April 26
TEXAS:
Texas Prosecutor and Ex-Governor Agree: No Death Penalty for Being Black. The
Texas prosecutor who won the death penalty against Duane Buck now says Buck
deserves a new sentencing hearing. What's the holdup?
Former Harris County, Texas, prosecutor Linda Geffin had no idea what was at
stake the day the defense team she was up against called psychologist Walter
Quijano to the stand to testify in the murder trial of Duane Buck.
"I'm not sure anyone realized it at the time," Geffin tells TakePart. "I'm not
even sure I was in the room. I didn't snap to it."
Asked in open court if "the race factor, black" increased Buck's risk of
reoffending, Quijano answered "yes." The so-called expert went on to testify
that being either African-American or Latino "increases the future
dangerousness for various complicated reasons."
In Texas, "future dangerousness" is 1 of the key factors in determining whether
a person is eligible for capital punishment. By allowing Quijano's testimony to
stand, Harris County, in effect, established that race can be used as a
significant justification for meting out the death penalty.
In other words, being black is 1 more box to fill in on the death penalty
checklist.
Geffin's prosecution team benefited from the defense's lack of judgment. Buck
was, in fact, sentenced to die.
Years later, Buck's sentence has resurfaced, and Geffin has had to face what
she was a part of. With Buck still in prison, and the executioner at the door,
Geffin is trying to make amends.
"This is not a cat and mouse game," says Former Texas Governor Mark White.
"This is about seeking justice."
Yes, Buck is guilty; but Geffin, along with key other figures in the state of
Texas, is now demanding he receive a new sentencing hearing.
"I've heard people say, 'He's guilty, forget about it.' That's so far away from
how we're looking at it," she says. "If we don't seek to correct this mistake,
it could be any one of us."
Former Texas Governor Mark White agrees.
White, along with Geffin and 100 more state justice leaders, have sent a
statement of support to Harris County D.A. Mike Anderson, urging a new
sentencing hearing for Duane Buck that isn't predicated upon his race.
White and Geffin are also seeking passage of the Texas Racial Justice Act,
which would allow those sentenced to the death penalty to present evidence that
racial discrimination played a role in their legal treatment.
"This is not a cat and mouse game," says White. "This is about seeking
justice."
White oversaw 19 executions while in office from 1983 to 1987. Yet, he says,
his experience as a lawyer made him as thorough as possible in administering
the ultimate punishment. A single legal loose end was enough to prevent an
execution from going through under his watch.
These days, he argues, politicians are not so thorough, by choice or by
incompetence, or by both.
"Let's not let a man be executed based on frailties of his own counsel," says
White. "There is nothing wrong, or weak, or liberal, about saying, 'Let's be
fair to the defendant.' Fairness is at the foundation of our criminal justice
system. Right now that system is an absolute disaster. The obstinacy shown by
those denying Buck a resentencing is a reflection both on them as individuals,
and of our criminal justice system."
Geffin is more diplomatic: She remains employed in Harris County as a senior
assistant county attorney.
Yet, she admits, "I am frustrated. It seems the right result is crystal clear.
We have a golden moment to right a wrong. Harris County is known across the
country as the death penalty capital. This is a chance to show we stand for
justice. I hate to see that opportunity lost."
Though she's cautious with her words, Geffin is fully bold in her stance on
Buck's case.
"I've always been inspired by Elie Wiesel, who said: 'There may be times when
we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we
fail to protest.'"
(source: takepart.com)
CONNECTICUT:
Connecticut Supreme Court hears death penalty repeal argument in West Hartford
murder
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a high-stakes case that
could see Connecticut's prospective abolition of the death penalty thrown out.
Eduardo Santiago, who was found guilty of murder for hire in the murder of
Joseph Nowinski in 2000 in West Hartford, was back before the high court after
his death sentence was overturned when it ruled earlier that the trial judge
withheld importance evidence from jurors.
The Supreme Court upheld his murder conviction and agreed to hear the death
penalty appeal before Santiago's new penalty hearing.
Assistant Public Defender Mark Redemacher argued that the death penalty, which
continues to apply to the 10 men on death row, but not for any future
murderers, is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and abolition of the
death penalty should apply across the board.
Lawmakers have conceded however that the prospective aspect was necessary in
order to ensure enough votes at a time when adjudication of the 2 defendants in
the triple murder Cheshire Petit family home invasion case was still a highly
emotional trial.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, the 1st Democrat elected governor in 2 decades, had run
on a platform to repeal the death penalty, but only going forward.
