May 10
GEORGIA:
Defense calls no witnesses in mass murder trial; Jury expected to begin
deliberations Friday
Jurors are scheduled to begin deliberations today in a 2004 mass murder case in
which the alleged triggerman is facing 5 murder counts.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys wrapped up on the presentation of evidence in
the trial of Alexander Woods III about lunchtime on Thursday. The defense
called no witnesses.
Woods, 34, is accused of shooting the four members of a Colquitt County family
and their housekeeper on Nov. 8, 2004, on Highway 37 east of Moultrie. Those
killed were Betty Faye Watts, 50; Katrina Darlene Watts "Tina" Resendez, 29;
Juan Carlos Resendez, 3; Liliana Alegria Aguilar, 30; and 24-year-old Jaime
Cruze Resendez.
2 1/2 days of testimony included law enforcement officials and people who know
Woods or another man implicated in the murders and co-defendant Jerry Johnny
Thompson. Woods' attorneys did not call any witnesses. Woods declined to take
the stand, which would have put him in the position of having to answer
questions from the prosecution. Judges instruct jurors not to consider a
defendant's choice not to testify in determining guilt.
Senior Superior Court Judge Tracy Moulton Jr. outlined a Friday schedule of
closing arguments, after which jurors will be given instructions and sent to
the jury room to discuss the case.
Thompson, who has pleaded guilty to 5 counts of murder, described in testimony
trips to Texas with Jaime Resendez to bring back marijuana. He said that Woods
rode with Anthony Davis to the Resendez's house on the day of the murders in
Davis' green Ford Expedition.
After arming Woods and Davis with protective vests, an AK-47 rifle and 9 mm
handgun, Thompson said, he led them to the residence and continued driving.
Davis and Woods were supposed to get Jaime Resendez to contact a marijuana
supplier in Texas, to whom Resendez owed $198,000.
The case hinges heavily on Thompson's testimony. Woods' attorneys already have
noted contradicting statements given to law enforcement by Thompson over the
years.
Davis was found dead on Jan. 16, 2005, in southern Lowndes County, with
multiple gunshot wounds and his body badly burned, a Lowndes County Sheriff's
Office investigator told jurors on Thursday.
Thompson's testimony was that Davis, whom he and other marijuana dealers used
to collect debts, summoned him to return to the Resendez residence, and when he
went inside Jaime was dead and Woods was looking to find cash inside the house.
Law enforcement officers told the jury that the house was ransacked, but that
there was no forced entry into the house that family members said was always
locked. Finding the house unlocked alerted 2 of Tina Resendez's sons, then 7
and 8, that something was wrong when they first arrived home from school and
then found the bodies of their mother and stepfather in the hallway inside.
Thompson was the 1st of 3 defendants charged in the murders, in 2006, with
prosecutors at one time seeking the death penalty against the Nashville, Ga.,
man. During a news conference announcing Thompson's arrest, the Georgia Bureau
of Investigation said that Jaime Resendez was the only one in the family
involved with the drug trade and the others were innocent victims.
Thompson avoided a trial and possible death sentence by pleading guilty to 5
counts of murder in November 2011.
Thompson has been sentenced to a life sentence in 1 of those cases and is
scheduled to be sentenced on the other 4 as early as next week. He agreed to
testify at Woods??? trial when he entered the guilty plea.
A 3rd defendant, Wilma Ann Yvonne Stover, 26, also of Nashville, also was
charged with 5 counts of murder in the case and also testified in Woods' trial
on Tuesday. No trial has been set for Stover.
Both she and Thompson testified that she waited outside in Thompson's truck and
left when he used a hand-held radio to tell her to leave the scene.
Thompson in October 2010 picked Woods out of a lineup in Lowndes County that
included 5 other men, while Stover, who said she only saw him from a distance,
picked a different man out of the same group, telling investigators she would
rate the certainty of her selection at 50 %.
(source: Moultrie Observer)
FLORIDA:
Florida Bar wants former Broward judge disbarred
Former Broward Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner should be disbarred, not just
suspended, for her misconduct during a capital murder trial in 2007, the
Florida Bar argued in a brief filed to the state Supreme Court this week.
