Sept. 23
OHIO:
Death penalty trials are more complicated
Prosecutor on death penalty: Muskingum County Prosecutor Michael Haddox talks
about his beliefs on the death penalty and what makes those cases different.
Death specifications only can be added if:
-- The victim is the president of the United States, a governor or a candidate
for either office.
-- The suspect was hired.
-- The crime was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension
or punishment for another offense committed.
-- The offense was committed under detention or while at-large after reaching
detention.
-- 2 or more people have been killed.
-- A law enforcement officer is killed while engaged in official duties.
-- The offense was committed while the offender was committing kidnapping,
rape, aggravated arson, aggravated robbery or aggravated burglary.
-- The victim is a witness to an offense and is killed to prevent him or her
from testifying.
-- The victim is 13 years of age or younger.
-- The offense is committed while the offender is committing or attempting to
commit an act of terrorism. [source: Muskingum County Prosecutor Michael
Haddox]
Death penalty trials are not uncommon in Muskingum County, but they do involve
more legal maneuvering and are time-consuming for attorneys on both sides.
3 Canton residents are facing the death penalty after being indicted by a
Muskingum County grand jury earlier this month.
Katrina Culberson, 20, LaFonse Dixon, 33, and Monica Washington, 24, have been
charged with aggravated murder in connection with the death of Celeste
Fronsman, also of Canton.
A passing motorist found Fronsman, 29, badly beaten and burned Aug. 29 on Ohio
208. She died of her injuries 2 days later at Wexner Medical Center at Ohio
State University in Columbus.
It still is unknown how or why Fronsman was brought to Muskingum County. Law
enforcement officials remain tight-lipped about the case.
All 3 defendants have court-appointed attorneys and are in the Muskingum County
Jail. All have entered not guilty pleas.
There are 28 Muskingum County residents in Ohio prisons for aggravated murder,
murder or attempted murder, although not all were charged with death
specifications.
In Ohio, 144 inmates are on death row -- 143 of whom are men.
Male inmates are housed at the Chilllicothe Correctional Institution, and
executions take place at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.
Female death-row inmates are housed at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in
Marysville.
None of the death row inmates were convicted in Muskingum County.
A trial for any of the 3 Canton suspects could be months away because of the
complications of death penalty cases.
Muskingum County Prosecutor Michael Haddox and Washington's defense attorneys,
Kirk McVay and Rick Ketcham, of Columbus, explained the difficulties and
expectations of death penalty trials.
Decisions and jurors
Haddox said the death penalty is not applicable in all murder cases.
Before charging someone with aggravated murder with a death penalty
specification, a criteria has to be met, Haddox said. For Culberson, Dixon and
Washington, the criteria was met because the crime allegedly was committed
while a kidnapping and aggravated arson also were being committed.
Preparation for a death penalty trial begins the minute the crime is committed,
Haddox said. Law enforcement and the prosecutor's office work diligently to
discover not just who committed the crime but how to take that case before a
jury and reach a successful conclusion -- a conviction.
A trial can be by a jury of 12 or a panel of 3 common pleas judges, Haddox
said. For a panel of judges to be selected in Muskingum County, the Ohio
Supreme Court has to appoint 1 judge because the county only has 2 sitting
judges.
Muskingum County has seen three recent death penalty cases -- Terrell Nowlin,
in 2011, for the murder of Tyler Hardin; and Glenn McCoy, of Coshocton, in
2008. McCoy was convicted of the murder of Donna Weaver at her bike shop in
July 2003. Nowlin and McCoy were found mentally challenged, and the juries in
those cases were not allowed to consider the death penalty.
Tony Gross, 52, was convicted of killing Muskingum County Sheriff's Lt. Michael
Lutz in 1994 at a South Zanesville gas station while Lutz was responding to a
call. Michael Lutz was the father of current Sheriff Matt Lutz.
