June 25
TEXAS:
DALLAS D.A. to seek death penalty; Death penalty sought in fiery, fatal attack
on Garland clerk
Garland police arrested Matthew Lee Johnson in connection with the fiery attack
on a clerk at a convenience store on May 20. Prosecutors will seek the death
penalty.
Matthew Lee Johnson, the man accused of setting an elderly Garland convenience
store clerk on fire during a robbery last month, will face charges that include
the death penalty.
Nancy Harris, 76, died of her injuries 5 days after the May 20 assault at the
Fina Whip-In at the corner of Broadway and Colonel Drive.
She suffered serious burns to her upper torso and face.
Johnson was arrested later the same day.
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins announced Monday that he will
seek the death penalty in connection with the capital murder case.
Johnson, 36, remains jailed at Lew Sterrett Justice Center on a $2 million bond
pending trial.
(source: WFAA News)
ARIZONA----impending execution
AZ prosecutors oppose execution stay for Lopez
Arizona prosecutors have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a stay of
execution for a condemned inmate scheduled to die by injection Wednesday.
In a response filed Monday, Arizona prosecutors say a motion filed by Samuel
Villegas Lopez's lawyers seeking a stay from the high court lacks merit.
The Arizona Supreme Court already has turned down a request to delay Lopez's
execution at the state prison in Florence.
The state clemency board last week voted against recommending that Gov. Jan
Brewer reduce Lopez's death sentence to life in prison.
Lopez was convicted of brutally raping and killing a 59-year-old Phoenix woman
in 1986.
If the execution proceeds, the 49-year-old Lopez will be the 4th inmate put to
death in Arizona this year.
(source: Associated Press)
FLORIDA:
Lawyer for Lehigh man accused in death of infant grandson wants to bar death
penalty in case
The lawyer for a Lehigh Acres man accused of slitting the throat of his infant
grandson and attempting to kill his daughter in 2010 said in court Monday that
he plans to file a motion to bar the use of the death penalty because it’s too
dangerous to travel to the man’s native Honduras to gather information about
his client’s past.
The state is seeking the death penalty against Manuel De Jesus Rosales, 45,
whom they contend slit his 3-month-old grandson's throat in front of his
20-year-old daughter, Karminda Rosales Salazar, the baby's mother, as she lie
in the driveway of their home, suffering stab wounds to her neck. As he cut his
grandson, Rosales told Salazar, "Here's your bastard," investigators allege.
Salazar's older child, a toddler fathered by Rosales, was not injured during
the attack.
The trial has been set for September.
Neil McLoughlin, the assistant public defender representing Rosales, told Judge
Margaret Steinbeck that the trip could put his life at risk. McLoughlin told a
reporter that Rosales lived near a Honduran coast that is known for
narco-trafficking for the first 25 years or so of his life.
“They like to shoot people there and I don’t want to be the target,” McLoughlin
said.
He said he’s been unable to attain very much information.
(source: News-Press)
NEVADA:
Court rules against 2 facing death penalty
2 men, each charged with capital murder in Las Vegas, must turn over to the
prosecution the defense materials they intend to present at the penalty
hearings to escape the death penalty, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled.
The court rejected the arguments of William Keck and Julius Bradford that prior
disclosure of the mitigating evidence before the end of the guilt trial
violates their right to self-incrimination.
Keck allegedly sawed a hole in the front door of the home of his estranged wife
Angelique Keck and sprayed the room with gunfire. He killed Jonathan Lestelle,
the boyfriend of Angelique, and the 18-week fetus of Angelique Keck.
Angelique Keck survived.
Bradford is awaiting trial in the fatal shooting in 2003 of Anthony Limongello,
whose body was found in a Strip Dumpster.
At the time, Bradford was being tried for the robbery-murder of Benito
Zambrano-Lopez, for which he was convicted.
Prior to trial, Keck filed a motion to compel the prosecution to disclose
exculpatory evidence. The state then filed a request for the evidence of the
defendant prior to the trial.
District Judge Douglas Herndon granted the motions. Keck complained he did not
know whom he would call at the penalty hearing until after the guilt phase of
the trial is completed.
The court said that "when a defendant receives notice of the state's intent to
seek the death penalty as well as the intended notice of aggravation, the
evidence and testimony it considers necessary to introduce is also not
necessarily uncertain."
The Supreme Court also upheld Judge Herndon's decision in the Bradford case in
a similar decision.
