Jan. 19 TEXAS: Texas and the Death Penalty Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Baze v. Rees, a case that has effectively imposed a national moratorium on the death penalty since September. States are delaying executions until the high court rules. To get a sense of what's at stake as the high court considers the future of capital punishment, I spoke with Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz, the state's top lawyer. Mr. Cruz is a rising star among conservative jurists. He's a protg of former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for whom he clerked and, by the nature of his job, a leading defender of the death penalty in Texas. 40 states have the death penalty on the books, but only 34 have carried out executions since the Supreme Court permitted states to resume capital punishment in 1976. None come close to Texas, which has carried out 405 executions over three decades. Virginia, with 98 executions, is a distant 2nd. What accounts for this Lone Star peculiarity, that some find horrifying? "When a sentence is legally and justly imposed, the state of Texas carries it out," says Mr. Cruz. "And in the judgment of the Texas Legislature and in the judgment of the significant majority of Texans, the death penalty is fundamentally a matter of justice." Attorneys for Ralph Baze maintain that Kentucky's protocol for lethal injection -- the same three-drug protocol 37 states favor as a method of execution -- violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Cruz authored an amicus brief for Texas, one of 20 states holding that the protocol when properly administered is consistent with the Constitution and modern standards of morality. While the court's ruling, which is expected in July, may alter that protocol, it's unlikely five justices will find the death penalty itself to be unconstitutional, as some opponents hope. In fact, it's possible that conservative justices wanted to hear Baze in order to do precisely the opposite -- explicitly reject death penalty challenges on the merits, rather than merely address the procedural issues activist judges have seized on to thwart death penalty laws. Victims, not policy issues, move Mr. Cruz. "I certainly understand that people of good faith can disagree on this," he says. "But frequently when those in the media or those in the legal profession or in the academic world who are opposed to the death penalty are presenting their arguments, one of the aspects that is strikingly missing is any consideration of the nature and barbarity of the crimes these people commit and any genuine consideration of the impact these crimes have on the victims' families." That's certainly so in the case of Ralph Baze, who murdered a Kentucky sheriff and deputy in a 1992 ambush, shooting both in the back. And it's so in another death penalty case Mr. Cruz argued before the Supreme Court last fall. The facts about Jos Ernesto Medellin's role in the brutal gang rape and murder of 2 teenage girls in Houston in 1993 are not in doubt. He gave a written confession; a Texas jury found him guilty of murder in the course of a sexual assault; then a judge sentenced him to death. Though Mr. Medellin was born in Mexico, he lived most of his life in the United States. At no time during his trial, sentencing or initial appeal did he or his court-appointed attorneys assert any claims under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The convention requires a consular post to be notified if a citizen of its nation is arrested. Only after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Mr. Medellin's conviction did he begin the series of federal appeals on the basis of the Vienna Convention that arrived, ultimately, at the Supreme Court. The 2 issues the justices must address have far reaching implications for American judicial and political systems. The 1st issue is whether the rulings of a foreign tribunal -- the International Court of Justice in The Hague -- can bind the U.S. justice system. The ICJ has ruled that foreign-born defendants (including Mr. Medellin) are entitled to review based on violations of the Vienna Convention. The 2nd issue is whether the president of the United States can compel state courts to obey a foreign court. That's what President George W. Bush asserted in 2005, after the ICJ issued its ruling, when he ordered the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review Mr. Medellin's conviction. The Texas court rejected Mr. Bush's order on constitutional grounds. In an amicus brief filed in Medellin v. Texas, the Bush administration holds that the court's action undermines presidential authority to determine "how the United States will comply with its treaty obligations." 28 states along with Puerto Rico signed onto one brief supporting Texas inMedellin. An ideologically diverse group of constitutional law scholars joined in another. Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Dick Thornburgh, along with former Justice officials from the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations, joined in yet another. "It is an unusual case that features John Yoo and Erwin Chemerinsky on the same side," Mr. Cruz notes. "It is an unusual case that features Ed Meese and Jerry Brown, now attorney general of California, on the same side." If there's a common thread in Baze and Medellin, it's a judicial challenge to the will of the people consistent with the Constitution, as reflected by the democratic process. "The Constitution gives democratically elected legislatures the principal responsibility of making policy determinations," says Mr. Cruz. "And before the Supreme Court, Texas has frequently been defending the proposition that the federal courts should respect the determinations of the democratically elected legislatures." Even if support for capital punishment is declining in popularity nationally, that's a cause that ought to be of concern to people outside of Texas. (source: Commentary; Mr. Gurwitz is a member of the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News) USA: OPINION----Death penalty defended Once again the created think that they are smarter and know better than the Creator. The bleeding heart liberals in this country are once again attempting to have the death penalty set aside because it is cruel and inhuman punishment. Once again, to get it right, we have to go back to God's word. Following the flood waters drying up on the earth, God instructed Noah to release all of the animal creation saved by the ark so they could once again replenish the earth with their kind. At this time, God established a new covenant with Noah with the promise that he would never again destroy mankind with a flood. At that time, a change took place between man and the animal kingdom. In Chapter 9:2 "God said a great fear and dread will fall on all beast of theearth, fouls of the air and every creature that moves along the ground."In verse 6, he makes this statement that is still binding on his creation. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man." This verse alone should once and for all settle this argument. However, since man continues to think he is smarter than God it will continue on. The Apostle Paul stated in his letter to the Corinthian saints, 1 Cor. 3:19: "The wisdom of man is foolishness to God." To those who attempt to relegate God to a second class citizen, remember, there will be a day of judgment and they will not like the verdict that will be rendered. Jesus died for those who die at the hands of the murderer, not for those who refuse to submit to His teachings. Stuart Beardslee ---- Escatawpa (source: Opinion, Mississippi Press) ********************* Death penalty necessary evil Mr. Delgado has been very busy in the past week writing opinions to voice his concern over many issues. As a political candidate for office in the past, maybe this is his approach to convince the readers of his ideals and qualifications. Unfortunately, in the opinion about capital punishment he has reached too far. I suggest that he stick with local issues and delve into them with an open mind about the greater good of the citizens he might hope to represent. As for the death penalty, he is far from the truth. First, Americans are really not ambivalent about the problem. "Ambivalent" means being undecided or unsure and did not fit the context of that paragraph. I do not believe Americans stand upright and yell, "Kill them all!" There is sorrow and guilt, but the question is, why do criminals commit the horrific crimes that allow this process to take place? As for the Supreme Court, he is correct in some parts, and they must look at "cruel and unusual" as it applies to the Constitution. They also must consider, as they have, the suspect's ability to understand and stand trial, and understand the consequences of one's actions, that is, having the sanity to understand. The death penalty is an unfortunate part of punishment. As long as horrific crimes take place by horrific people, there is only one choice, and that is not tax dollars keeping these animals fed and housed for the rest of their lives. Finally, the death penalty must be absolute with absolute evidence, having no question with numerous witnesses, DNA evidence and all the tools of the crime. As for the televised event for the world to see, Mr. Delgado has little understanding of other cultures. Many countries execute people just on the whim of a pointed finger. Many countries do not have rules and laws that protect the charged until proven guilty. There are countries that execute women for having an affair, cut off one's hand for stealing, stone someone to death for crimes that in this country are served with little time. There are important issues affecting our community today, and all our concern, effort and energy is better spent at home. Paul J. Coutinho----New Bedford (source: Letter to the Editor, SouthCoast Today (Mass.) ) CALIFORNIA: Jurors hear about Gypsy culture in death penalty trial ---- Testimony comes from Tony