Feb. 27
TEXAS:
Decision Day? Murder Trial Jury Spends 3rd Day on Punishment
Is the 3rd day the charm?
Convicted College Station murderer Stanley Robertson, his legal team, his
victim's family, prosecutors and many others are asking that question as 7 men
and 5 women work Wednesday to decide the 45-year-old's punishment.
After spending 4 1/2 hours deliberating Monday, the Brazos County jury entered
their room Tuesday at 8:40 a.m., leaving at 9:00 p.m. the same day without a
consensus on whether Robertson should get life in prison or the death penalty.
They were sequestered for a second night at a local hotel.
Robertson was found guilty on February 7 of the kidnapping and stabbing death
of Annie Toliver, his ex-girlfriend's mother, in August 2010. Robertson told
that ex and authorities he killed Toliver because the ex wasn't there for him,
including after a July 2010 arrest for allegedly putting a knife to the ex's
throat in front of her kids and holding her hostage. Toliver's body was dumped
in Fort Worth, and Robertson ended up intentionally crashing his SUV into a
Fort Worth police officer's car during a chase.
The jury knows that they must unanimously answer three questions in favor of
the State of Texas in order for a death sentence to be handed down. Jurors know
10 or more of them agreeing on any of the questions in favor of the defense
ends the process and results in a life sentence.
What they may not know is that if they are unable to reach those 10- or 12-vote
thresholds, Judge J.D. Langley would have to sentence Robertson to life in
prison by default.
At around 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, the jury sent a note telling the court that they
were "deadlocked" on the 2nd question before them: whether Robertson is
mentally retarded.
That means the dozen decided the first question on their charge, one asking if
Robertson is a future danger. It would be a unanimous "yes", an answer the
group undoubtedly came to Monday night based on requests for testimony from
that night.
Having moved to the 2nd question, the group began asking for testimony from
psychologists and Robertson's wife. They wanted details on bankruptcy filings
and suicide attempts by the defendant. Then, they noted their deadlock.
Despite defense requests to end the process and go with the default life
sentence, Judge Langley said after 15 days of testimony and arguments, 11 hours
wasn't enough time for them to have ruled out reaching a decision. He sent a
note telling them to keep working.
At around 8:30 p.m., the jury hadn't sent another note asking for anything.
Then, a knock came from their jury room door. A note was passed out. They
didn't ask for testimony or evidence, but for either a whiteboard or 2 poster
boards, a sign that they have continued to work despite their deadlock from 6
hours earlier. They were sent to a hotel shortly after, many looking exhausted
and frustrated.
The jury must unanimously believe Robertson is not mentally retarded to
continue to the 3rd and final question on their charge, which asks if there are
mitigating circumstances. If 10 or more jurors say Robertson doesn't have the
mental disorder, the life sentence would be imposed. Via a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling, the mentally retarded cannot be executed in Texas.
(source: KBTX)
****************************************
Falk case awaits hearing date
The next step in the capital murder case of an inmate accused of killing a
correctional officer during a 2007 escape attempt in Huntsville is still up in
the air a month after a district judge declared a mistrial following a lengthy
layoff in the proceedings at the Brazos County Courthouse.
Senior Judge John M. Delaney has been appointed as the new trial judge for John
Ray Falk's case by Judge Olen Underwood, who presides over the Second
Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. District Judge Ken Keeling was recused
from the trial after he declared a mistrial on Jan. 29, saying he believed the
jury could not come up with an impartial verdict because of a 55-day delay
during the trial, which began in November.
Delaney said Tuesday that he has not set a date for the next hearing, but that
he had talked to Walker County District Attorney David Weeks and defense
attorneys Michelle Esparza and Kyle Hawthorne on a conference call.
"I told them that it would probably be about 90 days before we meet back in
court," Delaney said.
Keeling ordered all trial records sealed and since there is a standing gag
order preventing attorneys and court officials from commenting on the case, The
Huntsville Item has not been able to attain any information concerning possible
motions that have been filed since the mistrial.
Falk and Jerry Duane Martin escaped from a work detail at the Wynne Unit in
September 2007. Martin stole a city of Huntsville truck, which he used to hit a
horse correctional officer Susan Canfield was riding while trying to prevent
the escape. She died of head injuries as a result.
