Oct. 31
TEXAS:
We're Going to Execute a Man Who Subpoenaed Jesus While Representing Himself
Wearing a Purple Cowboy Suit; A Supreme Court decision in Scott Panetti's case
should've made it harder to kill delusional prisoners - but it won't save him.
4 years before he murdered his in-laws in Texas, Scott Panetti buried some
furniture in his yard. The devil, he claimed, was in it. After he was arrested
and charged with the killings, Panetti, who has a history of severe mental
illness, represented himself at his capital trial wearing a purple cowboy suit.
He called himself "Sarge" and subpoenaed Jesus, among other notables. He lost,
of course. The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death.
The case made its way though the appeals courts, eventually reaching the United
States Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that the state of Texas hadn't
adequately evaluated whether Panetti's mental condition allowed him to fully
understand the nature of his punishment - a constitutional prerequisite for the
death penalty. The court stayed the execution and sent the case back for
further proceedings.
Panetti was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, delusions, hallucinations,
and manic depression - and hospitalized 14 times.
Seven years later, Panetti's illness hasn't gone away, but the Supreme Court
has given Texas the green light to kill him. The court's decision, announced on
October 6 without comment, upheld a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that
Panetti was sane enough for execution. The appellate court's decision, in turn,
was based in part on the opinion of a Florida psychiatrist who has deemed at
least 3 Florida death row inmates with long and well-documented histories of
mental illness to be sane enough for the needle.
The details in this story, gleaned from hundreds of pages of court documents
and other official filings, indicate that Scott Panetti was no malingerer. He
began showing signs of serious mental illness in 1981, back when he was still a
teenager. By 1992, he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia,
delusions, auditory hallucinations, and manic depression, and had been
hospitalized 14 times.
In 1990, for instance, he was involuntarily committed after swinging a cavalry
sword at his wife and daughter and threatening to kill his family. He made good
on the threat 2 years later, when he shaved his head, donned camo fatigues,
broke into his in-laws' house and shot them both at close range in front of his
estranged wife and infant daughter. After turning himself in, Panetti blamed
the crime on Sarge, one of his recurring hallucinations. God, he said, had
ensured that his victims hadn't suffered.
Panetti refused to cooperate with his lawyers, who he claimed were conspiring
with the cops. In jail, he went off his meds, apparently convinced, as a
Gnostic Nazarene, that he'd found a spiritual cure.
At the trial, serving as his own lawyer, Panetti rambled incoherently through
his defense. Among the hundreds of people he sought to subpoena were not only
the Messiah, but John F. Kennedy and the Pope as well. Two jurors later told
one of Panetti's lawyers that his behavior had so frightened them that they
voted for death largely to make sure he'd never get out of prison. (Texas at
that time did not offer the option of life without parole.)
2 months after his sentencing, Panetti tried to waive his right to a lawyer for
the appeal - a move tantamount to suicide. But this time, a judge refused his
request, ruling that he was not mentally competent to make that choice.
Panetti may have been too incompetent to ditch his lawyer, but in 2003 a Texas
state court determined, without a hearing, that he was sane enough to kill. His
lawyers appealed to the federal district court, and the case ultimately landed
before the Supreme Court, where Texas Solicitor General (and now US Senator)
Ted Cruz defended the state's right to put Panetti down.
In past rulings, the Supreme Court has banned the execution of juveniles and
people with intellectual disabilities. And while the court also has ruled that
the Constitution forbids executing the severely mentally ill, the justices have
been wary of laying down guidelines to determine, in effect, how crazy is too
crazy.
A blanket ban on executing the mentally ill would have the effect of clearing
out a big chunk of America's death row: A study published in June in the
Hastings Law Journal looked at the 100 most recent executions and found that 18
of the condemned were diagnosed with schizophrenia, PTSD, or bipolar disorder,
while 36 more had other serious mental-health problems or chronic drug
addiction that in many cases rendered them psychotic.
