Jan. 18 INDIANA: State requests death penalty in Gary killings Kevin Isom, charged with 3 counts of murder in the shooting deaths of his wife and 2 stepchildren, faces the death penalty if convicted of the crimes. Trial Supervisor David Urbanski handed Lake Superior Court Judge Thomas Stefaniak Jr. 3 death penalty requests in the case, along with four new charges of attempted murder that allege Isom shot at four Gary police officers at the scene. Prosecutor Bernard Carter was seated in the gallery during the hearing Thursday. Isom, 42, is accused of killing his wife, Cassandra Isom, 40, and her 2 children, Michael Moore, 17, and Ci'Andria Cole, 13, on Aug. 6, 2007, at their apartment at 5708 Hemlock Ave., in the Lakeshore Dunes Apartments in Miller. In a statement to police, Isom said his wife said she was leaving him because he was unemployed and she was paying all the bills, authorities said. Isom has pleaded not guilty. The death penalty request is based on a section of state law which allows prosecutors to list as an aggravating circumstance that a defendant killed someone after committing another murder at any time, regardless of whether he or she had been convicted of murder. Isom is accused of killing each victim while having killed the other 2 victims. Stefaniak gave defense attorney James Thiros time to prepare an argument opposing the death penalty requests. Isom may be given a jury trial date at his March 13 omnibus hearing. Isom is accused of attempting to kill Patrolman Pete Baum and Sgts. Thomas Pawlak, Mark Davis and Thomas Decanter Jr. At Thiros' request, Stefaniak has ordered 2 mental health professionals to evaluate Isom for competence to stand trial and submit reports by Feb. 27. (source: Gary Post Tribune) USA: We should be devoted to ending injustice, not ending more lives 12 years ago, our 23-year-old son was murdered. Today, we are attending a national gathering with other family members of murder victims working to end a different kind of killing: the death penalty. We can think of no better way to honor our son's life. On the evening of Jan. 19, 1996, our only child, Joshua "JoJo" White, was driving home from work at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Academic Middle School in San Francisco where he counseled and tutored troubled adolescents. At 16th and Carolina streets, an agitated youth confronted JoJo and his three friends. JoJo and his friends tried to reassure the young man, but he pulled a gun from his coat and fired into the car. JoJo's last words before the fatal shot was fired were, "Peace brother, one love." The bullet pierced his heart and he died within seconds in the arms of his friend Equipto. During his life, JoJo had developed an empathy with troubled youngsters. It grew from his own experiences in the playgrounds and classrooms of San Francisco. At age 12 he was diagnosed with dyslexia and was placed in special education classes with other "problem" children. Being a typically competitive adolescent he was at first angered and shamed to be considered part of society's lesser achievers. But it was in those classrooms that his most important education began. He learned from the inside how it felt to be looked down upon by others. Over the following years, JoJo saw how devastating poverty, inequality and violence can be to young hearts and tender egos. He saw that many of these children were being tracked into a wasteland of disrespect, despair, drugs, violence and prison. He saw these problems and wanted to be part of the solution. But sadly, he became one of the many victims of this system. We don't know who killed our son; there's no name, no fingerprints, not even a clear description since it happened so fast in the dim light of evening. But we do know why he died. And we do know that the young man who killed him was as much a product of our society as the gun he used. Having lost our only child to murder and having lived with that horror for 12 years, we deeply understand the heartbreak and even the rage of others who have experienced similar loss. We hear their cries for justice. We, too, want justice, but a justice that excludes vengeance, more killing - and more injustice. On Jan. 10, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which is charged with making recommendations on how we can improve our criminal justice system, began a three-hearing investigation into the death penalty. The hearing exposed deep racial and ethnic inequalities in the death penalty system that will take millions of dollars to address - on top of the millions it already costs to maintain the broken process. How much better would it be to use that money to help at-risk youth, to solve the countless murders that go unsolved, to provide grief counseling for the loved ones of murder victims? The millions of dollars that are wasted on the death penalty each year could be better spent on programs that actually help prevent crime and offer positive alternatives to youth. We seek a justice that changes the social and economic conditions that foster violence. Today, in San Jose, we are attending the annual conference of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. We are meeting with other parents who have buried