(source: Las Vegas Sun)
OKLAHOMA:
Okla. killing suspect's mental health debated
Experts disagreed Monday on whether an Oklahoma man charged with killing his
girlfriend and her 4 young children is mentally disabled, a condition that
would prevent prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against him if proven.
A professor of special education and a forensic psychologist took the stand at
a pre-trial hearing for Joshua Steven Durcho, who faces 5 counts of 1st-degree
murder in the 2009 deaths at the family's El Reno apartment. Testimony focused
on the mental capacity of the 29-year-old Durcho.
The hearing, which resumes Wednesday, will determine whether prosecutors can
seek the death penalty. Oklahoma law bars death sentences if a defendant meets
the state definition of mental retardation, which includes an IQ of 70 or below
and "significant limitations in adaptive functioning," the real-life skills
people need to live independently and function safely and appropriately.
Defense witness Dr. Denis Keyes, a special education professor at the College
of Charleston in Charleston, S.C., testified that Durcho was administered IQ
tests in 2009 and 2010 and scored 72 on each. However, Keyes said that when the
standard error of measurement of between 2 and 4 points is factored in, it
could push Durcho's IQ below the 70 threshold in Oklahoma law.
"It is a very close call," Keyes said.
He said Durcho's school records indicate he consistently had difficulties as a
student and dropped out of school at age 15. The professor said Durcho does not
make good choices for his own safety and care and has admitted involvement in
drugs from a young age.
"He has problems in all areas," Keyes said. "He has significant deficits in
several areas of adaptive skills. Joshua Durcho has mental retardation."
But testimony from Dr. Shawn Roberson, a forensic psychologist with the
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, contradicted
Keyes' statements. Roberson said all the evidence he reviewed indicates
Durcho's IQ is above the legal threshold for mental retardation.
Roberson said Durcho has been administered four IQ tests since he was 11 years
old. In addition to the 2 in which he scored 72, he scored 75 on a test
administered when he was 11 and received a 78 on one administered when he was
almost 14.
"He's functioning in the low borderline range," Roberson said. "It seems pretty
clear to me."
Roberson said Durcho took special education classes in El Reno schools where
teachers described him as having a learning disability, not mental retardation.
He said he saw no impairment of adaptive behavior in Durcho and expressed
concerns about the way Keyes conducted his examinations of Durcho.
Roberson said the standard error of measurement for the tests administered to
Durcho in 2009 and 2010 is 2.12 points, which could push his IQ to just under
70 or over 74. However, the fact that he scored 72 on each test "lends more
evidence" that is his true IQ, the psychologist said.
Durcho's girlfriend, 25-year-old Summer Rust was found dead in January 2009
along with her 4 children — Kirsten and Autumn Rust, both 7; Teagin Rust, 4;
and Evynn Garas, 3. An autopsy revealed they died of asphyxiation, suffocation
and strangulation.
Durcho, dressed in a checked shirt and dark slacks Monday and shackled at the
wrists and ankles, occasionally spoke to his attorneys during the hearing but
did not react to the testimony.
Jason Garas, the father of Evynn Garas, one of the children killed, said during
a break in testimony that he does not believe Durcho is mentally disabled.
"I think it's a bunch of crap," Garas told reporters. "He can count money. He's
done drugs before."
Garas said he wants Durcho to receive a death sentence for the deaths of his
daughter and the others.
"He took 5 people's lives," Garas said. "He can't get away with it."
(source: Associated Press)
****************
Accused murderer of girlfriend, children fights death penalty
An El Reno man accused of killing his girlfriend and her 4 young kids fights to
avoid the death penalty.
A non-jury trial continued Monday in Canadian County for Joshua Durcho.
Durcho faces 5 counts of murder for the killings in early 2009.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case, but Oklahoma law
prohibits the death sentence from being imposed for mentally retarded suspects.
2 separate tests reported Durcho’s IQ to be 72, above the state standard for
mental retardation of 70.
Still, the defense argues that Durcho’s score falls within a margin for error
of the state guidelines.
The father of one of the victims hopes prosecutors are allowed to seek the
death penalty.
“I prefer the death penalty but if they do decide he’s mentally retarded, I’m
willing to deal with him getting a life sentence or whatever. I prefer the
death penalty,” Jason Garas said.
So far, the judge has not decided on Durcho’s mental status.
Durcho is still scheduled to go to trial on the murder charges in September.
