Feb. 27
OREGON:
Oregon death penalty 'indefensible,' says man who last carried it out
The man who oversaw Oregon's last 2 executions at the Oregon State Penitentiary
said the death penalty fails to deter crime, does not make the public any safer
and forces prison officials into an untenable position.
"Asking decent men and women to participate in the name of a failed public
policy that takes human life is indefensible and rises to a level of
immorality," said Frank Thompson, who was superintendent of the penitentiary
from 1994 to 1998.
Thompson was one of more than a dozen people to testify in front of the House
Judiciary Committee Tuesday. All but one, the widow of an Oregon State Police
trooper who was killed in the 2008 Woodburn bank bombing, urged the committee
to move forward a resolution asking voters to repeal the death penalty and
replace it with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But the bill, sponsored by Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, faces long odds.
"I don't know if it will progress past this point," said Rep. Jeff Barker,
D-Aloha, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. He conceded that he is "not
a big supporter of changing" the law, which allows for capital punishment in
aggravated murder cases.
Bills to alter the death penalty have not made it out of committee in recent
years.
Greenlick made his case to the panel, arguing that the death penalty is not
moral nor equitable. "You don't have many millionaires" on death row, said
Greenlick, noting the prevalence of poor inmates who receive death sentences.
Greenlick, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, said he has wanted to
bring forth a bill since he was first elected in 2002.
The bill comes more than a year after Kitzhaber issued a reprieve in the
pending execution of death-row inmate Gary Haugen. At that time, Kitzhaber
urged the public to debate alternatives to Oregon's capital punishment system
which, he said, was arbitrary and flawed.
In a letter submitted Tuesday, Kitzhaber reiterated many of those same points.
"It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach," he wrote.
The death penalty is far more costly than a life prison sentence, due primarily
to the legal costs of prosecuting and reviewing death-sentence cases, said Sen.
Chip Shields, D-Portland. At a press conference earlier in the day, Shields
estimated costs exceed $6 million over the 2-year budget cycle.
Some speakers said that a death sentence doesn't bring peace to those who have
lost loved ones to crime.
Aba Gayle, a Silverton woman whose 19-year-old daughter was murdered in1980 in
California, said she felt intense anger toward her daughter's killer for a
number of years.
"I absolutely lusted for revenge," she said.
Gayle said the district attorney told her she would feel better when the man
responsible was executed, but Gayle said she realized "there will never be
closure" and that executing the killer would not honor her daughter's life.
"Do not tarnish the memory of my beautiful child with another senseless
killing," Gayle said.
But Terri Hakim, whose police officer husband, William Hakim, was killed in
2008 in Woodburn, said repealing the death penalty "is only enabling prisoners
with more rights" than their victims, she said. The death sentence given to
Bruce and Joshua Turnidge in the bombing that killed her husband and Woodburn
Police Capt. Tom Tennant was "a fair and just punishment."
She was in disbelief, she said, when Kitzhaber announced his reprieve in
November 2011, vowing there would be no executions as long as he was governor.
She said after the hearing she worries the Turnidges could somehow be released
someday if the death penalty were repealed.
"I'm just standing up for what I think," she said.
***********************
Gary Haugen's arguments against Kitzhaber's execution reprieve outlined in
legal brief
An attorney for death-row inmate Gary Haugen contends that the Oregon Supreme
Court established long ago that an inmate can reject an "act of clemency," such
as the 2011 reprieve granted by Gov. John Kitzhaber that halted Haugen's
execution.
In a brief filed Tuesday, attorney Harrison Latto also said that Kitzhaber's
reprieve is a "ruse" in which the governor is unlawfully suspending Oregon's
capital punishment laws, which he morally opposes. It should be the
legislature, not the governor, who amends or repeals laws, Latto wrote.
The brief comes less than a month before Latto and Kitzhaber's lawyers are to
argue their cases before the Oregon Supreme Court.
In his 76-page brief, Latto argues that the state's highest court has
repeatedly ruled that an inmate can reject an act of clemency. The court clung
to that interpretation, even after the U.S. Supreme Court established a
different standard that found the "public welfare" could trump an inmate's
refusal of an act of clemency, Latto wrote. Kitzhaber has not provided a
compelling argument for the Oregon Supreme Court to reverse its approach, he
said.