children, other survivors of murder victims. We have different stories and come from different walks of life, but we are united by a common goal: ending the killing, in the name of justice. (source: Opinion, San Jose Mercury News----NAOMI WHITE and DERREL MYERS have residences in San Francisco and Santa Cruz. They wrote this article for the Mercury News) **************** Judaism casts doubt on lethal injection Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a question we must all consider: Can lethal injection inflict "unnecessary and wanton pain" and thus be tantamount to torture? Many rabbis and leaders in the Bay Area Jewish community have argued against the death penalty altogether, regardless of execution procedures, using religious teachings and values to support their position. Some, such as Rabbis Alan Lew, Lavey Derby and David Cooper, have been longtime outspoken opponents and have attended protest vigils at San Quentin executions. These leaders cite Jewish teachings on the sanctity of life, and the idea that saving one life is like saving the whole world. They often quote a famous passage in the Talmud: "A Sanhedrin that executes a person once in seven years is a murderous one." Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah topped that by saying, "Once in 70 years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death." But the question put before the U.S. Supreme Court and one that likely wont be answered until this summer is not generally about the death penalty, but rather about the legality of a specific method of execution: lethal injection. Proponents of lethal injection argue that it is the most "humane" way we have of carrying out the death penalty (in legal terms, this means not inflicting "unnecessary and wanton pain"). Opponents hold that there is good reason to believe the executed may be suffering great pain but cannot communicate it, because a paralytic agent is used in the procedure. The paralytic drug is used to prevent convulsions, the expulsion of body fluids and other involuntary functions that would make viewing the execution intolerable to some and very disturbing to all. A Talmudic discussion of execution of a pregnant woman is surprisingly relevant to this discussion: "When a [pregnant] woman is about to be executed, one does not wait for her until she gives birth; but if she has already sat on the birth stool, one waits for her until she gives birth Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a woman is about to be executed, one strikes her against her belly so that the child might die first, to avoid her being disgraced." (Arakhin 7a-b) The discussion here (most probably a completely theoretical one, as there is no evidence that Jewish courts meted out capital punishment in the rabbinic period) seems gruesome and inhumane, but it reveals a surprising angle of compassion. 2 questions arise about the text: One, why not wait until the woman has given birth? And two, what is the nature of her disgrace that it should warrant feticide? First, the rabbis' view is that making the condemned woman (or anyone sentenced to death) await her execution, possibly for months, until she delivers the baby is a form of inui hadin or, causing suffering in the course of meting out judgment. In other words, sitting and waiting for your execution would cause excruciating emotional pain. Such additional suffering beyond the stipulation of the punishment is considered a form of torture and is prohibited. The ruling that the fetus should be killed before the execution may seem gruesome and bizarre, but there too the rabbis goal is to avoid unnecessary pain to the woman. They have a notion that an "undignified death" would cause the woman suffering as well. The disgrace of giving birth while being executed (the rabbis probably imagine a public hanging) would be emotionally torturous. If the rabbis are willing to put aside the potential life of the fetus (only a potential life, for while in utero, the fetus is considered "its mother's thigh") to save the woman disgrace and emotional suffering, certainly they would oppose inflicting physical pain. To allow people being executed in our country today to suffer possibly severe pain (and the anguish of anticipating it) would, according to the rabbis' view then, be a form of torture. President Bush has assured us that "we do not torture." I have my doubts, but, certainly, we should not torture. (source: Rachel Biale is the Bay Area regional director of Progressive Jewish Alliance, which, along with other social justice issues, works against the death penalty; Jewish News) **************** Death row media ban revisited----U.S. appellate court sets aside dismissal A U.S. appeals court in Chicago has ordered a trial in a lawsuit challenging a federal prison ban on face-to-face interviews of Death Row inmates by the news media. In a ruling issued earlier this week, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by David Hammer, an inmate on death row at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind. The ban was imposed in 2000 after Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh gave a TV interview before he was executed. "Hammer submitted evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the media policy was implemented and is now enforced not because of safety concerns, but rather in response to public pressure to prevent death row inmates from voicing their views publicly," wrote Appellate Judge Ilana D. Rovner. U.S. Justice Department attorney Edward Himmelfarb, who argued the appeal for the government, said Thursday that no decision had been made on whether to seek further appeals or to return to district court in Indianapolis. Hammer was an inmate in a federal penitentiary in Allenwood, Pa., when he strangled his cellmate in 1996. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death. His sentence was later set aside and he is now awaiting a new sentencing hearing. After Hammer was transferred to Terre Haute in 1999, he gave three face-to-face interviews with reporters. "No security problems arose as a result of these interviews," the appeals court noted. The situation changed in 2000 after McVeigh was transferred there and gave an interview for the CBS "60 Minutes" program. U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N. D.) criticized prison authorities and demanded a halt to further interviews. A month later, then-U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft held a news conference to announce a blanket ban on face-to-face interviews with death row prisoners. Federal inmates are still allowed to speak to the media by telephone during their regular 15-minute daily telephone time. "I want to restrict a mass murderer's access to the public podium," Ashcroft said at the time. "I'm concerned about irresponsible glamorization of a culture of violence." The rules do not apply to any other federal inmates -- only those who have been sentenced to death, a fact criticized by Hammer's lawyers, Chad Bell and Barry Sullivan. "You could be convicted of a notorious or more heinous crime, but you could meet with the media because you didn't get a death sentence," Sullivan said. In his suit, Hammer alleged that the rules violated the 1st Amendment as well as equal-protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but the case was dismissed. In reinstating the case, the appeals court said that Hammer presented evidence that the ban was "not a security concern, but rather outrage over McVeigh's message and a desire to prevent other death row inmates from expressing their views." (source: Chicago Tribune) ILLINOIS: Potential jurors told no death penalty The jury seated for the Peter Hommerson murder trial this week got some information about sentencing options most juries never hear. Hommerson is on trial for the 1996 murders of Marvin and Kay Lichtman in Barrington Hills and was eligible for the death penalty because there were 2 victims. But State's Attorney Michael Waller decided against seeking the death penalty in the case and Hommerson now faces a mandatory life prison sentence if convicted of both slayings. Just before jury selection began Monday, Assistant State's Attorney Michael Mermel asked Circuit Judge John Phillips to inform the group of 45 prospective jurors they would not be hearing a death penalty case. In almost all circumstances, except death penalty cases, the penalties that could apply upon conviction are not discussed with jurors because sentencing is the province of the judge. But Mermel asked for the departure from tradition because he did not want to exclude people from the jury simply because they are opposed to the death penalty and he felt that telling the group up front would put them at ease. "If the jurors are so informed, it does not reduce our burden one whit; it is still a murder case," Mermel said. "There are many people who could be perfectly fine jurors in a murder case who would be excluded if they believed they had to sentence someone to death." Defense attorneys Dwayne Douglas and David Weinstein objected, arguing that by telling the jurors it was not a death penalty case Phillips would be signaling them that the mandatory life sentence applied. Phillips decided to go along with Mermel's suggestion, but allowed the defense team to craft the wording of what he told the jurors about the death penalty not applying, and Douglas and Weinstein asked they be told simply that the Hommerson trial "is not a capital case." (source: Daily Herald) VIRGINIA: York killer's death sentence commuted----The legal battle included a Supreme Court ruling on executing the mentally retarded A 10-year legal battle over the life of a Hampton man convicted of murder ended Thursday when a York County judge commuted Daryl Atkins' death sentence to life in prison because of misconduct by prosecutors during his 1st trial. York-Poquoson Circuit Judge Prentis Smiley ruled that prosecutors on Atkins' 1998 murder trial erred by not providing his defense attorneys with details of an August 1997 interview with co-defendant William Jones in which Jones may have changed his story to better match the forensic evidence in the case. "The judge took this very seriously, gave it a lot of consideration, and arrived at the only appropriate decision," defense attorney Joseph Migliozzi said after the ruling. "It's fair and it's just. Neither York-Poquoson Commonwealth's Attorney Eileen Addison nor Cathy