(source: KFOR News)
CALIFORNIA----new death sentence
Earl Ellis Green sentenced to death
Earl Ellis Green was sentenced to death Monday June 25 for the 2010 murder of
Riverside Police officer Ryan Bonaminio, a slaying the sentencing judge called
“cold, callous, brutal, and particularly cruel.”
Riverside County Superior Court Judge Jean P. Leonard ordered Green, a
46-year-old parolee, to Death Row in San Quentin State Prison. The appeal to
his sentence is automatic.
Green, shackled and dressed in a red jail uniform, did not speak during the
hearing in front of a courtroom packed with Riverside police officers, at least
one juror from his trial, and the Bonaminio family.
3 family members, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, and 4 friends of the
slain officer made victim impact statements.
The officer’s mother, Gerri Bonaminio, recounted seeing the flag-draped body of
her son on a hospital table the night of his Nov. 7, 2010 slaying. A towel
covered his head wounds.
(source: Press-Enterprise)
USA:
US Supreme Court: Positive Youth Sentencing Ruling ---- Recognizes Juveniles’
Different Status; Bans Mandatory Life Without Parole
The Supreme Court decision on June 25, 2012, barring the mandatory sentencing
of juvenile offenders to life without parole recognizes children’s capacity for
change, Human Rights Watch said today. It also recognizes their distinct status
from adults under international human rights and constitutional law, Human
Rights Watch said.
The court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs brings the United
States closer to being in line with the rest of the world. No other country
sentences people to life without parole for offenses they committed before the
age of 18, even for homicide offenses. The ruling makes any mandatory sentence
of juvenile life without parole unconstitutional and recognizes that in other
cases in which life without parole may still be an option, judges should take
into account the differences between children and adults.
“With this landmark ruling, the United States is no longer an egregious outlier
among nations in requiring judges to put kids in prison until they die there,”
said Alison Parker, US program director at Human Rights Watch. “The court did
not go far enough, still allowing the sentence in rare cases, but it recognized
that it is nearly impossible to be certain that any child is beyond redemption
– and that the US criminal justice system needs to change to reflect this
fact.”
Human Rights Watch estimates that over 2,500 people are serving life without
parole for crimes they committed while a juvenile, in 38 states and federal
prisons.The ruling should affect all cases in which courts did not take a
youth’s age and status into account when sentencing – including cases in 29
states with mandatory sentencing schemes. In such cases, youth offenders should
receive new sentences allowing for regular and periodic review of their
eligibility for parole, and state legislatures should act to ensure that all
youth offenders have access to such reviews, Human Rights Watch said.
Since 2004, through numerous interviews and in-depth data analysis, Human
Rights Watch has been investigating the situation and conditions of confinement
of youth sentenced to life without parole throughout the United States, and in
particular states such as California and Colorado.
This research has found that there are stark racial disparities in the
imposition of the sentence, with black youth serving life without parole at a
per capita rate that is 10 times the rate of white youth.
Human Rights Watch also estimates that 59 % of the youth serving life without
parole in the United States received this sentence for their very 1st offense –
they had no juvenile or adult criminal record prior to the offense that
resulted in their life sentence.
Moreover, often youth sentenced to life without parole were not the primary
actors in the crime: they did not pull the trigger or physically commit the
homicide. A significant number of these cases involved an attempted crime gone
awry – a botched robbery attempt, for example – rather than a murder planned by
the youth in advance.
“Racial disparities and the excessive nature of the sentence in light of many
youths’ criminal histories are important reasons to question its fairness,”
Parker said. “But the sentence is inappropriate in every case – mandatory or
not – because both constitutional and international human rights law recognize
that children must be treated differently from adults.”
Oversight and enforcement bodies for 2 treaties that bind the US as a party –
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – have
found that the practice is a clear violation of US treaty obligations.
This international consensus is reflected in the US Supreme Court’s previous
rulings in Roper v. Simmons – which found unconstitutional the imposition of
capital punishment on juvenile offenders, and Graham v. Florida – which held
that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole for
non-homicide offenses. The court has recognized, and has affirmed in its
decision on June 25, that the differences between juveniles and adults make
suspect any conclusion that a juvenile offender can be judged beyond
rehabilitation at such a young age, Human Rights Watch said. After the Supreme
Court’s decision, there is no longer any doubt that the US Constitution, like
international human rights law, draws a clear line between juveniles and adults
when it comes to matters of crime and punishment.