The Bar had previously found that Gardiner, who served as a judge from 1999
until her resignation in 2010, had engaged in an improper "personal and
emotional relationship" with then-Assistant State Attorney Howard Scheinberg
starting in March 2007, while Scheinberg was prosecuting Omar Loureiro on a
murder charge.
Loureiro was convicted and sentenced to death, but his lawyer later learned
that Gardiner and Scheinberg had exchanged 949 cellphone calls and 471 text
messages while the trial was going on. Loureiro was given a new trial,
convicted again, and sentenced to life in prison.
Gardiner resigned, vowing never to run for another judgeship, while the
Judicial Qualifications Commission was reviewing the misconduct allegations.
A judicial referee who reviewed the case issued a report in January
recommending a 1-year suspension of Gardiner's law license, determining that
Gardiner's actions were dishonest and deceitful.
(source: Sun-Sentinel)
*********************
Speeding Up Execution Bill Gets Calls for Veto
Florida has averaged 3 point 2 executions a year since the death penalty was
reinstated in 1979. 3 people have already died by lethal injection this year
and 2 more executions are pending before the middle of June. Legislation on the
Governor's desk is designed to speed up executions even more, but it may have
the opposite effect.
Executions are pending for 2 man between now and June 12. Their executions will
bring the year's total to 5. Ranking 2013, number 3 in executions since Florida
resumed using the death penalty in 1979.
But lawmakers want an even quicker pace. Legislation on the Governor's desk
seeks to speed up executions. It also reverses a decision made a decade ago
that was intended to speed up the process; but didn't. Former Supreme Court
Justice Raul Cantero says the new changes are still deficient.
"What I'm disappointed in is that the legislature also did not reform the death
penalty process to provide for some kind of unanimity in the death penalty
recommendation process as every other state has." says Raul Cantero, Former
Supreme Court Justice.
The bill attempts to tell the Governor when he has to sign death warrants, but
experts say that's most likely a violation of separation of powers.
Mark Schlackman from the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights, says the
Governor, could today, sign up to a hundred warrants. "Florida's process of
issuing death warrants is unconstitutionally vague." says Schlackman.
Florida leads the nation with 24 death row exonerations. The ACLU says speeding
up executions would be a mistake. "And it makes almost certain that Florida is
going to execute an innocent person." says Howard Simon, ACLU.
The ACLU also says signing the legislation would tie this and future Governor's
hands in signing death warrants, which they say is reason enough for a veto.
(source: WCTV)
*****************************
High court skeptical over Xbox appeal
Nearly 9 years after the grisly discovery of six bodies in a central Florida
home, an attorney for one of the convicted murderers argued Thursday that a
mistrial should have been sought in the case and that his client had been
wrongly portrayed as the ringleader.
The trial was held in St. Johns County because of pre-trial publicity in
Volusia County, and attracted national attention.
Christopher Anderson, an appellate attorney for death row inmate Troy
Victorino, told the Florida Supreme Court that another defendant in what became
known as the "Xbox murders" refused to be cross-examined while testifying
during the trial. Anderson contended that Victorino's trial attorneys
improperly failed to seek a mistrial when that refusal took place.
Anderson said the lack of cross-examination helped lead to the conclusion that
his client was the ringleader in the killings in a Deltona home - a notion that
Anderson disputed. Victorino and 3 other men were convicted in the case, which
involved the victims being beaten with baseball bats.
"He was framed as the ringleader, and that's what got him the death penalty,"
Anderson said.
But Senior Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Nunnelley offered another
explanation for the death sentence: He said Victorino "deserved it." Nunnelley
said Victorino wanted to retrieve some belongings from the home, including an
Xbox video game system, and kicked in the door, shattering the dead-bolt lock.
At least some of the justices also appeared skeptical of Anderson's arguments,
which centered on the refusal by defendant Robert Cannon to be cross-examined.
Cannon had negotiated a plea agreement in which he was a witness for the state.
Anderson said Cannon claimed the 6-foot-7 Victorino had bullied him into taking
part in the bludgeoning deaths, a claim that the appellate attorney described
as "nonsense." But Justice Charles Canady appeared to flatly reject that
argument.
"He was afraid of him - and apparently with quite good reason," Canady said.
