Sept. 4
TEXAS:
Meet Dr. Death: Texas Fights To Kill Man Locked In Death Row Due To Discredited
Doctor's Testimony
Dr. George Denkowsi evaluated 16 Texas death row inmates before he was formally
reprimanded in 2011 and fined $5,500 due to complaints that he used
scientifically invalid methods to evaluate these inmates. Yet, despite this
doctor's doubtful methods, Texas is still fighting to kill one of the men
evaluated by Denkowski. Whether Texas will succeed in this effort will now be
decided by one of the most conservative courts of appeals in the country,
according to an order issued yesterday by that same court.
The Supreme Court held in Atkins v. Virginia that "death is not a suitable
punishment for a mentally retarded criminal" (although several states have
exploited loopholes in this decision to execute intellectually disabled inmates
anyway). In the wake of this decision, Texas hired Denkowsi as its expert
witness during a hearing to determine whether or not a death row inmate named
John Matamoros was intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally
ineligible for the death penalty. 3 other psychologists evaluated Matamoros and
determined that he is intellectually disabled, while Denkowski claimed
otherwise.
Since then, however, Denkowski's methods have been discredited. As part of the
settlement that led to the $5,500 fine, Denkowski also agreed that he would
"not accept any engagement to perform forensic psychological services in the
evaluation of subjects for mental retardation or intellectual disability in
criminal proceedings." As the New York Times explained in 2011, Denkowski
relied on scientifically unproven methods to deem inmates fit for execution,
sometimes relying on offensive stereotypes about the poor. Psychologists
typically evaluate whether subjects have developed appropriate life skills as
part of their determination of whether that individual is intellectually
disabled. Denkowski, by contrast, claimed that "those who come from
impoverished backgrounds may not have learned basic skills like using a
thermometer or maintaining hygiene simply because those skills were not valued
in their community."
Though Matamoros will now have the opportunity to challenge his death sentence
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, he still faces a
steep uphill climb. The Fifth Circuit is a deeply conservative court will a
long history of skepticism towards death row inmates raising constitutional
claims. Several of the court???s judges once wrote that a man could be executed
even though his lawyer slept through much of his trial, and its former chief
judge is currently under investigation for allegedly claiming that African
Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to violent crime.
(source: thinkprogress.org)
OHIO:
Court: Ohio can seek death penalty in 1993 murder
A federal appeals panel has cleared the way for prosecutors to again seek the
death penalty against an Ohio man convicted in the 1993 rape and fatal beating
of a 19-year-old woman.
Maurice Mason had argued that state prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to seek
the death penalty against him because they missed a filing deadline after an
appeals court threw out his death sentence in 2008. He also argued it would
amount to double jeopardy.
But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Cincinnati found that although the state did miss a key deadline, doing so
is not enough to protect the 49-year-old Mason from the death penalty.
Mason was convicted in the 1993 killing of Robin Dennis in rural Marion County.
(source: Associated Press)
KANSAS:
Kansas House passes rewrite of 'Hard 50' law
Lawmakers began revamping a long-used state law on Tuesday that automatically
imposes a 50-year prison sentence on some convicted murders, an effort sparked
by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law in
Virginia.
The House voted 122-0 late Tuesday afternoon to approve the fix, sending the
measure to the Senate which will take up the measure Wednesday. The bill was
amended slightly from a version discussed last week by a special legislative
committee charged with reviewing the issue.
In Kansas, the only penalties tougher than the "Hard 50" are capital punishment
and life without parole, the alternative to death in a capital case and a
sentence also possible for some habitual, violent sex offenders. The initial
version was adopted in 1990, after lawmakers rejected the death penalty but
wanted to ensure long prison sentences.
Prosecutors used the law regularly with little debate before the high court
ruled in June that only a jury, not a judge, should be able to impose such a
sentence in a Virginia case. That prompted Kansas' governor to call legislators
into a special legislative session to adjust the state's law to try to avoid
any similar legal problems.
"The goal is to get this right," Attorney General Derek Schmidt told the House
Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Aggravating circumstances that could prompt the Hard 50 sentence include a
prior felony conviction, where the defendant inflicted great bodily harm or
death of another person, murder for hire, murder to avoid arrest or prosecution
or the defendant intended the murder to be heinous, atrocious or cruel.
The law was originally adopted with a 40-year minimum in 1990, after lawmakers
rejected an effort by then-Republican Gov. Mike Hayden to reinstate the death
penalty early in his administration. But they wanted to ensure the public that
such criminals wouldn't get out of prison any times soon.