“The Court has recognized today what every parent knows – kids are different
and are capable of tremendous growth and transformation,” Parker said. “Now, it
is up to judges and state legislators to ensure that every child offender has a
meaningful chance to work toward rehabilitation, to periodically demonstrate
their achievements, and, if merited, to earn their release from prison.”
(source: Human Rights Watch)
*****************
Victory: No More Mandatory Life Sentences For Children In US
It’s not a total ban on juvenile life without parole, but at least now courts
considering the crimes of juvenile offenders will have options other than a
mandated life without parole sentence. So it’s a welcome step forward.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that laws mandating life without parole
for juvenile offenders, with no other options, are unconstitutionally “cruel
and unusual punishment”. In other words, to be constitutional, a juvenile life
without parole scheme needs to have other, lesser, alternatives, so that courts
will have the flexibility to consider mitigating factors that are invariably
part of a young offender’s background.
While this ruling still allows for the possibility that those under 18 years of
age at the time of the crime could be sentenced to life without parole, it is a
step in the right direction.
According the Justice Roberts’ dissent, there are over 2,000 juvenile offenders
currently serving life without parole who were sentenced under a mandatory
scheme (see our infographic). This represents about 80% of the child offenders
serving life without parole.
But the U.S. should not be locking up children for life at all.
The United States stands virtually alone in the world in imposing such
sentences, which amount to locking a young person up and throwing the key away
for life. This is a clear violation of international human rights law. The UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child expressly prohibits life imprisonment
without the possibility of release committed by people under 18 years old. All
countries except the USA and Somalia have ratified the Convention.
So maybe now is a good time for state legislatures to go ahead and bring the
U.S. into line with international law and get rid of juvenile life without
parole once and for all.
(source: Brian Evans, AIUSA blog)
*******************
Supreme Court Rules Against Mandatory Life Without Parole for Children
A message for Alabama, Arkansas, and the entire United States: a sentencing
scheme of mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole for
juvenile homicide offenders (JLWOP) is cruel and unusual punishment. That’s
what the Supreme Court said today when it ruled in Miller v. Alabama and
Jackson v. Hobbs that such sentencing schemes violate the Eight Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
In these cases, the Court extended its reasoning in Graham v. Florida, in which
it previously ruled against JLWOP in non-homicide cases, to children convicted
of homicide. The decision does not mean that a child can never be sentenced to
life without parole, although the Court strongly suggested that such sentences
should be rare. It simply means that the sentencing judge must have the
opportunity to consider age and circumstance when handing down a punishment.
Evan Miller was 14-years-old when he and an older boy used drugs and alcohol
given to them by a middle-aged man; then, while intoxicated, they got into a
fight with the man and hit him with a baseball bat. They left his trailer on
fire, where the man died of smoke inhalation. Evan was charged as an adult,
convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to spend the rest of his natural
life in prison for intentional murder. The court did not consider his age or
the abuse and neglect he suffered throughout his life, which had led him to
attempt suicide the 1st time at age 7.
Kuntrell Jackson was barely 14 when he accompanied other teens on a spontaneous
robbery of a video store; Kuntrell stayed outside for most of the robbery but
after he entered the store one of his co-conspirators shot the store clerk. For
being there, Kuntrell was charged as an adult and sentenced to mandatory life
in prison without parole for an unintentional killing where he was not the
actual killer. The boy’s youth was not taken into account in sentencing.
Legally, these boys couldn’t vote, they couldn’t marry, they couldn’t join the
military, they couldn’t drink, they couldn’t drive – but they broke the law and
their state threw the book, the shelf, the whole library at them, and then
buried them under it.
Absolutely, their crimes were horrible – lives were lost – and should be
punished. But sentencing them to spend the rest of their lives in prison
without the possibility of parole ignores the huge capacity of kids for
rehabilitation, and our responsibility as a society to give them the chance to
become productive members of society. They are not to be thrown away.
Today the Supreme Court made the right decision in holding that the mandatory
sentencing of a child to die in prison, without first considering the
circumstances of the crime, is not consistent with our Constitution.
The criminal justice system should, at least, protect the children ensnared in
it. There are lessons they need to learn and progress they can still make.
Automatically sentencing them to life without parole does not advance our
society, or the kids. Today, the Supreme Court got it right. Now the real work
lies ahead for us to prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place.
(source: ACLU)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