In addition, Latto argued that requiring Haugen to live with the uncertainty of
his sentence in order to allow the public to debate the death penalty is
unjustified and violates Haugen's constitutional protection against cruel and
unusual punishment, Latto wrote.
Haugen, a twice-convicted murderer who was sentenced to death in 2007, waived
his legal appeals and prepared for his execution in 2011. But Kitzhaber, citing
his moral opposition to capital punishment, issued a reprieve and declared he
would not allow any executions as long as he was governor.
Haugen, who maintains he has the right to have his sentence carried out, then
challenged Kitzhaber's authority to issue the reprieve. A senior judge agreed
with Haugen's arguments, setting up the governor's appeal. The state Supreme
Court will consider oral arguments on March 14.
(source for both: The Oregonian)
****************************
Death penalty opponents want issue put to a vote
Death penalty opponents took their case to Oregon lawmakers Tuesday, imploring
a state House committee to allow the public to vote on outlawing capital
punishment.
The House Judiciary Committee took no action on the measure, which would ask
voters in 2014 whether to amend the state constitution, making it illegal to
execute anyone, including people already on death row.
"My plea today, as a citizen of Oregon, is do not kill in my name," said Aba
Gayle of Silverton, whose 19-year-old daughter, Catherine Blount, was murdered
in 1980. "And most importantly of all, do not tarnish the name of my beautiful
daughter with another senseless killing."
Her daughter's killer, Douglas Mickey, is on death row in California.
Terri Hakim disagrees. She doesn't want to see any benefits for the father and
son convicted of planting a bomb that killed her husband, Oregon State Police
Senior Trooper Bill Hakim, at a Woodburn Bank in 2008.
Bruce and Joshua Turnidge should not be let into the general prison population,
where they might teach bomb-making techniques and anti-police ideologies to
other inmates who will eventually be freed, Hakim said.
"This resolution is not a benefit for the people of the State of Oregon," Hakim
told lawmakers. "This is only enabling prisoners with more rights while taking
them away from other victims."
Death penalty critics arrived at their position for a variety of reasons. Some
are morally opposed to the government taking someone's life. Others say it
costs too much, or that the risk of executing an innocent person is too high.
"There is one way I know of for sure to prevent the execution of an innocent
person," said Jeff Ellis, a defense attorney and death penalty critic. "That is
to replace the death penalty with life without parole."
The Department of Corrections doesn't know how much extra it costs to house
inmates on death row, spokeswoman Elizabeth Craig said. The Office of Public
Defense Services estimated in 2011 that it would save $2.6 million a year if
death was not a possible sentence for aggravated murder.
Oregon has 37 people on death row. 2 men have been executed since Oregon voters
reinstated the death penalty in 1984, both of whom waived their right to appeal
their case.
Gov. John Kitzhaber wrote a letter supporting a public vote on the death
penalty, saying he's personally opposed to the death penalty and "Oregon has an
expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice."
"The hard truth is that in the (29) years since Oregonians reinstated the death
penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights
to appeal," Kitzhaber wrote.
Kitzhaber issued a reprieve for Gary Haugen, who was scheduled to be executed
by lethal injection in December 2011. At the time, the governor called for a
public vote on the issue. Haugen is appealing the reprieve, saying it's invalid
because he never agreed to accept it.
(source: Associated Press)
COLORADO:
Attorneys and Scholars Raise Questions About Constitutionality of Colorado
Death Penalty
Colorado's death penalty is not only massively expensive, critics say it is
also unconstitutional because it is so randomly sought.
A study released last year by DU Law Professors Justin Marceau and Sam Kamin
showed that from 1999 to 2010, 92 percent of 544 Colorado murders had at least
one of the aggravating factors that need to be present for a defendant to be
eligible for death, yet the death penalty was sought in only five of those
cases - less than 1 %.
The study was commissioned by Edward Montour's legal defense team, and thus
paid for by the state. Montour, already serving life without parole, is
fighting to stay off of death row for a murder committed in prison.
One of his attorneys, David Lane, argues that while the Supreme Court has
instructed states to narrow the field of who qualifies for the death penalty,
Colorado has done the opposite, creating so many aggravating factors that death
could be sought in just about every murder committed in Colorado. With 92 % of
Colorado murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, but with death
being sought so rarely in the state, Lane says, "The only check is
prosecutorial discretion."