Martin is sitting on Texas death row following his capital murder conviction
for the crime in 2009.
The state was seeking the death penalty for Falk under the Texas Law of
Parties. Testimony during the trial showed that Falk exchanged gunfire with
Canfield and was struggling with her for her rifle before the truck struck her
horse.
Falk's trial was delayed on Dec. 4, moments before the jury was to hear closing
arguments, when the prosecution was granted a stay in the proceedings by the
10th Court of Criminal Appeals, while Weeks and special prosecutor Jane Starnes
fought the wording of Keeling's jury instructions. The state felt it furthered
its burden of proof, but the 10th Court ruled in the trial court's favor.
The Court of Criminal Appeals later overruled the 10th Court, which meant Falk
could be charged as equally liable for Canfield's death.
The state's highest court for criminal cases also ordered that the instructions
be altered to take out a section which said the prosecution had to prove that
Falk had to have anticipated the exact "manner and means" that Martin would
kill Canfield.
After the Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling, attorneys tentatively came to an
agreement on amended jury instructions on Jan. 25.
But the following Monday when closing arguments were again scheduled to
commence, Keeling surprised everyone by declaring a mistrial despite the
objection from both the prosecution and defense.
(source: Huntsville Item)
CONNECTICUT:
Witch scare in Connecticut: Accusations, hangings and acquittals
When most people think of witch trials and hangings in Colonial America, they
focus on Salem, Mass. But the 1st hanging for witchcraft in the newly settled
world was in Connecticut in 1647, according to Richard G. Tomlinson, author of
the book "Witchcraft Prosecution: Chasing the Devil in Connecticut."
From that year to 1663 in Connecticut, 21 people were accused of being witches
and 11 were hanged - 9 women and 2 men.
The Salem witchcraft scare didn't happen until 1692.
Tomlinson, during a recent talk at a local library, described Salem as "an
anomaly" that "kind of distorts the whole picture of what witchcraft trials in
New England were all about."
In Salem, many accused witches were put to death in a short period of time. In
Connecticut, the witchcraft hysteria was drawn out over a number of decades,
lasting from the 1640s to the early 1700s, Tomlinson said.
Fear peaked in the early 1660s
The fear in Connecticut reached a peak in the early 1660s with the "Hartford
Witch Panic," and the last execution for witchcraft in Connecticut was in 1663.
Other major witch cases involved suspects from Fairfield and Wethersfield.
Tomlinson said while it now may seem easy to be judgmental about those who
accused others of being witches, "put yourself in the frame of mind of these
people. They were very, very human."
According to publicity material for Tomlinson's book, modern views of
witchcraft prosecutions in colonial New England have been shaped by
stereotypes. "The reality is more complex and much more interesting," states
the publicity material. "Humanity, credulity, courage, stupidity, virtuosity,
viciousness, wit and intelligence are all on display."
The retired United Technologies Corp. research scientist is a director and
founding member of the Connecticut Society of Genealogists.
Witchcraft law
In 1642, the Connecticut colony established 12 crimes that could lead to the
death penalty. Witchcraft was one of them. The witchcraft law was gone from
Connecticut statutes by the mid-1700s.
Tomlinson said people at the time were afraid a witch could harm them and that
witches were scheming with the devil against Christianity.
Many accusations would begin with quarrels between people, with one side then
accusing the other side of being a witch. Young women would sometimes accuse
adult women of being witches and causing them harm.
Grounds for suspicion
Some of the grounds for suspicion included having unusual body marks (???witch
marks??? were believed to have been made by the devil); causing mischief upon
someone after a quarrel; having an offspring, servant or friend who was a
convicted witch; and the testimony of a convicted witch.
People were convicted based on voluntary confessions, or the testimony by two
witnesses that the accused had done acts "above the course of nature."
Tomlinson said some of those who gave confessions suffered from mental illness
and "were clearly insane." Many of the confessions were secured by ministers or
groups of women.
The water test
One of the primary ways to determine if someone was a witch was the so-called
water test. This meant putting a person in water and seeing if they would
float.
The test was controversial and not accepted by courts as evidence for
conviction, but the general public believed it was an accurate means for
determining suspicion, Tomlinson said.