The August 2004 murders drew national attention, at least in part because of
their gruesome nature and the number of victims. Victorino, now 36, has been
depicted as the ringleader since the time of the killings and was convicted on
6 counts of 1st-degree murder, along with other charges.
In addition to Victorino, defendant Jerone Hunter, now 26, was sentenced to
death. Cannon and Michael Salas, both 27, received life sentences. The victims,
who were discovered in various rooms of the blood-stained house, were Erin
Belanger, Roberto Gonzalez, Michelle Nathan, Anthony Vega, Jonathon Gleason and
Francisco Ayo-Roman.
The Supreme Court in 2009 upheld Victorino's convictions and death sentence in
what is known as a "direct" appeal. But the arguments Thursday were more
narrowly tailored to arguments that he had received ineffective legal
representation.
If the appeal is successful, Anderson said Victorino could receive a new trial
or a new sentencing hearing. It typically takes justices months to issue
rulings.
Anderson said, for example, the portrayal of Victorino as a ringleader could
have influenced the decision of jurors to call for the death penalty.
"It's really critical to the life versus death decision, in particular,"
Anderson said.
At one point, however, Justice Peggy Quince scoffed at the suggestion that
Victorino might have only gone to the Deltona home with the intent to "rough
people up" and get belongings he thought were there.
"So he went in to rough up people with a baseball bat?" she asked.
(source: Associated Press)
MISSISSIPPI:
A Stay of Execution and a Whole Lot More
For Justice Michael Randolph of the Mississippi Supreme Court, a legal opinion
wasn't just a place to explain why his 8 colleagues were mistaken in staying an
execution - it was a forum to vent wide-ranging criticism of the U.S. Justice
Department.
The court voted 8-1 on Tuesday to stay the day's scheduled execution of Willie
Jerome Manning, following acknowledgments by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation of errors in agents' testimony that helped convict Mr. Manning in
1994 of murdering 2 college students.
The FBI, citing time constraints, reevaluated the evidence against Mr. Manning
with assistance from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and
the Innocence Project, both of which are critical of the death penalty.
Judge Randolph objected to that partnership, and then, with a single bullet,
managed to hit the Justice Department's conduct in the bungled Fast and Furious
gun-trafficking sting and its policies in domestic terrorism cases.
"Although the connectivity and expediency by which this review was accomplished
is mind boggling," Justice Randolph wrote, "I should not be surprised, given
that the families of the clandestine 'Fast and Furious' gun running operation
can't get the Department of Justice to identify the decision makers (whose
actions resulted in the death of a border agent and many others) after years of
inquiry, and that this is the same Department of Justice that enforces Miranda
warnings to foreign enemy combatants."
The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment on Judge Randolph's non
sequitur. The court's majority also held its tongue, simply stating that "after
due consideration," the motion to stay the execution was granted, "pending
further Order of this Court."
Justice Randolph hinted, however, that me might soon have more to say on the
topic of the Justice Department's inadequacies, as he sees them.
"There exists a host of other legal and factual issues, but time allocated to
write is so compressed due to last minute filings, and I shall more fully
address these deficiencies when the opportunity presents itself."
(source: Wall Street Journal)
WASHINGTON:
High court reviews exclusion of death penalty in 2007 Carnation killings; The
oral arguments before the Supreme Court centered on whether a lower-court judge
was right when he ruled in January that prosecutors couldn't seek the death
penalty against the defendants charged with aggravated 1st-degree murder in the
slayings of 6 family members.
A King County judge overstepped his bounds when he ruled that prosecutors can't
seek the death penalty against the 2 people accused of killing a family of 6 on
Christmas Eve 2007 in Carnation, the state Supreme Court was told Thursday.
King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor James Whisman argued that under the
state's death-penalty statute, "discretion is placed with the prosecutor" to
decide whether to seek capital punishment.
But in ruling out the death penalty, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell
wasn't privy to all of the information King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg
considered in deciding to seek the death penalty, Whisman said.
"The court ruled the prosecutor can't consider the strength of the evidence ...
but he wasn't clear on what he meant by 'strength of the evidence,'" Whisman
told the 9-member panel. Ramsdell did not have access to mitigation information
on both defendants that was submitted by their defense attorneys, and the judge
had previously denied a defense motion to compel Satterberg to spell out "which
factors in the mitigation package he found persuasive and which ones" he
didn't, Whisman said.