He notes that the only Colorado death filings recently have come from the 18th
Judicial District of Douglas and Arapahoe counties where he says prosecutors
"are in love with the death penalty." With only 1 judicial district ever
seeking the death penalty, Lane says the death penalty is pursued randomly in
Colorado, thus making it unconstitutional.
Colorado executed its 1st murderer in 1859 and killed an average of nearly one
man a year for the next century. Not one woman has been executed in the state.
Today, Colorado has 3 men on death row, one of whom, Nathan Dunlap, has been
there for nearly 20 years, roughly 1/2 his life. The United States Supreme
Court last week refused to hear his appeal. If the governor does not act,
Dunlap could be executed in the next few months.
"This (Montour) case could overturn the death penalty," Lane says about the
Douglas County case that could be decided soon. It's possible Lane is right,
but it seems more likely that concerns raised by this case - and concerns about
how much money the state spends chasing ever more elusive executions - could
lead the Legislature to abolish the death penalty. A bill to do just that is
expected within the next week or 2.
Death penalty attorney Hollis Whitson, speaking last week at a fundraiser for
Coloradans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said she expects the state to
tire of the death penalty money drain soon. "They aren't buying executions. All
they are really doing is paying lawyers," she said. She is 1 of 3 attorneys
currently working full-time on Montour's defense. She has been on the case for
3 years. She took her 1st Colorado death penalty case in 2003 and says death
penalty defense has been practically her entire practice since then, with all
of that time paid for by state taxpayers.
If an abolition bill is introduced this year, it wouldn't be the 1st time the
legislature tried to end capital punishment in Colorado. The death penalty has
had vocal opponents since its earliest days. As recently as 2009, a bill to
abolish the death penalty passed the House and fell 1 vote short in the Senate.
State Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, says a bill will be introduced. "It is not a
question of if but of when," she said. Guzman said she will co-sponsor the bill
in the Senate with Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora. Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder,
says she will be a sponsor in the House.
"We're just putting the finishing touches on it," Guzman says. "The odds of it
passing are very good. We feel like we have the votes in the Senate." She says
she thinks it will in the House also, but that it could be close.
She says a lot of newly elected Democrats are antsy about it. "They ask 'should
we do all this - gun bills, civil unions and the death penalty?"
As to whether Gov. John Hickenlooper would sign a death penalty abolition bill,
his office isn't saying. Guzman says Hickenlooper has expressed support for it
in the past but may be waffling. "If he doesn't sign it, that is his decision.
There is nothing we can do about that."
The Supreme Court and the Constitution
Cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited by the 8th Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and it is that clause that the Supreme Court used to rule
Georgia's death penalty unconstitutional in 1972. The court did not rule that
death itself was an unconstitutional punishment, nor did it rule that any
particular method of execution was cruel and unusual.
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that it was Georgia's method of determining
who would be put to death that was unconstitutional.
Georgia, in 1972 had a record of sentencing to death less than 20 % of those
people who under the law would have qualified for the death penalty. The Court
found essentially that the punishment of death was being delivered almost
randomly and said that is what made it unconstitutional.
In the wake of that ruling in Furman v. Georgia, every state with a death
penalty took a timeout. Many states, like Colorado - and Georgia - rewrote
their death penalty statutes so as to better meet constitutional standards.
Georgia's death penalty was back in front of the Supreme Court in 1976 with
Gregg v. Georgia. The Court, in that case, heard challenges to a number of
states' death penalties with the Gregg case in the lead. Georgia???s new death
penalty was upheld by the Court.
Colorado reinstituted the death penalty in 1979, writing statutes similar to
those upheld in Gregg, but has executed only 1 person since then - Gary Davis
in 1997.
In Colorado, to be eligible for a death sentence one must commit felony murder
and at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors must be present.
Unitarian minister and anti-death-penalty activist Roger Butts argues that
randomness plagues Colorado's imposition of the death penalty. He notes that
all 3 men on Colorado's death row are from Arapahoe County. "There seems to be
an arbitrary nature to it. If those crimes had been committed in Boulder
County, those men would not be on death row because (Boulder County DA) Stan
Garnett would never have pursued the death penalty," he said while leading a
discussion at a church.