Some of those accused would ask to undergo the water test. He said some accused
women would float on water because of the airy dresses they wore.
Hartford Witch Panic
Some of the major witchcraft trials in Connecticut were the Hartford Witch
Panic in 1662 and 1663, Katherine Harrison of Wethersfield in 1668, and Mercy
(Holbridge) Disbrow in Fairfield in 1692.
The Hartford Panic began when a group of young girls claimed they were being
tormented. An ill 8-year-old died after saying a woman was choking her. Due to
suspicions, the girl's body was subject to what may have been the 1st autopsy
in Connecticut, according to Tomlinson. Examiners found the young girl's body
was not normal.
A husband and wife and another woman were all hanged together for being witches
in January 1663 in Hartford. Those involved in the case claimed a small group
"had meetings in the woods where they danced and drank," and "a red thing" (the
devil) would follow them, Tomlinson said.
Wethersfield trial of unpopular neighbor
In the Wethersfield case, neighbors didn't like widow Katherine Harrison and
claimed she was destroying their crops and maiming their livestock.
Harrison, a farmer who Tomlinson said had "a sharp tongue," was tried and
convicted in 1668. But the verdict was overturned by a gubernatorial review
panel of ministers, and Harrison was freed and moved to New York state.
This was followed by mostly acquittals in future witchcraft trials in
Connecticut.
Tomlinson refers to Harrison as "the courageous widow."
The case in Fairfield
The Fairfield witch frenzy happened around the same time as those in Salem,
when a young woman claimed she was having fits due to the actions of 2 women.
The 2 women then failed the water test, and their bodies were inspected for
witch marks.
1 of the 2 women - Mercy (Holbridge) Disbrow - was eventually convicted and
sentenced to hang, but a panel of ministers overturned her conviction.
Tomlinson said the ministers concluded the water test had no legal standing,
witch marks should require "an able physician's opinion," the accuser was
suspected of faking her claims, and "accidents and illnesses after a quarrel
are thin grounds" for proving witchcraft.
Important historical document
The written reprieve of Mercy Disbrow in the 1690s is an important historical
document that emphasized the need for "due process" for individuals accused of
witchcraft, Tomlinson said.
"That was very forward thinking," he said. "To me, it was astonishing."
The author's background
Tomlinson became interested in the state's witch history because an ancestor,
Lydia Gilbert, was hanged in 1654 for being a witch. He previously published
another book on the subject, "Witchcraft Trials of Connecticut."
He said the history of witchcraft trials in Connecticut is "poorly understood."
Tomlinson is a director and founding member of the Connecticut Society of
Genealogists. He is a retired research scientist at United Technologies Corp.
Some of Tomlinson's family members were involved in the settlement of Derby. He
now lives in the greater Hartford region.
The Wyllys papers
An important course of information for Tomlinson has been the legal papers of
Samuel Wyllys, a Hartford judge in the late 1600s when witchcraft trials were
taking place. He described Wyllys, the son of a governor, as "a liberal
thinker."
There have been recent efforts to offer pardons to those convicted of being
witches in the 1600s, Tomlinson said, with legislative hearings held on the
issue at the state Capitol.
(source: Shelton Herald)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Jury selection begins in pregnant Pa. woman's slaying
Jury selection has begun in the death penalty trial of a man charged in the
shooting death of his pregnant girlfriend a year and a half ago.
The (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era (http://bit.ly/15L9K47
) says testimony is scheduled to begin March 4 in Lancaster County Court.
23-year-old Matthew Becker is charged with two counts of homicide in the August
2011 deaths of 21-year-old Allison Walsh and her unborn daughter.
Authorities allege that Becker shot Walsh, who was more than seven months
pregnant, after an argument at his Mastersonville home near Lancaster.
Becker's attorneys argue that he fired accidentally while checking out a gun he
had just purchased.
The judge rejected a defense motion to exclude Becker???s statements to police
but has barred evidence that was seized from his computer.
(source: Associated Press)
****************************
Convicted Greensburg killer's intelligence could determine penalty
A Westmoreland County jury heard conflicting testimony Tuesday about the
intelligence level of Ricky Smyrnes.