Senior Assistant State's Attorney Harry Weller told the justices that it is
constitutional and that the court has to defer to the wishes of the legislature
on how it constructed the death penalty, an issue that goes to the separation
of powers.
He said the court only has 2 options and Santiago should not get what he wants
in either; Weller said it is either constitutional and the law stands, or it is
rejected and Connecticut reinstates capitol punishment.
Redemacher used the words of Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane who testified
against the prospective application, saying it creates 2 classes of prisoners,
with 1 subject to death and another to life in prison, not based on the nature
of the crime or mitigating circumstances, but tied to the date of
implementation.
Redemacher argued that other cases that carved out juveniles or the mentally
ill from the death penalty referred to specific classes, while in Connecticut,
lawmakers "made the unequivocal statement that death is no longer acceptable,"
that life in prison is severe enough punishment.
"There is no principle distinction between those who live and those who die,"
Redemacher said. He argued that the lawmakers, when crafting the law, said they
did not know if it was constitutional and that such a determination was up to
the Supreme Court.
Redemacher said it would be cynical to assume that the legislature would have
voted down the repeal if it had been applied across the board. He said this
assumes that it would have sacrificed "moral judgment to cow-tow to public
opinion about the latest crime of the century."
Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers said the best evidence of what people want is
case law and the death penalty is what citizens want for these individuals.
Justice Richard N. Palmer said both co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee
testified that the prospective aspect could not be separated out and that the
law guaranteed that it would not be applied to those currently on death row.
Redemacher disagreed and said state Sen. Eric Colemen, D-Bloomfield, was only
speculating. Palmer said the justices rely on the testimony of lawmakers in
helping to craft their decisions.
Weller said the court has deferred to the legislature to determine penalties
for crimes and who deserves punishment and who doesn't. He said it also has
consistently affirmed effective dates on legislation.
"This is quintessentially a legislative decision made by the people of the
state, not the courts," he said.
In advancing Redemacher's argument, Palmer asked wasn't it arbitrary to put
Santiago to death when future crimes may be more egregious, but the punishment
would be life in prison.
Weller said Santiago violated the standard in effect when he committed the
crime and that standard is essentially a promise to the victims of such crimes
and not arbitrary. He said the justice system loses credibility if it doesn't
follow through.
In answer to a question from the chief justice, Weller said the law has to
survive as a package or be killed completely. Weller agreed that the state's
approach is an experiment that lawmakers have a right to try. "The debate about
the death penalty is a political debate," he said.
(source: West Hartford News)
NEW YORK:
To Mr. Kaczynski, in awe
THE ISSUE:
The leader of New Yorkers for Alternatives to the Death Penalty is moving on.
THE STAKES:
The fight against violence, and the quest for justice, is stronger for his
effort. It must go on.
David Kaczynski is far too humble, and much too introspective, to ever be
entirely comfortable in the public spotlight. That was true almost 20 years
ago, in the brutal scrutiny that came with his courageous decision to turn in
his brother, the Unabomber. And it was true, too, in his valedictory Monday
night as the most accomplished death penalty opponent in New York.
The occasion was Mr. Kaczynski's retirement as director of the group New
Yorkers for Alternatives to the Death Penalty - once known as New Yorkers
Against the Death Penalty, before the state's capital punishment law was wiped
off the books. But it was no time to declare victory, or to bask in the success
of a powerful movement against the politics of vengeance.
A few hours away in Boston, federal prosecutors were preparing a possible death
penalty case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But at the Old Chancery Building in
Albany, the very much settled matter of the death penalty in New York was
reason to reflect upon the struggle that Mr. Kaczynski and his allies have been
waging in a state enlightened enough for 6 years now to pursue justice in a
different way.
In essence, it's that in the absence of the death penalty, New York and other
governments can more reasonably bring people together to address the real
causes of violence. If revenge is wiped from the agenda, true justice is more
within reach.
As Mr. Kaczynski embarks on another career, as director of a Buddhist monastery
in Woodstock, the reality of 2013 is that gun violence remains an epidemic. The
need for restorative justice and more sensitivity toward crime victims is as
great as ever.
One great triumph of a group that as recently as 2007 was in search of a new
mission is its critically important role in the development of the very
successful anti-gun program known as SNUG. Another is an effort, known as
Limits of Loyalty, in which victims of violent crime and witnesses to violent
crime are encouraged to embrace the larger cause of justice.