Garnett told The Colorado Independent that while he does consider the death
penalty when trying cases that would qualify, the randomness of when the death
penalty is sought is troubling to him as well.
"My...concern is the randomness. Most murders, charged as first degree, could
qualify to seek the DP under the Colorado statutory scheme," Garnett said by
email. "Though Boulder County has had plenty of heinous murders over the years,
there has never been a death verdict imposed here in the nearly 140 years since
statehood (the one time it was sought in the 20th JD, in 1978, the case plead
out during jury selection due to the unwieldiness of seating a death qualified
jury). The 18th JD (Arapahoe/Douglas County), on the other hand, has several
pending death cases currently...for murders that are not significantly
different than what we prosecute in Boulder. What is the point of a penalty
that is only sought in a tiny percentage of the cases where it could be sought,
or where geography is a factor in whether it is sought? Obviously, the risk of
racial or other subjective factors being considered (or appearing to be
considered) in selecting who is put to death is significant."
"I think I would probably support an effort to repeal the death penalty,"
Garnett said in a telephone interview. "My view of the death penalty is similar
to my view of marijuana. The way we have done it just hasn't worked."
Late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, writing one of the majority
opinions in the 1972 case that temporarily ended capital punishment in the
U.S., said that it was arbitrary to assign the harshest punishment available
(death) to some but not to others who had committed similar crimes.
Brennan continued that "when a severe punishment is inflicted in the great
majority of cases" in which it is legally available, there is little likelihood
that the State is inflicting it arbitrarily. If, however, the infliction of a
severe punishment is "something different from that which is generally
done"...there is a substantial...likelihood that the State, contrary to the
requirements of regularity and fairness...is inflicting the punishment
arbitrarily."
From Brennan's opinion:
"When a country of over 200 million people inflicts an unusually severe
punishment no more than 50 times a year, the inference is strong that the
punishment is not being regularly and fairly applied.
--
"Although there are no exact figures available, we know that thousands of
murders and rapes are committed annually in States where death is an authorized
punishment for those crimes. However the rate of infliction is characterized -
as "freakishly" or "spectacularly" rare, or simply as rare - it would take the
purest sophistry to deny that death is inflicted in only a minute fraction of
these cases. How much rarer, after all, could the infliction of death be?
"When the punishment of death is inflicted in a trivial number of the cases in
which it is legally available, the conclusion is virtually inescapable that it
is being inflicted arbitrarily. Indeed, it smacks of little more than a lottery
system. The States claim, however, that this rarity is evidence not of
arbitrariness, but of informed selectivity: death is inflicted, they say, only
in "extreme" cases."
John McAdams, a political science professor at Marquette University, who writes
regularly in support of the death penalty, argues that it is unrealistic to say
penalties for lawbreaking need to be consistent. "All punishments are somewhat
arbitrary, especially when you consider that most of this is decided at the
county level. Because some people get off with less punishment does not mean we
should ratchet down all punishments. It is impossible to deliver equal justice
in every case," he said.
"We're going to get abolition in Colorado. It's going to happen," said Whitson.
"Everyone is tired of spending money on lawyers."
She said that abolishing the death penalty is just step 1. After that, she
added, Colorado needs to spend the money saved on better training for police
and prison guards, better mental health care, better protective services for
children and other programs to reduce violence in society.
(source: Colorado Independent)
************************
Let Hick grant clemency
Imagine this unlikely scenario: Our supremely secular Colorado governor
receives unsolicited moral advice from a Catholic prelate - and takes it
seriously.
But it happened, according to John Hickenlooper's recent account on Colorado
Public Radio. When Archbishop Charles Chaput left town 18 months ago for
Philadelphia, he invited the governor to breakfast, where they spent a
"significant amount of time" talking about the death penalty.
When Hickenlooper told Chaput he'd always been "sort of an eye for an eye
person," Chaput retorted that "there's no language like that anywhere in the
New Testament," adding that "to a large extent, Catholic theology is based upon
forgiveness, and that only God has a right to make that decision."
"Just keep looking inside yourself," was Chaput's parting advice. "Just keep
thinking about it, keep talking about it, and [clarity on the issue] will come
to you."