The minimum was increased to 50 years in 1999, in an effort to move Kansas
closer to allowing a sentence of life in prison without parole.
The death penalty was reinstated in Kansas in 1994, when Democratic Gov. Joan
Finney allowed the bill to become law without her signature - but no inmates
have been executed since then.
Longtime Rep. Tom Sawyer said legislators were divided over the death penalty
during the Hayden years, with Democrats against the law and Republicans
supporting it.
"I remember I just came in the Legislature when Hayden came in and we debated
the death penalty on the 3rd day," said Sawyer, a Wichita Democrat.
Sawyer said legislators have supported changing the law over the years, feeling
that it gave some assurances to the public that the worst offenders weren't
getting out of prison any time soon.
"I think it's good for the victim's families and the public knowing the
defendant is going away for a long time and that they will likely die in prison
instead of coming up for parole every 5 years," Sawyer said.
Schmidt said policymakers developed the Hard 50 law, in part, because the death
penalty narrowly applied to the most heinous of crimes, such a multiple murders
or killing law enforcement officers. He said the mandatory sentence gave
prosecutors another tool when a 25-year sentence seems inadequate for crimes
that don't meet the criteria of a capital murder.
There had been little effort to change the mandatory sentencing law before the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June. But the attorney general noted that 16
people who were given the Hard 50 sentence are in some stage of appeal, while
another 29 cases are yet to be decided at the trial court level.
Since 1990, 106 defendants have been convicted and are serving either a
mandatory 40- or 50-year sentence.
Some legislators and prosecutors believe the state could apply any changes to
the law to defendants who have yet to be sentenced and provide for new hearings
for offenders who've appealed their sentences.
But defense attorneys doubted such efforts would succeed. That would leave
defendants facing a life sentence with a mandatory sentence of 25 years before
being eligible for parole, which is the minimum sentence for first-degree
murder in Kansas unless prosecutors intentionally seek the 50-year minimum
before parole.
Members of the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said the changes
that Schmidt and legislators are seeking are substantive and trigger
constitutional questions about the right to a fair trial and punishment.
Jessica Glendening testified Tuesday that a better fix would be to leave the
Prisoner Review Board to decide if those 45 defendants still in the trial or
appeal process should be set free after 25 years or remain behind bars longer.
"They're not generally eager to let someone out if there's any question about
community safety," Glendening said. "The reality is these people are still
going to be in custody for 50 years or longer."
(source: Associated Press)
ARIZONA:
1 of 2 attorneys in death penalty case allowed to quit
1 of the 2 attorneys representing Cesar Garcia-Soto in his death-penalty murder
case has been allowed to withdraw for medical reasons, according to court
documents.
Garcia-Soto, 31, was arrested in February 2008 on charges of 1st-degree murder
and 2 counts of child abuse in his 3-month-old son's death. He faces the death
penalty if convicted.
Phoenix lawyer Dennis Jones, the second-chair attorney in the case, filed a
motion last month indicating that he had developed a vision problem "that
limits (his) ability to effectively represent Mr. Garcia-Soto" and that he
would not be accepting new clients.
Superior Court Judge Cele Hancock granted the request and the public defender's
office will assign a new attorney to the case.
Jones and John Napper have attempted to be released from the case several
times, saying they are obligated to undertake "an exhaustive investigation into
the history and life of Mr. Garcia-Soto," but that investigation would have to
take place in Mexico, and "the United States State Department has issued a
warning asking all American citizens not to travel to that portion of Mexico."
Napper said he did not want to send someone else to Mexico to do the
investigation because he found it "morally and ethically repugnant" to put
anyone at risk.
Hancock refused to allow them to withdraw and the Arizona Court of Appeals
declined to accept jurisdiction.
Napper then asked Hancock for permission to file, ex parte, or for the judge's
eyes only, information on "what (Garcia-Soto) believes an adequate mitigation
investigation in Mexico would reveal." Napper said that information would prove
that his client is prejudiced by his attorneys' unwillingness to travel to
Mexico.
The prosecution is against allowing him to file what it called a "secret"
document.
In a reply, Napper said a consulate officer from the U.S. State Department told
him that, while the situation in Nuevo Casa Grandes has improved, it is still
dangerous.
Hancock delayed last week's scheduled court appearance, when she was slated to
rule on the motion, until a replacement for Jones could be appointed and
brought up to speed on the case.
(source: The Daily Courier)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