Yonko's brother and an expert in the Gypsy history and lifestylle Jurors deciding the fate of a Lake Elsinore man convicted of murder and now facing the death penalty heard testimony about his Gypsy culture Friday as the defense continues to try to convince the panel to spare their client's life. The 7-woman, 5-man jury first heard from one of the younger brothers of Tony Ricky Yonko who recounted what life was like for him and his 13 siblings as their family traveled for years with carnivals, following in trailers as it went from place to place. Their father often repaired carnival rides while their mother was a fortune teller, 40-year-old Teddy Yonko told jurors. The afternoon testimony came from a professor of anthropology at UC Riverside who has studied Gypsy culture for some 40 years, taking more than 2 years to make her way inside the nomadic, secretive lifestyle of a large Gypsy community in the Bay Area. Anne Sutherland, a cultural anthropologist, said she made 2 films in the 1970s for the BBC about Gypsies in California and authored the book "Gypsies, The Hidden Americans," which she said is still in print. Sutherland gave a mini-course of sorts to jurors about the history and inner workings of Gypsies, ranging from their origins in Northern India 1,000 years ago to practices that continue today, including arranged marriages, rarely attending public schools and a propensity to steal from non-Gypsies to make ends meet. Tony Yonko, 45, was convicted last month at Southwest Justice Center of the Oct. 22, 2002, 1st-degree murder of 41-year-old Paul Dinh Ngo, 41, who was brutally beaten to death in his Lake Elsinore home. Ngo's body was found by 2 of his young sons when they came home after their father didn't pick them up from school. Because the jury determined that the murder happened during a robbery or a burglary, Yonko is eligible for the death penalty. Now, in a second phase of the trial, jurors are listening to testimony about Yonko's background -- good and bad -- after which they will decide if he should be put to death or go to prison for life with no chance for parole. Defense attorney Elaine Johnson asked Teddy Yonko to explain to jurors the Gypsy culture's view of violence. "It's forbidden for us to do something like that," he said. "You can do more with your tongue." Johnson also asked what he thought about his brother being convicted of a violent murder. "I feel truly in my heart it's just not in my brother to do something like that," Teddy Yonko said. Teddy Yonko described for jurors how he and his brothers and sisters were used as young as age 5 in scams to steal valuables from non-Gypsies, as well as one particular burglary he and Tony committed in 1996, stealing from a 90-year-old woman. Both men were convicted of that crime. Teddy Yonko is still serving time in state prison and was brought to Riverside County to testify. After Teddy Yonko admitted to Deputy District Attorney Stephen Gallon that he didn't his brother want to get in trouble, the prosecutor asked him if he would lie to help him. "Lying, I'm done with that. Like they say, the truth will set you free," Teddy Yonko answered. "I'm here to tell the truth about my family and my brother." Sutherland testified as an expert witness for the defense after reviewing police reports and court transcripts as well as interviewing several members of the Yonko family, including Tony Yonko. She said Gypsies have their own marriage ceremonies and do not recognize America's marriage laws or much of the American culture. Tony Yonko had three arranged marriages, the first at age 15 when he wed a 14-year-old girl after his parents paid the girl's family $7,000, Sutherland said. Later however, "her parents took her back and had to pay back some of the money," she said. His second marriage came when he was 18 and the arrangement was for about $5,000 for a woman about 40 years old, Sutherland said. That marriage lasted a month, she said. His third marriage, at 25, was to his current wife who was about 17 or 18 at the time, Sutherland said. She did not know what the dowry was for that arranged marriage. Johnson asked Sutherland several questions about the Gypsy view of violence. Sutherland said that, before the Yonko case, she "had never come across any murder case" or any violence during a burglary. She added, however, that she is starting to see more Gypsy-related crimes that are leading to violence. She told jurors that Gypsies have a "moral boundary" that allows them to steal from or scam non-Gypsies, but not other Gypsies. When asked by the prosecutor if it was OK for Gypsies to murder non-Gypsies, Sutherland replied, "I don't think murder's ever OK." Further witnesses called by the defense are scheduled to testify when the trial resumes before Judge Judith Clark on Tuesday morning. This portion of the trial is expected to continue through the end of the month. (source: North County Times) MARYLAND: Morris found guilty of murder----Inmate could receive death penalty in slaying of