Mr. Kaczynski talked about all that Monday, with his humor and reluctant
charisma on full display. He sounded at times less like a prominent activist
than a more obscure social worker.
That's precisely who he was, in fact, until his campaign to get then-Attorney
General Janet Reno to honor his one request in the Unabomber prosecution - that
Ted Kaczynski not be put to death. His transformation, based upon the
philosophy that no one is an enemy, should be an example to all New Yorkers.
As Mr. Kaczynski wrote in "Ode to Obscurity," one of the poems dedicated to his
wife, Linda, "It may be that the cost of being born is life itself."
(source: Editorial, Times Union)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Man on Death Row to Be Released From Prison
A federal judge has thrown out the death penalty given to an eastern Reading,
Pa. man who's spent 15 years on death row.
District Judge Anita Brody also overturned Shawnfatee Bridges' murder
conviction because prosecutors did not provide the defense with police records
that could have impeached a key witness.
In a 114-page opinion, Brody concluded that former District Attorney Mark C.
Baldwin did not provide the defense with police records for key prosecution
witness George Robles. She said the information linking Robles to 4 other
shootings could have been used to impeach Robles' testimony, reports The
Reading Eagle.
"There is no doubt that the police records relating to Robles are impeaching,
and this is favorable to Bridges," Brody wrote. "They present evidence that
Robles was involved in some way in at least four shootings in an 18-month
period."
Bridges had been found guilty of the 1996 drug-related slayings of Reading
cousins Damon and Gregory Banks.
The cousins' bodies were discovered on a gravel road off West Neversink Street
in Exeter Township. Damon Banks was shot 13 times, and Gregory Banks was shot
five times, according to the paper.
The Reading Eagle reported Thursday that Brody overturned the death penalty
because the defense didn't call an expert psychiatric witness during the
sentencing hearing.
Brody ordered prosecutors to release the now 36-year-old Bridges from state
prison in Graterford by Aug. 21 unless he is retried.
District Attorney John Adams says he'll appeal the ruling. He is also preparing
to retry the case.
(source: NBC Philadelphia)
******************
Dauphin County death penalty case goes to the jury
Miguel Figueroa-Novoa's fate now hangs on whether a Dauphin County jury
believes he knew what he was doing when he killed his ex-girlfriend and maimed
her mother in a Harrisburg apartment on Dec. 23, 2010.
The jurors will begin deliberating Friday in his case, the first death penalty
case to be tried in the county in 6 years.
If they convict Figueroa-Novoa, 25, of 1st-degree murder, they will have to
return next week to decide whether he should be executed for the slaying of
19-year-old Yarelis "Nicole" Barrios.
In his closing argument Thursday, First Assistant Public Defender Ari Weitzman
claimed Figueroa-Novoa could not have formed an intent to kill Barrios, which
is necessary for a first-degree murder conviction, because he was so high on
drugs that he was a "walking zombie."
But Senior Deputy District Attorney Johnny Baer said Figueroa-Novoa's own
actions contradict that assertion.
Figueroa-Novoa planned to kill Berrios when he shot her once in the chest at
close range, Baer said, and he intended to do the same to Berrios' mother,
Lithz Serrano, when he pumped 5 bullets into her.
Figueroa-Novoa even had the presence of mind to drive himself 2 miles to
Harrisburg Hospital for treatment after he shot himself in the mouth, the
prosecutor noted.
"He knew damn well what he was doing," Baer said.
Weitzman portrayed Figueroa-Novoa, who did not testify during the trial, as a
not-too-intelligent man who spiraled into hard-core drug use after Berrios
broke up with him two months before she was killed in her Ivey Lane apartment.
Earlier Thursday, Weitzman called an accused drug dealer who said he saw
Figueroa-Novoa smoke marijuana and take pills of "poly," the so-called "date
rape drug," and pain-killers hours before the shootings.
He noted that Berrios' 12-year-old niece testified that Serrano told
Figueroa-Novoa right before the shootings that she thought he was high. Serrano
made similar statements to police, Weitzman said, but while testifying at the
trial insisted that Figueroa-Novoa seemed to be sober.
"I think what you went through is one of the most chilling and horrific things
I've heard," Weitzman said, speaking directly to the 46-year-old Serrano as she
watched from the back of the courtroom.
"He knew damn well what he was doing." Prosecutor Johnny BaerStill, he told the
jurors, "there's no question that she changed her testimony."