Scores on IQ tests might determine whether Smyrnes will get the death penalty
or be sentenced in life or prison.
District Attorney John Peck is seeking capital punishment for Smyrnes, 26, in
the February 2010 torture murder of Jennifer Daugherty, 30, a mentally
challenged woman from Mt. Pleasant. Peck contends Smyrnes was the catalyst who
incited his 5 roommates in a Greensburg apartment to torture Daugherty for more
that 2 days before she was fatally stabbed in the heart.
Dr. Bruce Wright, the chairman of the psychology department at St. Clair
Hospital in Mount Lebanon, testified that Smyrnes' IQ scores, recorded before
his 18th birthday, indicate he did not qualify as mentally retarded.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mentally retarded defendants cannot be
put to death.
"His claim that he was mentally retarded first appeared after he was
incarcerated for this event," Wright told jurors.
Wright testified that Smyrnes' IQ scores of 82, 81 and 75, which were all
recorded before his 18th birthday, refutes defense claims that Smyrnes is
mentally retarded.
Wright said mental health evaluations of Smyrnes, conducted when he was between
the ages of 4 and 19 at various treatment facilities and schools, never
identified him as mentally retarded.
Wright was called to rebut testimony from a defense expert, Dr. Alice
Applegate, a forensic psychologist with a private practice in Allison Park. She
testified that Smyrnes is "mildly mentally retarded" and suffers from multiple
personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and other mental
illnesses.
She testified Tuesday morning that Smyrnes' IQ tests, taken after he was 18,
are a more valid measure of his abilities. Smyrnes scored as low as 60 on an IQ
test last year, according to Applegate.
Wright will return to the witness stand this afternoon in the penalty trial
before Judge Rita Hathaway. The jury is the same panel that earlier this month
convicted Smyrnes of 1st-degree murder and kidnapping for Daugherty's slaying.
(source: WPXI News)
USA:
Supreme Court takes up question of arrestee DNA sampling
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its
most important criminal procedure case in decades: whether to let police take
DNA from those arrested, but not convicted, in hopes of using it to solve old
cases.
Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic
information from people who have only been arrested but not yet convicted of a
crime without getting a judge's approval first, or if the government's interest
in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under
police suspicion of other crimes.
One justice seemed to make clear what he thought, with Justice Samuel Alito, a
former prosecutor calling the arguments the court's "most important criminal
procedure case" in decades.
Alito compared DNA swabbing to fingerprinting, saying police can use the
genetic information of suspects in the same way they do the inked impression of
suspects' fingers - to identify the person and match that person to older
crimes that haven't yet been solved. "Why isn't this fingerprinting of the 21st
century?" he said.
Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal
government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal
and state databanks, with the court's blessing. But now 28 states and the
federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for
various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.
In Ventura County, the capital murder case against Joshua Packer could be
affected if the Supreme Court rules in favor of DNA swab restrictions, said
Benjamin Ladinig, a Santa Barbara County deputy district attorney. That's
because the DNA linking Packer to the murder case was taken after he was
arrested for the armed robbery of a Santa Barbara gasoline station. He was
charged with a felony in the robbery case but has not yet been convicted,
according to Ladinig.
"His case is still pending," said Ladinig.
Packer, 23, of Ventura is accused of fatally stabbing Brock and Davina Husted
and her fetus on May 20, 2009, at the couple's Faria Beach house north of
Ventura. Packer has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors are seeking the death
penalty, and the trial is tentatively set for April.
Packer is accused of robbing the gas station in September 2009. A swab for DNA
was obtained from Packer by Santa Barbara sheriff's deputies as part of the
jail's routine booking process, authorities stated. The DNA evidence was sent
to a state DNA database and was key to making an arrest in the Husted case,
authorities have said.
After the murder case is resolved, Ladinig said, the Santa Barbara County
District Attorney's Office will revisit the robbery and other felony charges
against him in that county.
According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System or CODIS - a
coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles -
contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million arrestee
profiles.
In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no
one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged
with felony 2nd-degree assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed
DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King's DNA
which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape
and sentenced to life in prison.
King eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault, a crime
for which Maryland cannot take DNA samples. The state courts said it violated
King's rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone.