By failing to offer clear guidance, the court gave psychiatrists great power in
deciding who lives and who dies. The legal history isn't pretty. Consider the
case of Albert Fish, who was dubbed the "Brooklyn Vampire." In 1935, Fish was
convicted and sentenced to death for strangling a 10-year-old girl. Not only
did he confess to the killing, he admitted to having cooked the child's body
with bacon and vegetables and eaten it over the course of 9 days. He was
suspected in at least 5 other murders.
A famous psychiatrist determined that Fish had major psychoses that manifested
not just in cannibalism, but a host of other perversions and sadomasochistic
behaviors - including eating his own feces and sticking pieces of
alcohol-soaked cotton into his anus and setting them on fire. When he was
arrested, X-rays showed 29 needles embedded in his groin area.
That psychiatrist testified at trial that Fish was legally insane, but his
opinion was lost in a flood of testimony from prosecution doctors who declared
Fish entirely competent. One even defended the feces consumption as "socially
perfectly all right." Fish was executed in 1936.
In theory at least, the courts have since evolved to take a somewhat dimmer
view of killing people whose tenuous grasp on reality makes a mockery of the
supposed deterrent effect of capital punishment.
"All you need to know is you're going to be executed and why. You can be quite
psychotic and still know those 2 things."
In 1986, in the case of Ford v. Wainright, the Supreme Court first ruled that a
very narrowly defined set of inmates with major mental illnesses were
ineligible for execution thanks to the Constitution's "cruel and unusual"
clause. The 5-4 opinion was the handiwork of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had
spent a good part of his career representing capital defendants.
Yet the high court was conflicted over where to set the limits. Science seems
never to have been part of the equation, and the court's opinion is colored by
fears that murderers would fake mental illness to escape execution. Marshall
sought to exempt from execution any prisoner so profoundly impaired that, as
Alvin Ford had been, he was incapable of assisting in his own defense.
Had Marshall prevailed, Panetti surely would not be on death row now. But the
legal test ended up being defined more loosely by Justice Louis Powell, the
swing vote in Ford's favor. Powell suggested that mentally ill inmates could
win a reprieve if they could prove they are "unaware of the punishment they're
about to suffer and why they are to suffer it." The court left the states to
work out the messy details of what that vague standard should mean in practice.
The result has been a steady stream of executions of profoundly mentally ill
people, some of whom - like Ricky Ray Rector, an Arkansas man whose execution
Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to oversee in 1992 - were literally
missing pieces of their brains.
"Competence to be executed is an extremely low standard," explains Phillip
Resnick, the director of forensic psychiatry at Case Western Reserve
University. "All you need to know is you're going to be executed and why. You
can be quite psychotic and still know those 2 things."
The Panetti case seemed poised to change that. When the Supreme Court sent the
case back to Texas in 2007, it instructed the lower court to ensure not only
that Panetti was aware he was going to be executed, but that he also had a
"rational understanding" of the facts of his execution. The landmark ruling was
supposed to tighten up the vague standard for competency established in the
Ford case. In practice, though, it wasn't much of an improvement.
At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals,
which covers the busy death penalty states of Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi, had never found someone ineligible for execution on the basis of
insanity. And so it remains today.
The Panetti case illustrates how such a situation could be. After the Supreme
Court punted it back to Texas, state officials subjected Panetti to further
evaluation. Among the doctors hired to assess his mental state was Alan
Waldman, a forensic psychiatrist and neurologist living in Gainesville,
Florida.
Pivotal testimony came from a psychiatrist who purports to be an expert in
detecting when a prisoner is faking symptoms of mental illness.
Waldman had spent part of his early career working for the Florida Department
of Corrections. In the late 1990s, he worked as a senior physician in a state
facility. In 1999, according to court records, he quit that job when he faced
the prospect of being terminated. According to court testimony, the state
credentialing board was considering revoking his privileges and had questions
about his response to a complaint by the spouse of a client.