Gross was sentenced to death on the aggravated murder charge in 1996 and to a
total of 36 to 55 years in prison for 2 counts of aggravated robbery, having a
weapon under disability and a gun specification on the aggravated murder
charge.
The aggravated murder sentence later was thrown out because of an error in
court proceedings during the sentencing phase -- alternate jurors were allowed
to be present during jury deliberations.
Gross was resentenced in 2004 to 30 years to life in prison.
Before a trial, the defense will file a slew of motions -- sometimes more than
100 -- indicative to a death penalty case, including motions to find the death
penalty a cruel and unusual punishment.
"We have to file those," McVay said. "We go to great lengths to preserve all
issues that may come up during the trial and in the future."
Each motion has to be answered by the prosecution and given consideration by
the judge, Haddox said, which can make the time from an indictment to a trial
or plea longer than most cases.
"It's a matter of procedure," McVay said.
Picking a jury also can take days if not weeks because the trial is bifurcated,
consisting of 2 phases, Haddox said.
"There are 2 different phases of the trial," Haddox explained. "There is the
1st phase, the trial phase, where the jury finds the defendant guilty or not
guilty. Then we move to the 2nd phase if the defendant is found guilty, the
penalty phase."
Jurors are not only questioned by the prosecution and defense on a variety of
topics, but during jury selection in a death penalty trial, they are also
questioned individually with the attorneys, specifically about their views on
the death penalty.
"If a juror says there is no chance they would be able to sentence a defendant
to death, they can't be on the jury," Haddox said.
McVay said that as a defense attorney, he would like to see 2 juries seated for
a death penalty trial.
"Defense attorneys feel the deck is a little stacked against them when jurors
already are prepared to hand down a death sentence," McVay said. "We will also
not put a juror on that says they believe in taking a life for a life."
Potential jurors also will be extensively questioned about any publicity they
have heard or seen regarding the case.
"The facts of the case must be considered from what they hear during the trial
only," Haddox said.
McVay and Ketcham agreed, saying too much information broadcast by the media
"hurts us more than helps."
"If someone has heard about the things a client of mine is accused of, then
they get a stereotype in their minds," Ketcham said. "A juror will come into
court with a preconceived idea, which they can find difficult to make a fair
decision."
All 12 jurors have to agree on a guilty verdict, as they do a penalty.
Haddox said if even 1 juror decides not to vote for the death penalty during
the 2nd phase of the trial, jurors can then start considering down the other
options -- life without parole, life with no parole for 30 years, life with no
parole for 25 years and life with no parole for 20 years.
"But they have to make some decision," Haddox said.
Plea agreements can be reached in a death penalty case, Haddox said, but not
without allowing the victim's family to voice their opinions and wishes.
"We don't let families make our decisions for us, but we do give a lot of
weight to how they feel," Haddox said. "There are times we've had to take the
death penalty off the table for a defendant to get a conviction of a
co-defendant. It can secure the testimony of one person. Reaching a plea also
has a lot to do with the evidence we have. In some cases, evidence is stronger
regarding one person than a co-defendant."
Haddox added reaching a plea with a defendant also takes into consideration the
charges and how heinous the crime.
"Taking a case to a jury is always a risk," he said. "We find that justice is
served better if a defendant is convicted and sentenced than being found
innocent."
Dealing with death penalty trial
All 3 attorneys agreed a death penalty trial is taxing emotionally, physically
and mentally.
"It's the most severe penalty in our criminal justice system," Haddox said. "As
a prosecutor, I'm sworn to uphold the law without a personal opinion or agenda.
I'm a proponent of the death penalty."
Haddox said he spends weeks, if not months, preparing for a death penalty
trial.
"It's taxing on you," he said. "It's about all you think about for that period
of time."
McVay and Ketcham agreed.
"You can lose a lot of sleep with this type of trial," Ketcham said. "You have
to put other cases by the wayside or let another attorney handle them for you.