correctional officer Brandon T. Morris was found guilty Friday of first-degree murder in the January 2006 shooting death of Roxbury Correctional Institution Officer Jeffery A. Wroten. The verdict qualifies Morris, 22, of Baltimore, for the death penalty. The trial's sentencing phase begins Tuesday. Wroten's ex-wife and 1 of his 5 children were among those in the nearly-full Howard County Circuit courtroom as the jury's foreman read the verdict. Morris showed no reaction, even after guilty verdicts for 3 capital offenses were read. He also was convicted of 1st-degree felony murder during a robbery and 1st-degree felony murder during an escape. The maximum penalty for each of the murder convictions is death. Morris shot Wroten, 44, of Martinsburg, W.Va., in the face with the officer's gun during the early-morning hours of Jan. 26, 2006, at Washington County Hospital, where Wroten was guarding the inmate. When word of the conviction reached RCI, the staff generally was pleased with the verdict and thought the jury did the right thing, a correctional officer said. Because the murder convictions make Morris eligible for the death penalty, he must decide whether the judge or the jury will determine his sentence. Morris was not prepared to make that decision Friday afternoon, defense attorney Arcangelo Tuminelli told the judge. The jury, which reached its verdict after about 8 hours of deliberations, is expected to reconvene Tuesday at 9 a.m. At the defense's request, the trial was moved from Washington County to Howard County, a right granted to anyone in Maryland who faces a possible death penalty. Morris also was convicted of robbery for stealing Wroten's gun, 1st-degree escape, first-degree assault of Wroten, using a handgun during the commission of a felony and disarming a correctional officer. He also was convicted of kidnapping, 1st-degree assault, attempted armed robbery, armed carjacking and other crimes in connection with the kidnapping of a hospital visitor and the carjacking of a taxi outside the hospital. Outside the courthouse Friday, Tuminelli said the verdict was disappointing, but understandable, because of the extensive evidence presented. The defense team is preparing for the sentencing phase, Tuminelli said. Sentencing hearing Both the state and the defense will call witnesses next week during the sentencing hearing. The presiding judge, Joseph Manck, a retired Anne Arundel County jurist, ruled Friday afternoon about what evidence could be presented during the sentencing phase. Morris has prior criminal convictions in Maryland and Virginia. Prosecutors will not be allowed to present the facts of the underlying cases to the jury, only the charges of which Morris was convicted, Manck ruled. Morris was serving an 8-year sentence for armed robbery and assault at the time of Wroten's death. Attorneys argued at length during a motions hearing Friday whether prosecutors would be allowed to present evidence about an escape attempt by Morris from a Howard County Circuit courtroom in May 2007. During jury selection, Morris tried to bolt from the room. The judge present during the attempt recused himself, and the trial was postponed several months. Prosecutors would be allowed to present evidence about the escape, but must be careful, Manck said. Another member of the defense team, Harun Shabazz of the Office of the Public Defender, may take the stand to testify as a witness to the escape attempt. Manck called the issue of a defense attorney testifying on behalf of his own client a "ripe issue for appeal." Tuminelli earlier called the situation a "can of worms" and said that as the defense attorney, Shabazz's credibility as a witness could be diminished. The judge will not allow the state to show video of, or present testimony about, Morris making lewd gestures and spitting at local media. Morris, who showed no emotion in the courtroom, was disappointed by the finding of guilt on the capital charges, the defense attorney said. Tuminelli has handled 5 state capital cases and one federal capital case, he said. His cases never have resulted in the death penalty, he said. The death penalty should be reserved for only the most egregious cases, and Morris' case doesn't qualify, Tuminelli said. Morris' childhood and background put him on an uneven playing field, his defense attorney said. "He didn't have the chances a lot of other people had," Tuminelli said. If Morris is sentenced to death, he would join 5 other prisoners on Maryland's death row. Executions in Maryland have been suspended, though, since the state's highest court ruled in December 2006 that Maryland's lethal-injection procedures weren't properly adopted. Gov. Martin O'Malley, who opposes the death penalty, hasn't proposed new procedures to the General Assembly. (source: Hagerstown, Morning Herald)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, USA, CALIF., MD.
Rick Halperin Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:52:59 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