Waldman refused to answer questions for this story, directing his secretary to
tell me that he would not talk to me under any circumstances and "don't call
back." But in a court appearance in an unrelated lawsuit, he was questioned
about his employment history. He asserted that the credentialing board's
investigation of him was based on a frivolous complaint by a "wife beater," and
that he had left his job to avoid the hassle of legal proceedings and the risk
of a poor outcome when he said he'd done nothing wrong. "This happens when
you're a psychiatrist," he testified. "You treat disturbed people and they
sometimes make complaints."
Today, Waldman works as an expert witness in civil and criminal cases, mainly
in Florida. He holds himself out as an expert in the detection of malingering,
or feigning symptoms of mental illness. But during a 2007 hearing in the
Panetti case, he admitted that he'd never published anything on the subject in
a peer-reviewed journal???the only published work listed in his public CV since
1993 is an article titled "The Misuse of Science," which appeared in the
"Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Prosecutor Association Newsletter."
In 3 death penalty cases, Florida governors have appointed Waldman to
commissions evaluating the mental competency of the condemned. All of the
prisoners, like Panetti, had long histories of mental illness predating their
crimes, and in all three cases, Waldman deemed them legally sane. In 2 cases,
he concluded that the inmate was faking his symptoms.
An infamous case in point is that of Thomas Provenzano, who became the catalyst
for a national effort to beef up courthouse security in more trusting times.
Provenzano went around claiming he was Jesus long before he killed anyone. He
would sign job applications "Jesus Christ" and show pictures of Jesus to his
nephews and nieces, whispering, "That's me." According to his sister, Catherine
Forbes, "a 5-year-old kid could tell my brother had mental problems."
In the mid-1970s, Provenzano had checked himself into a mental hospital because
he was hearing voices, but he was released. In 1981, his sister pleaded with
doctors at the hospital to commit him, but they said they couldn't do anything
to help. By 1983, it was clear that Provenzano's mental state was
deteriorating. One day, after being reported for behaving erratically in
public, he led police on a car chase and was stopped and arrested for
disorderly conduct.
After his arrest, Provenzano started hanging out at the courthouse, obsessing
over his legal file and the police officers who'd apprehended him. He began
dressing like Rambo and, in early 1984, told his nephew he was going to blow up
the Orlando police department. Shortly thereafter, he smuggled three guns into
the courthouse, where he shot and killed a man and critically injured two other
people before a sheriff shot him in the back. In the ambulance en route to the
hospital, he yelled, "I am the son of God! You can't kill me."
In 1999, Jeb Bush, then the governor of Florida, signed Provenzano's death
warrant and appointed a competency commission that included Waldman. After
conducting an evaluation, Waldman reported back that the prisoner was faking
his illness.
Police say Alan Waldman confronted a woman with an AK-47 in the wake of a
traffic dispute: "He was so close I could feel him spitting at me," the woman
recalled.
Forbes, Provenzano's sister, was shocked. She told me tearfully that her
brother had spent 17 years on death row sleeping under his cot with a box on
his head because he was hearing voices. She doubts any sane person could fake
symptoms for so long: "Would you sleep 17 years with a box on your head, or
under your cot?"
In May 2000, the Florida Supreme Court sided with the commission. The state
executed Provenzano the next month.
About 6 months after the execution, Gainesville police arrested Waldman for
aggravated assault. According to the police report, court records, and an
interview with the alleged victim, Waldman was engaged in a bit of road rage.
He was driving behind a woman who was a teenager at the time. Waldman cut in
front of her at a red light, and she believed he'd clipped the front of her
purple Saturn. But rather than pull over, she said, he took off when the light
changed.
Incensed, she followed him home to try to get his insurance information.
According to the police report, Waldman then walked from his front door to the
roadside armed with an AK-47 to confront the woman. He pointed the gun at her
through her car window, she told me: "He was so close I could feel him spitting
at me."
She drove away and called the police, only to discover that Waldman had
reported her first and that the police were looking to arrest her. Waldman had
told them he was "scared for his life," she said. But after corroborating the
gist of her story, the police arrested Waldman instead. She decided not to
press charges, but said she's still traumatized by the episode.