It's mentally consuming. And once you're in trial, that's all you think about.
You even think about it in your sleep."
McVay and Ketcham, who have been defending clients against death penalty
charges together since 1995, said the "stakes are at the highest."
While Haddox keeps the victim's family's feelings up front, McVay and Ketcham
say they also keep the defendant's family close.
"We keep family members very involved," Ketcham said. "While we sympathize with
the victim's family and know what an emotional roller coaster they are on, we
also have to remember that the defendant has those that love them, too."
McVay said he has never viewed a defendant as "pure evil."
"It's never that black and white, never that stark," he said. "We believe that
there is some redeeming social quality to people, no matter what they've done.
As a general rule, we treat them with respect and we treat the victim's family
the same."
McVay said he and Ketcham have a job to do -- to make sure the jury knows that
the defendant has some value to society and to protect that life.
"A person who is not evil can do an evil thing," Ketcham said.
McVay agreed and said anybody can be pushed to take a life in the right
circumstance.
"Many people who have killed someone never in a million years thought they
would do that," McVay said. "And when they're doing the act, they're not
thinking about the consequences or punishment. This life has value. Should they
be punished? Yes. But you can take away a person's life without taking their
life."
Death: Punishment or revenge?
Haddox believes a death sentence is punishment, a deterrent and justice.
"It rids society of that individual and any other crimes they may commit," he
said. "I think it also is a bit of the Old Testament where it's an eye for an
eye."
McVay and Ketcham disagree.
"We believe everyone has a redeeming quality," McVay said. "But sometimes we
have to think that there but for the grace of God go I. I don't believe people
are inherently evil."
(source: Zanesville Times Recorder)
MONTANA:
Gazette state poll: Voters say keep death penalty, relax environmental
regulations
A solid majority of Montanans oppose repealing the state's death penalty...a
Gazette state oll shows.
The Gazette State Bureau hired Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington,
D.C., to poll 625 registered Montana voters who said they are likely to vote in
the upcoming general election.
The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The poll surveyed Montanans on how they planned to vote on key races in the
Nov. 6 election, but also asked their opinion on several key issues facing the
state.
The results included:
-- Death penalty: By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Montanans surveyed opposed
repealing the state's death penalty for certain crimes, as 57 % opposed
repealing the penalty and 30 % supported repeal. 13 % were undecided.
The Montana Legislature, in recent sessions, has rejected bills that would
repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without parole.
Montana has only 2 convicted murderers on death row.
In 3 of the 4 questions, the responses of men and women who were polled greatly
differed.
Those who identified themselves as Democrats and Republicans also differed
dramatically in their responses, while those who said they are independents
generally reflected the overall result of the poll on each question.
50 % of Democrats polled supported repealing the death penalty, while only 12 %
of Republicans did.
Democrats opposed relaxing environmental regulations by a more than 2-to-1
margin, while Republicans favored weaker regulations by more than a 3-to-1
margin.
(source: Billings Gazette)
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Isn't it time to end state's power to kill?
On the anniversary of Troy Anthony Davis' execution, we ask ourselves how the
state of Georgia could have taken the life of this man despite widespread doubt
he was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.
His case portrayed a harsh reality of a criminal justice system in which the
government has the option of taking a life.
1 year since his execution, news about his case is still buzzing across the
nation. One year ago, supporters from all over the country rallied behind
Davis, his family and team of lawyers in an effort to convince the Supreme
Court to grant him clemency.
"The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained
inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. All but 2 of the state's
nonpolice witnesses from the trial recanted or contradicted their testimony,"
Amnesty International said.
The denial for clemency, and subsequently Troy's execution, emphasized the
complexities of the criminal justice system and, moreover, the risk of killing
an innocent man.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports 140 men and women have been
exonerated since 1973, the last case added in January. Organizations such as
Witness to Innocence and the Innocence Project exist to see that innocent men
and women do not pay the ultimate price for crimes they did not commit.
