time as her son, but her brother was far behind him in speaking, crawling
and potty training. He failed multiple years in elementary school and
dropped out by fifth grade, she said.
"Jamie had areas of problems nobody really understood," Jones said.
Defense attorneys argue that those signs of mental disability, along with
an exam Barnett took while in custody showing his IQ to be lower than 70,
make him ineligible for the death penalty under federal law. The U.S.
Supreme Court banned executions of the mentally disabled in 2002.
However, Dr. Amy Trivette, a psychiatrist with the Kentucky Correctional
Psychiatric Center, testified last week that Barnett showed behavior
during her 6 weeks of observation that was inconsistent with a mental
handicap. He also failed a memory test designed to detect whether inmates
were faking their IQs.
But Stamper said Barnett always had extreme memory problems, even when he
was learning the alphabet.
"If you could get him to remember one letter, within an hour he'd
forgotten it," she said. "I've never seen him write anything or read
anything."
A prosecutor suggested in cross-examination it was Barnett's drug
addiction that led him down the path that ended in Lacy's murder. He also
argued that Barnett did poorly in school not because of a mental illness
but because he seldom attended.
Trivette said last week that Barnett's IQ is probably closer to 84 than
70, making him eligible for the death penalty.
Defense attorney Marcus Jones asked the judge yesterday to postpone the
trial to allow the defense to hire two specialists -- a pharmacologist and
a neurologist -- to further examine Barnett, but Fletcher turned down the
request. He said the state had already paid for one defense expert, a
psychiatrist.
"You're putting us in a position where you're picking our experts for us,
and I'll object to that," Jones said.
The defense did get one favorable ruling yesterday. With the trial moving
to nearby Montgomery County to find an impartial jury, Fletcher ruled
Powell County officers won't be allowed to work security in the case. Lacy
has several brothers-in-law enforcement, including the courtroom bailiff
in Powell County.
(source: Associated Press)
USA:
Guantnamo: Military judge to question capital defendants on decision to
represent themselves
08 July 2008 AI Index: AMR 51/074/2008
"Further, proceedings must not only be fair, they must appear fair to all
who observe them". US Supreme Court, 19 June 2008
Five Guantnamo detainees accused of involvement in the attacks of 11
September 2001 in the USA are due to appear in front of a military judge
this week, beginning tomorrow, as pre-trial hearings in the case resume.
Amnesty International will have an observer at the proceedings.
The defendants are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin
al-Shibh, 'Ali 'Abd al-'Aziz 'Ali ('Ammar al Baluchi) and Mustafa al
Hawsawi. The government intends to try the men in a joint trial and to
seek the death penalty against them.
Before being transferred to Guantnamo in September 2006, these five men
had been held in secret incommunicado detention by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) for between two and three years after being
arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and 2003. Their fate and whereabouts
concealed, they became victims of enforced disappearance, like torture a
crime under international law. At least one of the defendants, Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, was subjected to the form of water torture known as
"waterboarding", simulated drowning. Which other "standard" or "enhanced"
interrogation techniques were used against these and other CIA detainees
has not been revealed by the US authorities, and any techniques used
against the men, their conditions of detention, and the location of CIA
detention facilities, remain classified at the highest level of secrecy.
The military judge overseeing the case, Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann,
will hold separate hearings over the next two days with each of the men.
The main issue at the sessions will be the question of legal
representation, and specifically the voluntariness of the decisions taken
by the men at the arraignment on 5 June 2008 to represent themselves (pro
se representation) As Amnesty International's observer at the arraignment
reported, there were indications that at least one of the men, Mustafa al
Hawsawi, may have been intimidated by one or more of the other defendants
into opting for self-representation. In addition, 'Ammar al Baluchi's
stand-by counsel has told the judge that al-Baluchi has indicated his wish
to withdraw his pro se representation request made at the arraignment and
to proceed with representation by a lawyer, but that the defendant is
likely to seek to represent himself "while in the courtroom and in the
presence of three of the defendants". The lawyer has told the judge that
"the Defense further expects that Mr al Baluchi (Mr Ali) will move between
proceeding pro se and with representation throughout his trial".
In an order dated 1 July, Colonel Kohlmann wrote that at this week's
sessions, he "intends to address the issue of what role, if any, perceived
or actual intimidation between the several accused played or is playing in
the pro se elections requested by the several accused." The judge said
that he "intends to discuss this matter with each of the accused on the
record and in five separate sessions where each of the accused will appear
outside the presence of the other accused". Judge Kohlmann also made clear
that while al Baluchi would "clearly be permitted to withdraw from his pro
se status, this matter will need to be clarified in court, and with the
understanding that he will not be permitted to change back and forth
between represented and pro se status." Colonel Kohlmann said that until
such time as al Baluchi "clearly withdraws from his pro se status", the
military lawyer would continue to operate only as stand-by counsel.
The sessions for Mustafa Hawsawi and 'Ammar al Baluchi are scheduled for 9
July, with the other three defendants due to appear before the judge in
sessions on 10 July. It is not yet clear if there will be a hearing on 11
July with all of the defendants. In his 1 July order, Colonel Kohlmann
said that such a joint hearing will be held "as necessary".