But defense attorney Kathryn Ross, who represented defendants Michele Anderson
and her former boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe, before the Supreme Court, said
Satterberg's decision to seek the death penalty was based only on the evidence
and not on the mitigation evidence submitted by the defense. Ross argued that
the state's death-penalty statute is unique in that prosecutors are directed to
impose it only if there isn't sufficient evidence of mitigating factors to
merit leniency.
"I guess that's why we're here - to decide how to read that statute. Is
mitigation the only thing they consider" in deciding to seek the death penalty,
said Chief Justice Barbara Madsen.
Trial judge's decision
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court centered on whether Ramsdell was
right when he ruled in January that prosecutors couldn't seek the death penalty
against Anderson and McEnroe, who are each charged with aggravated 1st-degree
murder in the shooting deaths of 6 members of Anderson's family: her parents,
brother, sister-in-law and the younger couple's 2 preschool-aged children.
The judge handed down his ruling Jan. 31 after 3,000 jury subpoenas had been
mailed out on the eve of McEnroe's trial.
Ramsdell ruled that while Satterberg properly considered the "facts and
circumstances" of the crimes, the prosecutor erroneously considered the
strength of the state's evidence against Anderson and McEnroe in deciding
whether to seek the death penalty.
He said the prosecutor should only have weighed whether there were sufficient
mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency if convicted - which in the case
of aggravated 1st-degree murder means life in prison without the possibility of
release, instead of death.
Under state law, mitigating factors in potential death-penalty cases can
include evidence of an extreme mental disturbance or impairment. Leniency also
can be merited if a suspect acted under duress or domination of another person.
Meanwhile, 3 weeks after Ramsdell issued his ruling, King County Superior Court
Judge Ronald Kessler ruled Satterberg abused his discretion by relying on a
flawed investigation into mitigating factors that could have merited leniency
for accused cop-killer Christopher Monfort.
Kessler tossed the death penalty in the case even though Monfort's defense team
hadn't provided any mitigation evidence to the state for more than 3 years
after Monfort was charged in the fatal shooting of Seattle police Officer Tim
Brenton on Halloween 2009.
The Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in Monfort's case June 27.
While McEnroe and Anderson's attorneys want the Supreme Court to uphold
Ramsdell's ruling and dismiss the death penalty from consideration,
Satterberg's office has asked the court to reverse Ramsdell's decision,
reinstate the death-penalty notice and remand the case to Superior Court for
trial.
It typically takes between 2 and 6 months for the justices to release their
written rulings.
Prosecution arguments
Whisman, the senior deputy prosecutor, argued Thursday that Ramsdell had
repeatedly denied "a series of (defense) motions all surrounding the
prosecutor's decision" to seek the death penalty, and each one of them was
"trying to get to the core issue" of why the prosecutor didn't find the
defense's mitigation packages compelling.
"Ultimately, the only way to make this decision (to seek the death penalty)
reviewable is to have a trial at the charging phase," when a prosecutor decides
what charges to file against a defendant, Whisman said. But, he said, that
would then make "the judge a decision-maker," which the Supreme Court "has
consistently said" is inappropriate at the accusatory stage of a trial.
Whisman pointed out that prosecutors proposed the statute's mitigation language
back in 1980 and said the decision to seek the death penalty isn't subject to
judicial review because "it's a charging decision." He also said upholding
Ramsdell's ruling in the case could potentially overturn earlier Supreme Court
decisions.
Ross said if a prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty based "only on how
easy it is for the state to prove" a crime, the application of it becomes
random. She claimed Satterberg's office "didn't care" about the mitigation
evidence.
"Mainstream white people" argument
Ross, in a passing reference before the Supreme Court, also raised a racial
argument outlined in the defense brief.
Ross and her co-counsel argued in their brief that Satterberg has made 6
death-penalty decisions during his tenure, filing notice of intent to seek the
punishment against McEnroe, Anderson and Monfort, who are all accused of
killing "mainstream white people." He did do so in the other cases, where
victims included a lesbian, a gay man, an Asian child and a mixed-race baby,
the brief says.