Since his arrest, Waldman has continued to serve on mental competency
commissions for Florida death row inmates. In 2012, he evaluated John Ferguson,
a prisoner with a 40-year history of paranoid schizophrenia who had once been
represented pro bono by John Roberts Jr., now chief justice of the US Supreme
Court. Ferguson had killed eight people after he was released from a mental
institution over the dire warnings of state doctors who said Ferguson was
homicidal and "should not be released under any circumstances."
Right up through his execution day in the summer of 2013, Ferguson insisted
that he was the "prince of God." Yet after a 90-minute interview, Waldman and
his colleagues deemed him sane enough to execute.
Texas paid Waldman $250 an hour to assess Panetti, and $350 an hour for his
expert testimony.
Texas paid Waldman $250 an hour for his assessments in the Panetti case and
$350 an hour for his testimony. At first, Panetti had refused to talk to
Waldman, and when he eventually agreed, he wasn't especially cooperative. For
example, Waldman wrote that Panetti insisted on calling him "Dr. Grigson." The
late James Grigson was the discredited Texas psychiatrist featured in the Errol
Morris film The Thin Blue Line. Known as "Dr. Death," he had a long record of
testifying in capital trials, where he invariably argued that the defendant was
an incurable sociopath who would certainly kill again if allowed to live.
For much of the evaluation session, Panetti answered Waldman's questions with
Bible quotes. He made up stories and claimed that John F. Kennedy had once
cleaned his burns. He talked like a cowboy. He said the other inmates hated him
because he preaches the Gospel. (Waldman, who had interviewed some of the other
death row inmates, informed Panetti that they didn't like him because "he
screams and yells and is constantly disturbing the unit by preaching the
Gospel.") Panetti also talked about burying the possessed furniture in his
yard, and claimed "Sergeant Iron Horse" was his in-laws' real killer.
The interview, Waldman wrote, demonstrated that Panetti has "organized"
thoughts, and that he is very coherent most of the time???especially when asked
about the Bible. Panetti had hoped to "sabotage" the interview, Waldman noted,
and displayed no evidence of mental illness. Waldman also dismissed Panetti's
descriptions of his hallucinations and his claims about the furniture, writing,
"One also must wonder, what furniture did Mr. Panetti in fact bury, a sofa?" He
said the prisoner's repeated references to Dr. Grigson further proved that he
was malingering.
By the time defense lawyers got a chance to question Waldman at Panetti's
competency hearing, the psychiatrist had run up a $23,000 invoice for the
state. (The federal courts, meanwhile, had allotted Panetti just $9,000 for all
of his experts.) But the cross-examination revealed crucial gaps in Waldman's
knowledge. The furniture incident, for instance, had been well documented by
witnesses. Their accounts were in Panetti's medical records and had been
introduced as exhibits in court.
On the stand, Waldman conceded that he hadn't given Panetti a single test or
standard psychological exam.
In any case, Waldman argued, burying furniture was a "questionable" symptom of
mental illness. Furthermore, he suspected that Panetti's mother had coached her
son to bring up Grigson - that Panetti had "premeditated" the whole thing as a
way to "handle" his examiner. Defense attorney Kathryn Kase informed him,
however, that Grigson had in fact testified at Panetti's trial - and Panetti,
representing himself, had cross-examined him. He had been obsessed with Grigson
ever since. Waldman hadn't known any of this, he admitted.
Waldman also conceded that he hadn't given Panetti a single test or standard
psychological exam, even though such things - including a test for malingering
schizophrenia - not only exist, but are used regularly in his field.
Kase tried to inquire about the AK-47 incident, and whether Waldman had
reported any acts of "moral turpitude" when he applied for the temporary
medical license required for him to work for the state of Texas. But the judge
cut off that line of inquiry and eventually ruled against Panetti, deeming him
eligible for execution.
Panetti's lawyers appealed, arguing that he still hadn't received a fair
hearing on his competency as the Supreme Court had ordered 6 years earlier.
"Paradoxically," they wrote, "Panetti must invoke the Supreme Court's decision
in his own case to vindicate his right - now a 2nd time - to rudimentary due
process in an execution competency proceeding."