Another issue is the question of a joint trial versus separate trials.
Colonel Kohlmann wrote that he "intends to discuss" the question of
separating trials "in the event it appears that an accused or the
Government is prejudiced by a joint or common trial". He instructed the
prosecution to prepare a brief on this issue "addressing the Government's
position on severance of the proceedings for one or more or all of the
accused". The brief is due by 18 July, and any response by any of the
accused has to be submitted by 25 July. If necessary, a hearing on the
severance motion would be held at Guantnamo on 14 August 2008.
Colonel Kohlmann set 15 August 2008 as the date for a competency hearing
for Ramzi bin al-Shibh. At the June arraignment, it was revealed that bin
al-Shibh, who was shackled to the floor during the proceedings, was on
medication, raising questions about his mental competence. Under Rule 909
of the military commissions, "No person may be brought to trial by
military commission if that person is presently suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him or her mentally incompetent to the extent
that he or she is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings
against him or her". Under commission Rule 706, if evidence arises,
post-charging, that a defendant "lacks capacity to stand trial", the
military judge may order an inquiry into the matter. The submission to the
judge "may be accompanied by an application for a mental examination".
In the unclassified version of an affidavit signed on 28 June 2008, a
doctor retained by Ramzi bin al-Shibh's legal counsel indicates that two
or more of the medications being administered to the defendant "are
medically known to produce direct and significant impact on functioning,
including adverse side effects that disrupt and compromise physical and
mental health". The doctor concluded that "an independent, thorough, and
reliable review and assessment" of all relevant records was required in
order to be able to "assess the medical necessity for the current course
of Mr Al Shibh's chemotherapy or to enable him to make an informed,
knowing and intelligent decision about any course of action available to
him." The doctor also noted that unless it can be clinically ruled out
that Ramzi bin al-Shibh has been subjected to torture or other
ill-treatment in US custody, any medical evaluation of the defendant must
follow the "standard of care afforded individuals who have been tortured".
Colonel Kohlmann said in his order of 1 July that "if operated properly,
the Military Commission process should provide a workable trial system
that can deal with the complex dynamics of a worldwide theatre of military
operations. While this process might differ in some regards from trial
procedures in other courts, its design does not contemplate a truncated
process of justice."
Amnesty International sees it differently. These trials cannot be divorced
from the backdrop against which such proceedings are occurring. This
backdrop is one of practices pursued in the absence of independent
judicial oversight that have systematically violated international law. At
any such trials, the defendants will be individuals who have been
subjected to years of indefinite detention, whose right to the presumption
of innocence has been systematically undermined by a pattern of official
commentary on their presumed guilt. Among the defendants are victims of
enforced disappearance, secret detention, secret transfer, prolonged
incommunicado detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment. Their treatment has not only been unlawful, it has been highly
and deliberately coercive in terms of the interrogation methods and
detention conditions employed against them. This heightens the need for
any trials to take place before courts structurally independent of the
executive and legislative branches which have authorized or condoned human
rights violations. Instead, trials are looming before military commissions
lacking such independence and specifically tailored to tolerate government
abuses and to admit information obtained under such abusive conduct.
Amnesty International continues to urge the US government to abandon the
military commission trials, and to bring any defendants before the
ordinary federal courts, without resort to the death penalty.
See also:
USA: Capital charges sworn against another Guantnamo detainee tortured in
secret CIA custody, 2 July 2008,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/071/2008/en.
USA: The show trial begins. Five former secret detainees arraigned at
Guantnamo, 6 June 2008,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/056/2008/en.
USA: Way of life, way of death: Capital charges referred against five
former secret detainees, 20 May 2008,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/041/2008/en.
USA: Another CIA detainee facing death penalty trial by military
commission, 2 April 2008,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/027/2008/en.
USA: Impunity and injustice in the 'war on terror': From torture in secret
detention to execution after unfair trial? 12 February 2008,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/012/2008/en.
USA: Law and executive disorder: President gives green light to secret
detention program, August 2007,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/135/2007/en.
USA: Justice delayed and justice denied? Trials under the Military
Commissions Act, March 2007,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/044/2007/en
(source: Amnesty International)
****************************
Death penalty premeditated killing
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rapists of children may not be executed
is, to say the least, controversial.
On the radio one recent morning, more than 90 percent of those who called
in thought the court ruling was wrong. Of course, the rape of a child is a
heinous crime, but the real issue is the use of the death penalty itself.
The Catholic Church, as do almost all other churches, opposes the death
penalty. The gravity of the crime is not a factor; the death penalty is
permitted only if it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."
Another thing to consider is that capital punishment is the premeditated
killing of a defenseless human being, and such an action contributes to
the "culture of death."
"State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us." ("A Culture
of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005, U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.)
Harold Couvillon, retired accountant-----Baton Rouge
(source: The Advocate)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.Y., KY., USA
Rick Halperin Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:01:45 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