Clarity from the governor may be needed sooner rather than later now that the
U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Nathan Dunlap, who sits
on death row for the 1993 murder of four at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese. And
while you can never count out a good defense team, Dunlap's time is running
out. Arapahoe County prosecutors last week said they'd consult with the
attorney general and then file a motion asking the district court to "lift the
current stay of execution, issue a warrant and set a week for the execution."
But Hickenlooper can stop that execution and, when the time comes, should.
He should commute Dunlap's sentence to life in prison without parole even if he
hasn't fully arrived at Chaput's view of the death penalty. It should be enough
for the governor that Dunlap's execution would be singularly absurd, from
almost any standpoint you care to examine.
Colorado may not officially have abolished the death penalty - yet - but it may
as well have. The state has executed only one man since 1967, thanks to
reluctant juries, selective prosecutors, appeals that creep along like glaciers
and court decisions occasionally shifting the legal standard.
Those influences aren't going away. If anything, skeptical juries and
prosecutors unwilling to pursue the sentence in the 1st place would appear more
likely as public opinion shifts, too. Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey
has yet to seek an execution after 8 years in office.
And if Colorado's legislature actually abolishes the death penalty for future
cases - as Connecticut did last year - then Dunlap's execution will seem
particularly perverse.
Is it really possible, given thousands of murders since 1967 and many scores
involving torture or multiple victims, that Dunlap should be only the 2nd
killer to deserve to die? That's not justice upholding equality before the law.
It's a Powerball lottery with a fatal grand prize.
True, prosecutors are more likely to pursue the death penalty in especially
brutal killings. But even here the degree of randomness is striking. Professor
Michael Radelet of the University of Colorado has identified 31 current
prisoners serving life "who were convicted of especially aggravated murders,"
27 involving 3 or more victims. Of the 31, the death penalty wasn't even sought
in 17, while actual "death sentences (later vacated) were imposed in only 2."
In September 1997, Gov. Roy Romer denied clemency to Gary Davis 2 hours after
meeting with defense attorneys for the last man executed in Colorado. Although
Romer didn't waste time, it was clear from his explanation that he'd given the
matter a great deal of thought. And one of his reasons was most interesting.
"If I grant clemency in this case," Romer said, "I would in essence be
abolishing the death penalty."
Just so. And that's what Hickenlooper can do when he confronts the same
life-and-death option.
(source: Opinion, Vincent Carroll, Denver Post)
ARIZONA:
Montiel scheduled for hearing on death penalty
Yavapai County prosecutor Bill Hughes has not filed a notice that the State
will seek the death penalty for Joseph Montiel in the alleged murder of his
estranged wife, 36-year-old Jamie Treakle.
Treakle's dead body was recovered after family volunteers searching the Black
Hills around Cherry found Montiel's truck abandoned on a dirt side road. The
woman's body was found in an abandoned mine shaft nearby. She had been released
from the county jail after posting bond on a failure to appear warrant for a
misdemeanor offense. She had been stabbed.
It is alleged that when she could not reach her boyfriend for a ride from the
jail, she called Montiel.
Hughes had asked the court for a 60-day continuance in his time to file the
notice to seek the death penalty. In Judge Michael Bluff's courtroom Monday,
Montiel's lead attorney, Robyn Varcoe, repeated that delay will expire April 2.
She said the defense has been accumulating mitigation material, but asked for
an additional two weeks to consider the prosecution's statement when it is
filed.
Judge Michael Bluff said he would reconvene the case April 12 at the end of the
day, after an unrelated jury trial.
The attorneys will be allowed to participate by phone.
(source: The Bugle)
************************
Jodi Arias Admits Enjoying Some Sex, Maintains She 'Felt Like a Prostitute'
Though accused murderer Jodi Arias said she sometimes felt "like a prostitute"
at the hands of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, she admitted today that she
often enjoyed their sex life and even suggested sex acts they could try.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez, after a day of aggressive questioning and bickering
with Arias, asked her about her own suggestions for her sex life with
Alexander, including a phone conversation in which she suggested using sexual
lubricant.
Arias, 32, is accused of killing Alexander, but claims it was in self-defense.
"You introduced KY Jelly into the relationship to make it more sexually
enjoyable, right? When we're talking about the level of experimentation, it
looks like both of you were experimenting together sexually. So when we hear
things like, 'I felt like a prostitute,' that's not exactly true, is it?"