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Panetti anyway, quoting Waldman
at length in its August 2013 ruling - even though Waldman was the only expert
who testified at the competency hearing that Panetti was not, in fact, sick:
The State's chief expert - Dr. Waldman - doubted that Panetti suffered from any
form of mental illness and was "emphatic in his opinion that Panetti has a
rational understanding of the...connection between [his] crime and [his]
execution."
Last week, the United States Supreme Court agreed.
(source: Mother Jones)
**********************
Is The End Of The Death Penalty Near? Just Look At Texas
The State of Texas carried out its 10th death penalty sentence of the year
Tuesday night as Miguel Paredes was executed by lethal injection for the murder
of 3 men in 2000. There are no other executions planned for the Lone Star State
in 2014.
While 10 is almost a rate of 1 per month, Texas has, in the past, used the
death penalty on upwards of 30 or more in a year. They executed 40 in the year
2000. Texas is, by far, the state that executes the most criminals. And in
2014, that number is only 10. Why the sudden drop in the number of death
penalties carried out?
Lethal injection is now the most used form of execution in America.
Is it the lack of supplies? Texas is a lethal injection state and the drugs
used to carry out the death penalty come from overseas suppliers. As explained
by the Atlantic, those suppliers have stopped selling the drugs to the U.S.,
Texas specifically. And states have tried to circumvent the loss of supplies by
creating their own concoctions, like this past summer in Arizona, as reported
in the Inquisitr, where an inmate suffered for 2 hours after the "new" cocktail
of death drugs failed to do its job. The lack of death penalty drugs has led to
calls from some states to re-instate the electric chair as a means of
execution. More barbaric, other states - including Arizona - have looked at
firing squads and even guillotines as instruments of death.
Is finding new and creative ways to execute our convicted criminals the answer?
A recent Gallup poll shows that 6 out of 10 Americans support the death
penalty. And as long as crimes are committed, punishments must be rendered
under our criminal justice system. Critics have long since argued that
executions are racially divided, with minorities being put to death in greater
numbers than whites. But not in Texas. As shown by a report by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, in 2000, when the state executed 40 inmates,
the majority of those executed were white. In 1997, when Texas put 37 inmates
to death, 21 of those were white. Since Texas leads the nation in all things
death penalty, they too can serve to make a point. And that point is that the
number of executions are down to the lowest number since 1996, when Texas
executed only three people. Coincidentally, 1996 is also the year that Congress
passed legislation restricting federal appeals for death penalties with the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. After 1996, it became easier for
states to execute their convicted criminals and Texas took the point, pushing
their number from three in 1996 to 37 in the following year. An article in the
Atlantic spells it out clearly.
"Executions in Texas, the most prolific death-penalty state in the country,
spiked after Congress restricted federal appeals in death-penalty cases with
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996."
There are other factors at play in the decline of death penalty cases, as the
Atlantic points out. The Supreme Court banned the executions of mentally ill
inmates in 2002. In 2005, the highest court in the land barred executions for
inmates who committed the crime they were convicted of while being under 18, as
it violated the 8th amendment. And in 2008, they outlawed executions for any
other crime but 1st degree murder. With legal jurisprudence hindering states
from carrying out its executions, only those inmates that "qualify" can be put
to death.
Convicted killers sometimes wait decades for their death sentence to be carried
out.
After a federal judge ruled that California's death penalty was
unconstitutional, as originally reported in the Inquisitr, the death penalty
has come under even more scrutiny. Even with the recent Gallup polls' numbers,
Americans seem to be divided on the death penalty as a means of punishment. 32
states still have the death penalty, and 18 have bowed out, with Maryland being
the last to do so in 2013. The fiscal costs associated with the death penalty
far outnumber the costs of life in prison. Automatic appeals tie up the courts
and most sentences aren't carried out for decades after final sentencing. Those
costs matter in states that are operating in the red. Finances could be the
deciding factor that halts the death penalty in America.