If 140 death row inmates have been exonerated in the last 39 years, how many
other innocent men and women sat on death row and were unjustly murdered by
their state?
In addition, 1 innocent person on death row means the real killer is free to
roam the streets and threaten the safety of our families. The death penalty
ensures that no one wins.
Whether a death row inmate is guilty or innocent, life in prison without the
possibility of parole is the best way to eliminate the risk of killing an
innocent person.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole is an option in New Hampshire.
The state also has the option to eliminate wasteful spending and offer
resources that may assist family members of murder victims.
Arnie Alpert, executive director of the American Friends Service Committee,
stated: "New Hampshire has not executed anyone since 1939. We can protect
public safety, make wise use of our public funds, and lift up the value of life
and justice without a death penalty. We should do this now, before New
Hampshire has its own Troy Davis."
The state is made up of people who are subject to human error. When a person's
life is on the line, 1 mistake is too many.
(source: Guest Commentary; Selina Taylor is a community organizer for New
Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty----Nashua Telegraph)
USA:
1 Year After Troy Davis, More Injustice On Death Row
September 21 marked the one-year anniversary of the death of Troy Davis. Davis
was executed by the state of Georgia for a crime he probably did not commit.
Davis's original trial was flawed, and there was no physical evidence linking
him to the crime. His conviction was based solely on questionable testimony by
witnesses, most of whom later recanted or contradicted their stories. Everyone
from Jimmy Carter to the Pope had issued calls for clemency in his case. But
the authorities killed him anyway.
Now Missouri is pursuing a very similar case, with death row inmate Reggie
Clemons. As with the Davis case, there is no physical evidence linking Clemons
to the crime for which he was convicted, and his conviction was based solely on
witness testimony. One witness had been a former suspect in the case. In other
words, here too there appears to be reasonable doubt as to the defendant's
guilt.
This past week, Clemons was given an evidentiary hearing to review evidence of
prosecutorial misconduct and police brutality in the case. One bombshell is an
allegation that the star prosecution witness in the case had received a payment
of $150,000 to settle a dispute with police over physical abuse. Clemons
alleges that the police had abused him as well. If they can't get a confession
by humane means, I guess they feel they have to beat it out of you. And that
kind of "truth" is always suspect at best.
Clemons's hearing will continue to move forward, and anything could happen. But
the prosecution still wants blood, claiming that Clemons previously had his
chance to clear his name. Never mind the fact that he had been represented in
his original trial by an incompetent attorney who failed to mount an adequate
defense.
Meanwhile, in my home state of Pennsylvania, death row inmate Terrance Williams
faces an October 3 execution date. Unlike the Davis and Clemons cases, there is
no doubt that Williams committed the murder for which he was sentenced to die.
However, during the initial trial, the defense failed to mention the fact that
Williams, who was barely 18 years old at the time of the murder, had endured
years of sexual abuse by the man he later killed. In fact, Williams had been
abused by older men since he was 6 years old, and the abuse continued
throughout his adolescence. But the jury never heard about this.
5 of the former jurors in the Williams case are now saying that they would not
have voted for the death penalty if they had known about the sexual abuse.
Furthermore, some said they voted for execution only because they thought the
alternative would be life with the possibility of parole. (In fact, the
alternative would have been life without the possibility of parole.) The
victim's widow has even called for clemency. The defense continues to fight for
a life sentence as the clock keeps on ticking.
But even in cases where guilt is clear and there aren't the kind of mitigating
circumstances such as we see in the Williams case, does it really make sense to
kill a killer in order to show that killing is wrong?
Furthermore, studies have shown that the death penalty is applied in a
discriminatory, arbitrary, and uneven manner, and is used disproportionately
against racial minorities and the poor. That's not justice, it's prejudice.
We as a society should be above that sort of thing.
(source: Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on
politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area
Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty
International; Op-Ed News)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