The state Court of Appeals said King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable
expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches." The
Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.
King's lawyer, Kannon K. Shanmugam, said governments are using the "Just Trust
Us" defense by saying that they will only use the information provided in DNA
swabs for identification and cold-case matching, and that people who have not
been convicted of a crime deserve the ability to keep their genetic information
private. But Chief Justice John Roberts noted that people leave behind DNA
behind all the time.
"You disclose all of this intimate private information when you take a drink of
water" at a police station, Roberts noted.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote on the court, compared the DNA
swab to police patting a person down after an arrest, something they don't need
a warrant to do. "Does the justice system have an interest in knowing whether
the person committed other crimes," he asked Shanmugam several times.
The final decision may not fall along the usual ideological lines.
Justice Antonin Scalia cut off Maryland Chief Deputy Attorney General Katherine
Winfree when she started listing the number of cases DNA testing helped the
state solve. Unreasonable searches and seizures would also help solve cases,
said Scalia, usually a reliable conservative vote.
"That proves absolutely nothing," he said. Scalia noted later that "the Fourth
Amendment sometimes stands in the way" of crime solving.
On the other side, the usually liberal voting Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to
think that DNA cheek swabs were no more intrusive than fingerprinting. "It's
hard to say it's more," he said at one point.
Winfree also argued that technology will soon give the police the ability to
get results back from DNA swabs within minutes, instead of the days it takes
now, just like fingerprints. But "how can I base a decision today on what you
say is going to happen in 2 years?" Roberts said.
The justices will make a decision later this year.
(source: Associated Press)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Q&A with exonerated prisoner Bill Dillon
After spending 27 years in a Florida prison for a murder he didn't commit, Bill
Dillon was exonerated by DNA evidence and cleared of all charges.
Now, he travels the country speaking out against the death penalty. He will
speak at UNC today as part of the series "Innocence, Racial Justice and the End
of the Death Penalty in N.C.," hosted by UNC's Center for Civil Rights.
Staff writer Emily Byrd sat down with Dillon to discuss his time in prison and
life since his release.
Daily Tar Heel: In 2008, you were released from prison after being wrongly
convicted. How did they break the news, and what did that feel like?
Bill Dillon: It was incredible. They didn't actually tell me I was exonerated,
they just told me they were releasing me. Being released was something beyond
belief after all those years.
DTH: So if you weren't initially exonerated, were you left in a limbo state
between guilt and innocence from a legal standpoint?
BD: No, it started out initially that they were going to retry me. Then, 11
days later, they just dropped everything and said they weren't going to.
DTH: What was the most difficult part of readjusting after your release?
BD: Just life itself - technology, everything. It was amazing. It was a whole
other level. You've got to remember, I went in there in 1981. It was cassette
tapes and VCRs and no computers.
DTH: How did you start reacquainting yourself with all of the new technology?
BD: I dove into it with a passion. I felt like it was supposed to be mine
anyways. I'm pretty much a geek myself now - it's just taken me a few years -
but I'm getting there, that's for sure.
DTH: So you spent 27 years in prison: Has your experience made you lose faith
in the U.S. justice system?
BD: I was in prison for 27 1/2 years, actually. But initially it didn't. I
thought that my appeals would work and eventually they would find out that I
wasn't the person that had committed the crime.
When I filed for DNA motion, I figured there wouldn't be any response. I
figured I was just washed away. But I had to make that last-ditch effort.
I'm a firm believer in law enforcement - I know there was many of them in
(prison) that needed to be in the place they were in.
DTH: What are you hoping to do by sharing your story?
BD: I really am going to try to talk with people about the death penalty,
because I received an apology from (Florida) Gov. Rick Scott, and the day
before I was going to meet him, I thought about what I was going to say to him.
And when I went to see him and finally grabbed his hand I said, "Governor,
you're the most powerful man I've ever spoke to in my life. And I just want to
say this to you: I'm just glad they didn't give me the death penalty. Because
if I had, I would have been executed long years ago."
My whole point that I'm trying to get across is about the death penalty and the
reason why there shouldn't be the death penalty.
I didn't get the death penalty, but if I would have, I would've been deceased
and no one would have known the real story.
(source: The Daily Tarheel)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