The fact that Texas, of all states, is slowing down in the number of executions
could very well point to a future where death penalty cases are phased out
completely. Recent legislation, coupled with public sentiment, has shined a
very bright light on the dark act of execution. And the age of the death
penalty could very well be coming to an end.
(source: The Inquisitr)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Midstate DAs: Frein will likely face death penalty, definitely won't get bail
Eric Frein will almost certainly face the death penalty, because of the
premeditated nature of the crime, and the fact it involved a police officer, 2
Harrisburg area prosecutors said Thursday night.
"I think it's very likely because this was a premeditated kind of thing that
would rise to 1st-degree murder, and you have the aggravating circumstances of
killing a police officer and trying to kill a 2nd trooper," said Dauphin County
District Attorney Ed Marsico.
David Freed, district attorney in Cumberland County, said, "it has all the
hallmarks" of a death penalty case. The decision on whether or not to seek the
death penalty will be made by the district attorney in Pike County, who has
until the time of Frein's formal arraignment, which could be several weeks
away.
Because Frein, 31, has been charged with 1st-degree murder as a result of the
Sept. 12 shooting outside a state police barracks in Pike County, there is no
chance he will be granted bail, the prosecutors said. Frein is charged in the
homicide of Cpl. Bryon Dickson.
The next step in the legal process is a preliminary arraignment, which will
likely take place as soon as Thursday night.
Freed expected prosecutors would first attempt to question Frein and obtain a
statement. But if he exercises his right to remain silent or to have a lawyer
present, he would soon be taken for the preliminary arraignment, which can be
carried out without a lawyer for Frein.
If Frein can't afford a lawyer and must rely on a public defender, Marsico said
he expects one would be appointed by Friday.
After that, the next legal step is a preliminary hearing, which takes place
before a local district magisterial justice, and must be held within 3 to 10
days of arrest. However, the time frame is often extended, often at the request
of the defense to allow more time to prepare. Also, defendants frequently waive
their preliminary hearing.
If the outcome of the preliminary hearing is that Frein goes to trial, the next
step is formal arraignment, which will take place in the Pike County Court of
Common Pleas.
Freed said timetables vary by county, but he would expect the trial to take
place within about a year.
Meanwhile, Frein will be held in county prison. Freed predicts Frein will be
isolated from other prisoners for his safety.
Prosecutors prefer to try cases in their home county. However, Freed said he
believes it's likely Frein's lawyer will seek to have the trial moved to a
different county, as a result of the impact of the case on the local community
and all the publicity it received.
A compromise is to bring in an out-of-county jury; the matter would be settled
by a Pike County judge.
On Thursday night, both Freed and Marsico said they were happy Frein was taken
alive, so justice can be served.
(source: pennlive.com)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Judge orders that attorneys for man facing death penalty have access to
electronic evidence
A Forsyth County judge ordered that attorneys for a man facing the death
penalty in the fatal shooting of an Ardmore woman have access to cellphones and
computers that were seized in the criminal investigation.
Anthony Vinh Nguyen, 22, is charged with 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree
burglary, 1st-degree kidnapping and armed robbery in the death of Shelia Pace
Gooden, 43. Authorities say Nguyen shot Gooden in the head after he and 2 other
men - Daniel Aaron Benson, 23, and Steve Gorge Assimos, 22 - broke into
Gooden's house at 700 Magnolia St. on Oct. 11, 2013. Authorities say the men
held Gooden against her will and stole a flatscreen television valued at $200.
All 3 men are facing 1st-degree murder charges, but Nguyen is the only one
facing the death penalty.
David Botchin and John Bryson, attorneys for Nguyen, had filed a motion Monday
alleging that Forsyth County prosecutors had failed to provide access to
electronic equipment seized during the investigation. Botchin said in the
motion that he had made arrangements for an expert to analyze the equipment but
had to cancel after Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Martin sent an email
saying the attorneys would need a search warrant, a court order or consent of
the property owners.
Judge William Z. Wood of Forsyth Superior Court ruled that Bryson and Botchin
can examine the electronic equipment. One issue that came up, however, was how
to deal with cellphones that were seized but belonged to Benson, Assimos and
another person who wasn't charged.