City police were "incredibly, incredibly sloppy" in not establishing evidence
of Figueroa-Novoa's intoxication, he contended. "This was a horrendous
investigation into a horrible crime," Weitzman said.
"This is not a criminal mastermind. This is a guy of below-average
intelligence," he said of Figueroa-Novoa. "He has no clue what on Earth he was
doing when he was in that house."
Baer countered that Figueroa-Novoa's acts were too focused for that to be true.
He said Figueroa-Novoa intended to kill Berrios over the collapse of their
romance and wanted to murder Serrano as well because he blamed her for the
trouble in their relationship.
"The person he killed was the source of his anger, jealously, frustration,"
Baer said.
By law, the intoxication defense is valid in a 1st-degree murder case only if
there is proof that the accused was so inebriated as to be powerless to control
his or her actions, he said.
"Look carefully at what he did here," Baer urged the jurors. "Does that sound
like someone who has been rendered powerless or lost their faculties?"
"The answer is an emphatic 'no'," he said.
(source: The Patriot-News)
MARYLAND:
O'Malley to sign death penalty repeal next week
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signs a bill last week at the close of the
General Assembly session.
Maryland will become the 18th state to outlaw the death penalty next week when
Gov. Martin O'Malley signs a bill to end the punishment.
Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for O???Malley, confirmed Thursday the governor
will sign the death penalty repeal bill next Thursday.
The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 276 in March. The Senate passed the
bill, 27-20, the House of Delegates, 82-56.
After the governor's signature, the most severe punishment in the state will be
life in prison without parole.
But the law could still be petitioned to referendum.
Del. Neil Parrott, R-Washington, chairman of website MDPetitions.com, has yet
to announce whether there will be a petition drive to place the measure before
the voters in the 2014 election.
MDPetitions.com petitioned 3 laws to the ballot in 2012, including 1 that
legalized same-sex marriage in the state. All 3 measures were upheld by voters.
Since then, some delegates have said there is less enthusiasm for pouring money
into a petition drive. Earlier this month, MDPetitions.com opted not to mount a
petition drive on O???Malley???s controversial gun control plan.
Maryland will be the 6th state in 6 years to repeal the death penalty. The
state's last execution took place in 2005.
Capital punishment was put on hold in Maryland after a December 2006 ruling by
Maryland's highest court that the state's lethal injection protocols hadn't
been properly approved by a legislative committee.
5 men remain on death row in Maryland. O'Malley has said he will consider their
future on a case-by-case basis.
(source: Capital Gazette)
***************************
O'Malley to sign death penalty repeal next week; Referendum possible as
opponents give petition language to elections officials
Gov. Martin O'Malley plans to sign a law abolishing capital punishment in
Maryland next week, though a referendum effort may be on the horizon.
O'Malley's spokesman Raquel Guillory confirmed Thursday that the death penalty
repeal law is scheduled to be signed on May 2. Maryland will become the 6th
state in as many years to abandon state executions.
5 men, all convicted of murders dating back to 1983, are on death row.
O'Malley, who pushed for repeal, has said the men's fates will be considered on
a case-by-case basis.
Maryland has had a de facto moratorium on executions since a 2006 court ruling
overturned details in the process for carrying them out. The last execution in
Maryland occurred by lethal injection in 2005.
After hours of impassioned debate in the General Assembly earlier this year,
lawmakers voted 109-76 for repeal. Seventeen other states have outlawed the
death penalty, but Maryland is the first south of the Mason Dixon line to do
so.
Repeal opponents have threatened to send the issue before voters. The group
mdpetitions.com, which organized 3 ballot drives over the past 2 years, has
submitted possible petition language to the Maryland Board of Elections for
approval.
The group had also submitted language to petition a controversial new gun law,
but later decided against mounting that effort. The group's founder, Republican
Del. Neil Parrott of Western Maryland, has not announced whether
mdpetitions.com will pursue any referendums.
Parrott said Thursday night that time is running short and the group will make
a decision within the next week. To successfully put the issue on the November
2014 ballot, opponents must collect a total of 55,736 valid signatures by the
end of June. More than 18,000 of them must be submitted to election officials
by May 31.
A January poll by Annapolis-based OpinionWorks found showed Maryland voters
closely divided on death penalty repeal with 42 % supporting repeal and 48 %
opposing. Other polls found that a majority of voters consider life without
parole as an acceptable alternative.
Without the death penalty, life without parole would be the harshest sentence
on Maryland's books.
(source: Baltimore Sun)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