Martinez said.
"It was often mutual," Arias said. "I didn't feel like a prostitute during,
just after."
Martinez showed the jury a text message Arias sent offering to perform oral sex
on Alexander, comparing it to a statement she made on direct testimony saying
that she once felt like a prostitute when Alexander tossed a piece of chocolate
at her and walked away without a word after she performed oral sex.
"How is it you can say you 'felt like a prostitute' when you're moving the
relationship ahead like this?" Martinez asked. "The act itself is the same
thing, and here you're requesting it. The geography is different, but that
aside, isn't it the same act? And you're requesting it?"
"When he (ejaculated) and left afterward I felt like a prostitute. When we
mutually went through things together I didn't," she said.
Arias also admitted that she sent Alexander a topless photo of herself after he
sent her photos of his penis, and that she only did it after she had her
breasts enhanced surgically.
The testimony came as Martinez continued his efforts to discredit Arias'
testimony on the stand, including her statements that she often succumbed to
Alexander's sexual fantasies so she wouldn't hurt his feelings. Martinez has
focused on portraying Arias as a liar for much of his direct examination.
Arias is charged with murder for killing her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander at
his home in Mesa, Ariz., in June 2008. She claims she killed him in self
defense and that he had been increasingly violent and sexually demanding in the
months before the confrontation. She also claimed he was interested in young
boys.
The prosecution claims she killed him in a jealous rage. She could face the
death penalty if convicted of 1st degree murder.
Earlier in the day, tempers flared between Arias and prosecutor Martinez as the
prosecutor tried to detail Arias' history of spying on her boyfriends, but
Arias complained that his aggressive style of questioning made her "brain
scramble."
Arias and Martinez, who have sparred throughout 2 prior days of
cross-examination, spent more than 10 minutes bickering over Martinez's word
choices and his apparent "anger."
The morning's testimony, and Martinez's points about Arias' alleged spying,
were largely interrupted by the spats.
"Are you having trouble understanding me?" Martinez yelled.
"Yes because sometimes cause you go in circles," Arias answered.
"You said you were offended by Mr. Alexander's behavior, do you remember that?
This just happened. How is that you are not remembering?" he asked.
"Because you are making my brain scramble,"she said.
Martinez, becoming agitated, barked back, "I'm again making your brain
scramble. The problem is not you, it's the prosecutor, right?"
Martinez paced the courtroom in front of Arias asking her whether she had
trouble with her memory or trouble answering truthfully.
"You don't know?" he said. "You don't know what you just said? Didn't it just
happen? You can't even remember what you just said?"
"I think I'm more focused on your posture, your tone, and your anger," Arias
said, causing Martinez to become even angrier.
"So it's the prosecutor's fault because he is angry? You are having problems on
the witness stand because of the way the prosecutor is asking the questions? So
the answers depend on the style of the prosecutor? You're saying you're having
trouble telling us the truth because of the way the questions are being posed,"
he said, gesturing with his hands.
Eventually, Arias' attorney Kirk Nurmi, who had been objecting sporadically to
Martinez's questions, stood in the courtroom and told Judge Sherry Stephens
that they should all approach the bench before Martinez continued. When they
returned, Martinez briefly stood in different parts of the courtroom, asking
Arias if she was more comfortable depending on where he stood, before moving
on.
Martinez finally began to make his points that Arias snooped on Alexander's
phone messages and Myspace messages, and had gone through an ex-boyfriend's
email messages to see if they were cheating. Arias admitted that her behavior
was "dishonest."
Martinez also showed that after Arias went through the messages and found
evidence of cheating, she acted quickly to end the relationships with Alexander
and 2 former boyfriends, suggesting that Arias was not under as much of
Alexander's influence as she had previously testified.
"So you seem to be very assertive. You were very assertive even at age 17 or
18, you didn't waste any time when you'd been cheated on," Martinez said. "You
have the ability to make the decisions necessary for yourself and even from the
time you were younger, it appears you were assertive."
"It depends on how comfortable I am with the person," Arias replied.
During earlier cross examination Martinez has reminded the court of numerous
lies Arias told after Alexander's death and suggested that her accusations of
physical abuse and Alexander's sexual inclinations were made up, too.