Assistant District Attorney Ben White said that a recent U.S. Supreme Court
ruling means they have to be careful about searching cellphones and not
invading the privacy rights of the co-defendants and anyone else whose property
was seized in the course of the criminal investigation. White said prosecutors
had no objection to Nguyen's attorneys examining the electronic equipment but
that they had to be careful not to unnecessarily violate the co-defendants'
privacy rights.
Wood ruled that attorneys for Benson and Assimos be given at least 30 days to
object, if they choose to, before their property can be analyzed.
Also at the hearing, Martin withdrew a motion she had filed asking that the
State Crime Lab waive its policy restricting items of evidence that can be
submitted for analysis. Martin said in court that she and White had talked with
officials at the State Crime Lab about the policy. She said she has confidence
that some of the items can be analyzed without too much delay in the case.
On Oct. 9, several items - including clothing, shell casings and saliva swabs -
were sent to the State Crime Lab. 3 items came back untested, including the
steering wheel from Nguyen's car. Martin said prosecutors allege that gunshot
residue might be on the steering wheel because Nguyen was the one who shot
Gooden and then drove the car away.
Martin also said in court that prosecutors have decided to withdraw a plea
offer. Under that plea offer, Nguyen would have been able to plead guilty to
1st-degree murder and receive life in prison without the possibility of parole,
instead of the death penalty. Martin said prosecutors would not be offering
that plea offer again.
(source: Winston-Salem Journal)
FLORIDA----impending execution
Stay of Execution Denied for Chadwick Banks
The Florida Supreme Court has denied a death row inmate's request for stay of
execution.
Chadwick Banks was convicted of murdering his wife, then raping and killing his
stepdaughter at their Gadsden County home in 1992.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled banks did not show "substantial grounds" for
relief required for a stay.
He is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on November 13.
(source: WTXL news)
********************
Another Florida Inmate Added to Exoneration List
Carl Dausch, a former death row inmate in Florida, has been added to DPIC's
list of exonerations from death row, bringing the national total to 147 and
Florida's total to 25, the most of any state in the country. On June 12, 2014,
the Florida Supreme Court directed the acquittal of Dausch because there was
insufficient evidence of his guilt. The Court stated, "We do not take lightly
the result that will flow from our decision today. We have reviewed the entire
record in this case with the utmost seriousness and care. Yet, our
comprehensive review of this case leaves us with the inescapable conclusion
that the evidence is simply insufficient to conclude, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Dausch was the person responsible for murdering Mobley. At best,
the evidence presented by the State creates a suspicion of guilt." Dausch's is
the 4th death penalty exoneration in 2014. Glenn Ford was exonerated in
Louisiana in March, and Henry McCollum and Leon Brown were exonerated in North
Carolina in September. All 3 men had been imprisoned for 30 years.
Dausch is serving a 60-year sentence in Indiana for an unrelated conviction.
Although he was added to DPIC's list after Brown and McCollum, his exoneration
occurred before theirs, and he is listed as #145, with McCollum and Brown being
#146 and #147, respectively.
(source: DPIC)
OHIO:
Defense says Akron man's low IQ disallows execution; Judge Tom Parker said
Thursday he'd be willing to hold a hearing about the IQ issue.
Attorneys for a northeast Ohio man convicted of killing his girlfriend's
parents with a sledgehammer argue their client's low IQ prevents him from
receiving the death penalty.
The Akron jury that convicted 20-year-old Shawn Ford Jr., of Akron, of
aggravated murder in the slayings of Jeffrey and Margaret Schobert is now
hearing evidence about whether to recommend the death penalty or life in prison
for him.
A psychiatrist testified that Ford had an IQ of 62 as a 9-year-old.
Other IQ tests resulted in scores of 64, 71 and 80.
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year voted to stop the execution of a
Florida man with IQ scores between 60 and 80.
Judge Tom Parker said Thursday he'd be willing to hold a hearing about the IQ
issue.
(source: WKYC news)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