In their reply brief, Whisman and Senior Deputy Prosecutor Andrea Vitalich
called the allegations "politically charged and specious." In all 3 cases where
the death penalty was not sought, the defendants presented mitigating evidence,
"including documented instances of mental illness predating their crimes," the
brief says.
Outside the courtroom, Pam Mantle - whose daughter Erica Anderson and
grandchildren Nathan and Olivia were among those killed - said the constant
delays in the case have taken a toll.
"Everything has been put on hold. You just wait and wait and nothing happens,"
she said.
(source: Seattle Times)
************************
1st-degree murder finding puts death penalty on table for Scherf
A Snohomish County jury found Byron Scherf guilty of 1st-degree murder
Thursday, which means the death penalty is now an option.
The jury was tasked with determining whether Scherf, 54, planned the killing of
corrections officer Jayme Biendl, 34, or if it was just a violent attack.
Prosecutors say they plan to pursue this as a capital murder case.
A jury takes up the sentencing phase on Monday.
Scherf and his lawyers did not dispute that he strangled a corrections officer
to death with an amplifier cord in the prison chapel of the Washington state
Reformatory at Monroe.
Scherf is a convicted rapist who was serving a life sentence in January 2011
when he killed Biendl He initially cooperated with investigators and confessed
but stopped because he says he was denied jail privileges that had been
promised. His trial began May 1.
After closing arguments Thursday, the jury had the option of convicting Scherf
of 2nd-degree murder, which would remove execution as a punishment, The Daily
Herald reported.
Scherf's lawyers suggested he didn't plan to kill Biendl, and they say he
blacked out in the final minutes of her life.
The jury saw Scherf's video confession this week and heard forensic testimony
about how Biendl was strangled with an amplifier cord. Scherf said he first
planned to ambush and beat up Biendl over something she said to him. He refused
to say what set him off.
On Wednesday, Snohomish County Medical Examiner Norman Thiersch testified it
would have taken four to 5 minutes of constant pressure to strangle Biendl. It
took significant force to fracture the cartilage in her neck while she
struggled to survive, he said.
Scherf's DNA was found on Biendl's fingernails. His blood was found on her coat
and the amplifier cord, forensic scientists from the state crime lab testified.
Scherf's hands were bright red with an obvious mark across a palm, testified a
Monroe police detective who saw him a few hours after the killing.
Scherf said he blacked out while pulling on the cord. When he came to, he was
sitting in a chair in the back of the church sanctuary. He told detectives he
had no memories of Biendl dying.
(source: Associated Press)
USA:
The flaws in the US justice system----What does 1 death row inmate's execution,
halted at the last minute, reveal about capital punishment in the US?
Convicted of murdering two white students in 1994, Willie Manning was sentenced
to death.
His execution was to be carried out on Tuesday evening. But at the 11th hour,
the Mississippi Supreme Court stepped in and blocked it.
The court did not give a reason for its decision, however doubts over the
evidence used to convict Manning have been piling up.
The US department of justice recently sent several letters saying parts of
testimonies given by 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experts were
erroneous.
The FBI has even offered to conduct DNA tests, an offer which was rejected by
Mississippi's attorney general.
The case has once again raised questions over capital punishment in the US, and
while 18 states have abolished the penalty, 32 have not.
From 1973 to 2012, 142 people sentenced to death have been exonerated in 26
different states.
In Texas, 12 people have been exonerated - the state that accounts for nearly 1
in 3 executions since 1976.
And 20 death row inmates have been found innocent in Illinois, where the death
penalty was abolished in 2011.
Florida tops the list - where 24 people have been exonerated - that is 1 out of
every 6 exonerations in the US. And in the same state, legislators are trying
to pass a law that would make it more difficult for inmates to appeal their
case, speeding up their road to execution.
"When someone sits on death row for 10, 20, 30 years, it really makes a mockery
of our justice system," said Republican Senator Rob Bradley. "It's not fair to
the victims' families not only to be traumatised by the loss of a loved one,
but then have to sit and suffer while justice is not realised year after year
after year. This is not about guilt or innocence, it's about timely justice."
Another Republican who sponsored the bill in the lower house, Matt Gaetz said:
"Only God can judge. But we can sure set up the meeting."
So what does Willie Manning's case reveal about capital punishment in the US?
Should death penalty still be implemented or is it a good time to stop its
practice?