Martinez also played portions of an interview Arias gave to "48 Hours." In the
interview, Arias explains why she was smiling and tilting her head in her mug
shot taken by police after she was arrested for murder. Arias said that she
knew that's what Alexander would do in that situation, that "he would just
smile, would just flash that grin that he always does," and so that's what she
did.
She also said the smile was partly because she "was innocent of that charge."
(source: ABC News)
**************************
Woman accused of Arizona lover's murder attended his memorial
A woman on trial for capital murder in Arizona testified on Tuesday that she
attended her lover's memorial service days after she killed him, writing in a
remembrance book that he was "beautiful inside and out."
Jodi Arias, 32, could face the death penalty if convicted of murdering
30-year-old Travis Alexander, whose body was found in the shower of his Phoenix
valley home in June 2008. He was shot in the face, stabbed 27 times and had his
throat slit.
Arias, in frequently explicit testimony about her relationship with Alexander,
has admitted to killing him but said it was in self defense after he attacked
her when she dropped his camera while taking pictures of him in the shower. The
prosecution has said she killed him in a jealous rage.
In a combative third day of cross examination, prosecutor Juan Martinez
confronted Arias with positive comments she wrote about Alexander at a memorial
service days after the killing, in which she described him as "beautiful on the
inside and out."
"You also write, 'You always told me that I have never stopped believing in
you, and I know that you always believed in me,' right?" Martinez asked of the
remarks which were seemingly at odds with Arias' assertions that Alexander was
abusive.
"Yes I did," Arias replied.
"Even though, according to you, he would get this mean look on his face and
come charging after you down the hallway, you still believed in him, right?"
Arias agreed that she did, after he rephrased the question.
Seeking to point out further inconsistencies in her testimony, Martinez
questioned Arias about a text message she had sent Alexander less than 2 months
before she killed him, in which she called him "a rock, a light and an
inspiration," and noted that she "loved him dearly."
"You've been telling us that in addition to being mean, he physically abused
you ... and that he would raise his voice to you. ... Yet once you are free of
him, and after the fog has lifted, you are thanking him and telling him what an
inspiration he is," Martinez said.
Arias and Alexander met in the fall of 2006 and dated for several months. They
split up the following summer, although their sexual relationship continued
until his death.
Martinez also sought on Tuesday to paint Arias as having a history of jealousy
and a readiness to confront lovers and perceived romantic rivals when she felt
slighted.
The court heard how she accessed the email account of a previous boyfriend of
whom she had become suspicious. After discovering letters to him from another
woman, Arias showed them to him before moving out of their shared
accommodation.
Martinez then questioned Arias about an incident in a subsequent relationship
in which she drove to meet with a woman she apparently perceived as a rival,
after finding a photograph of the woman with her then boyfriend.
"When you feel something is not right ... you are going to confront that
person?" Martinez asked, to which Arias replied: "Not necessarily."
The trial is set to continue on Wednesday.
(source: Reuters)
****************************
Execution column weak
In his response to a guest column calling for the repeal of the death penalty,
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery claims that the 6 men executed by
Arizona last year "earned their death sentences" ("Death penalty is properly
used for most heinous crimes," Opinions, Monday). This statement does not tell
the whole story.
What the county attorney fails to mention is that the equally if not more
culpable co-defendants of Richard Stokley, Daniel Cook and Robert Towery were
offered plea deals and have been released from prison. Thomas Kemp's equally
culpable co-defendant received a life sentence. Both Samuel Lopez and Robert
Moorman were severely mentally impaired. Moorman was described by experts as
having the mind of a 12-year-old child.
Our U.S. Constitution requires that the death penalty be applied in a narrow
set of circumstances and that it be applied fairly. If we are going to have a
discussion about the death penalty, it needs to be an objective and honest one.
--Dale A. Baich, Phoenix
(source: Letter; The writer is an assistant federal public defender and
represents death-row prisoners in Arizona----Ariz. Central)
MONTANA:
Lawmakers must weigh all sides of death penalty debate
Lawmakers in Helena last week tabled a bill to abolish the death penalty in
Montana. Absent extraordinary efforts on the part of activists and their
legislative supporters, it will probably not be resurrected. But this important
issue deserves at least one more look.
Passions run high among both ardent supporters and opponents to the death
penalty. In those camps, it's unlikely that any minds will change.