Krinick, a former prosecutor who assisted in the case, would comment Thursday. Krinick is now in private practice. Both Atkins and Jones were charged in the Aug. 16, 1996, killing of Langley Airman Eric Nesbitt. Jones testified against Atkins at trial, saying Atkins fired the shots that killed Nesbitt, and a jury convicted Atkins of capital murder. Jones later pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Last year, Leslie Smith, one of Jones' attorneys, came forward with allegations that Krinick coaxed Jones to change aspects of his story during an August 1997 interview at the Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail. Smith testified at an earlier hearing in December that Krinick turned off a tape recorder during the interview with Jones after his statements didn't match up with the physical evidence of the shooting. While the tape was off, he said, Krinick led Jones back through the events of that night, coaching him on what to say. When the recorder was turned back on, Jones told a different version of his story. A transcript of that interview was later given to Atkins' attorney in preparation for trial, but prosecutors made no mention of what occurred during the time when the tape was off, according to testimony from Krinick Thursday. Defense attorneys also pointed out that without the diagrams used during the interview, one could not tell that Jones' story had changed just by reading the transcript. According to evidence presented Thursday and during the December hearing, the recorder was off for a total of 16 minutes during the two-hour interview. Krinick, Addison and York-Poquoson Sheriff's Lt. Troy Lyons all testified Thursday that there was a break in the interview when the tape was off, but Krinick and Addison both testified that Jones was never told what to say, only encouraged to demonstrate the events of that night because he had trouble discerning left from right. "We didn't say anything to him," Krinick testified. "We didn't tell him 'You better get your story straight.'" In explaining his decision Thursday, Smiley said he had to make a determination of what occurred during the 16 minutes the tape was off, whether that information was potentially beneficial to Atkins, whether it was withheld from him, and whether it could have changed the outcome of the trial. Smiley said he took Smith's testimony as fact because Smith had nothing to gain by coming forward. His decision to commute the sentence marks an end to 10 years of legal wrangling, resulting in multiple trials and a U.S. Supreme Court decision barring execution of the mentally retarded. Atkins, who is of low intelligence, was scheduled for another trial in April to determine his mental status, but that is now unnecessary. For Atkins, the decision means not only a chance to live, but a better quality of life in prison. Defense attorney Richard Parker said Atkins would be moved off of death row and into the general prison population as soon as the judge's order arrived. "He's (still) an inmate, but his life is better," Parker said. "Significantly." For the family of Eric Nesbitt, the ruling comes as a disappointment. "It seems he ought to get what he did to Eric," Nesbitt's uncle Steve Sloan said Thursday. "That's the way I feel about it. It's only right." About the case The crime: Robbery and capital murder, in York County, Aug. 16, 1996. Victim: Airman 1st Class Eric Michael Nesbitt, 21, of Gilbertsville, N.Y. Assigned to Langley Air Force Base, he worked part-time at an auto parts store. Defendants: William A. Jones, then 26, and Daryl R. Atkins, then 18. Jones testified against Atkins in the 1998 trial, and received a life sentence. Atkins was convicted and sentenced to death. Case timeline Aug. 16, 1996 Langley Airman Eric Nesbitt is abducted, robbed and shot to death in York County. February 1998 Hampton resident Daryl Atkins is convicted of Nesbitt's murder. A jury recommends a death sentence, despite evidence offered by the defense that Atkins is mentally retarded. January 1999 The Virginia Supreme Court overturns Atkins' death sentence because of an error made on a jury verdict form. August 1999 A 2nd jury recommends death. June 2002 The U.S. Supreme Court rules, as part of an Atkins' appeal, that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded but leaves it up to states to define mental retardation. August 2005 A York County jury finds Atkins is not mentally retarded and can be executed. June 2006 The state Supreme Court overturns that verdict, citing more trial errors. A new trial on Atkins' retardation is ordered. June 2007 Atkins' attorneys allege prosecutors withheld information during his original trial and petition the state high court, seeking a new trial or commutation of Atkins' death sentence. September 2007 The case is sent back to York County, where hearings are held on the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Jan. 17, 2008 Judge rules prosecutors withheld evidence; Atkins' sentence commuted to life in prison. (source: Daily Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IND., USA, ILL., VA.
Rick Halperin Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:34:28 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