To discuss this, Inside Story Americas, with presenter Kimberly Halkett, is
joined by guests: Stephen Harper, a law professor at Florida International
University and has represented many prisoners facing the death penalty; Richard
Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center and a law
professor at Catholic University; Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and
former US associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan; and
Rob Mink, Willie Manning's attorney.
"Well I think the only higher burden of proof can be to get rid of the death
penalty, and I say that because there been 24 people in Florida alone, who are
on death thrown who were exonerated. the system that we have, the justice
system, is full of imperfections...So I don't think that the death penalty can
survive because the human error is just simply too great... "
(source: Stephen Harper, law professor at Florida International
University----Al Jazeera)
************************
Feds want Mass. man's death penalty reinstated
Prosecutors have asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the death penalty
sentence handed down to a man who killed three people in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.
Gary Sampson, a drifter who grew up in Abington, Mass., was convicted in 2003
of killing 19-year-old Jonathan Rizzo of Kingston, Mass., 69-year-old Philip
McCloskey of Taunton, Mass., and 58-year-old Robert Whitney of Concord over a
6-day stretch in 2001.
He was sentenced to death, but in 2011 a judge ordered a new sentencing trial
because one juror had intentionally answered questions dishonestly on a juror
questionnaire in an attempt to hide her family's criminal past.
Sampson's lawyer said the juror's lies were relevant.
Prosecutors argued Wednesday there was no reason to set the sentence aside,
since issues on the questionnaire were not connected to Sampson's crimes.
(source: Associated Press)
US MILITARY:
Judge declines to drop death penalty for Fort Hood shooter
A military judge on Thursday again denied a request from accused Fort Hood
gunman Army Major Nidal Hasan to remove the death penalty as a punishment
option in his forthcoming court-martial on charges of killing 13 people in a
2009 shooting rampage.
At a pre-trial hearing, judge Colonel Tara Osborn also denied requests from the
defense that Hasan's trial be pushed back until September 1 and that a media
affairs expert be appointed at government expense to assist the defense in jury
selection.
Selection of the panel of officers who will act as the jury is set to begin on
May 29, although Osborn said Thursday that interviews with prospective jurors
might not begin until the following day.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is facing the death penalty for opening fire in
Fort Hood, Texas, on a group of soldiers who were preparing to deploy to Iraq
on November 5, 2009.
In addition to the 13 killed, 32 were wounded, and Hasan, 42, is paralyzed from
the chest down from gunshots fired by two civilian Fort Hood police officers
who ended what was the worst shooting at a U.S. military installation.
The defense requested the trial delay because recent media reports about the
April 15 Boston Marathon bombings have mentioned Hasan.
"Media coverage was saturated again," Lieutenant Colonel Kris Poppe, the lead
defense lawyer, told the judge. "The comparisons are striking and troubling."
But Colonel Steve Henricks, one of the prosecutors, said prominent stories
about the Boston bombings had only mentioned Hasan briefly, and Osborn said:
"How do we know that nothing else will happen between now and the time of the
trial that will bring this case to public attention again?"
Osborn previously denied a request by Hasan's lawyers that the death penalty be
removed from consideration in return for a guilty plea. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the unique law code that governs the armed forces, does not
allow a guilty plea to a capital charge.
"The evidence is overwhelming, so the defense has always concentrated on two
things: How can we delay this trial and how can we get a reduced sentence?"
said Jeffrey Addicott, a former legal adviser to the Army Special Forces and a
professor of law at St. Mary's University in Texas.
"The defense is hoping that the more time that goes by, they can just get the
government to throw up their hands in frustration and say, OK, we'll just
accept a guilty plea."
Osborn has been trying to get the trial schedule on track after extensive
delays while the military justice system debated whether Hasan, who is Muslim,
should be required to shave his beard to comply with military rules. Osborn has
put that issue aside.
Opening arguments in the trial are expected to begin on July 1. Security is
being ramped up at Fort Hood's Lawrence J. Williams Courthouse in preparation
for the trial. Officials have placed bullet-proof sand-and-fiber barriers close
to the building.
Fort Hood is a 340-square-mile (880-square-km) Army post located about 60 miles
north of Austin, Texas.
(source: Reuters)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