But most Montana voters have never been close to a capital punishment case. And
though nearly everyone has some opinion on the issue, most are unaware of some
of the most important facts regarding the death penalty.
Consider just these 5 things:
-- It costs more to put a convicted criminal to death than it does to house
them in prison for life, by a considerable amount. Appeals mandated by the U.S.
and state constitutions delay the execution for many years - even decades. That
involves major legal costs that have to be shouldered by the taxpayers. And
every time the case heads into another round of hearings, the survivors of the
victims are forced to relive the crime again.
-- Modern DNA technology has found cases where innocent people have been
executed in other states. It's a very small number of cases, but it has
happened.
-- There is a fate worse than death. Research has consistently shown that
holding prisoners in solitary confinement suffer an extraordinary kind of
torture - so much so that there is a strong argument to be made that it
violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Even
so, it offers an alternative to death for those criminals the courts decide are
particularly heinous.
-- The death penalty is rarely used in this state. There have been just 3
executions since 1976 and just 74 in the state's history. There are now just 2
prisoners held on the state's death row.
-- This is a non-partisan issue. The bill that would abolish the Montana death
penalty was sponsored by 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
The death penalty is an emotional issue that evokes passionate responses. But
any opinion deserves at least some consideration of these important facts.
(source: Editorial, Bozeman Daily Chronicle)
CALIFORNIA:
Vallejo woman found guilty of murdering son's father
A jury found a Vallejo woman guilty of murder Tuesday for the killing of her
son's father in the parking lot of his Pittsburg apartment complex 3 years ago.
The verdict, read Tuesday afternoon in a Richmond courtroom, came at the end of
a 2nd murder trial for Jennell Wright, 37, who prosecutors said gunned down
31-year-old Andrew Le'Mar Green on Feb. 23, 2010.
The 1st trial ended more than a year ago with a hung jury.
Tuesday, however, the jury convicted Wright on a 1st-degree murder charge and
also found true special circumstances allegations that she committed the murder
by lying in wait and with the intentional use of a firearm.
The special circumstances conviction means she will serve a minimum sentence of
life in prison without the possibility of parole, and that she is also eligible
for the death penalty.
Dressed in a black business suit, Wright did not show any emotion as a bailiff
handcuffed her and led her out of the courtroom today.
Green's mother, Lucinda Jackson, wiped away tears as the verdict was read.
"It's been a long journey, I'm glad it's over," she said outside of the
courtroom.
Jackson recalled the increasingly troubled relationship between her son and
Wright, who she said became obsessed with Green leading up to his murder.
The 2 were no longer romantically involved and shared custody of their
toddler-aged son, Savion, at the time of the killing.
But Jackson said Wright did not want Green to be a part of the boy's life and
that her son feared his ex would do anything to prevent that from happening.
On the day of his murder, he called his mother to tell her he wanted to hire a
lawyer because he worried Wright might hurt their son, said Jackson, who now
has full custody of him.
"It's sad because it didn't have to come to this," she said. "Every day there
are parents separated or divorced that work together to raise their child."
Instead, Wright formed a plan to kill Green.
Deputy District Attorney Lynn Uilkema said Wright set the plan into action on
the night of Feb. 22, 2010, when she checked into a hotel near her
ex-boyfriend's Pittsburg apartment complex.
Hours later, armed with a gun and bullet speed-loader, she drove to the complex
and waited in a darkened corner of the parking lot for him to return home from
work.
After Green pulled into the lot in the early hours of Feb. 23, 2010, Wright
carried out her plan, shooting him 3 times, according to Uilkema.
During the trial, Wright claimed she never meant to kill Green and instead had
planned to kill herself.
Her defense attorney, Winnifred Gin, argued that the defendant was suicidal and
disoriented when she went to visit her Green that night.
Jackson said today that she is glad a jury finally saw through that argument
and held Wright accountable for killing her son.
"I miss him, he was a gentle soul," she said.
"The one who lost the most here is Savion. Savion is not going to have a mother
or a father to be at all the important dates and milestones," Jackson said.
"But we're going to make sure he makes it -- he's going to grow up to be
everything his father wanted him to be."
Wright is set to return to court on March 15 to set a sentencing date.
(source: KTVU News)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
