May 26
CONNECTICUT:
Connecticut Supreme Court upholds decision banning death penalty for remaining
death-row inmates
The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday again said that it would be
unconstitutional to execute inmates on the state's death row, upholding a
decision from the same court last year effectively banning the death penalty in
the state.
In a decision in August, the state's justices ruled that Connecticut could not
execute death-row inmates for crimes committed before the state largely
abolished capital punishment. Under a law signed in 2012, Connecticut agreed to
abandon the death penalty going forward, while also retaining it as an option
for crimes committed before that bill became law.
After an inmate named Eduardo Santiago - convicted of murdering someone in 2000
- challenged his death sentence, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court said last
year that he could not be executed because the 2012 law "creates an
impermissible and arbitrary distinction" between crimes committed before and
after that measure went into effect. (Santiago was re-sentenced to life in
prison without parole in December.)
The state's high court upheld its earlier ruling in a 5-to-2 decision handed
down Thursday in a case focusing on Russell Peeler, a man sentenced to death
for his role in the 1999 killings of a woman and her 8-year-old son.
The justices ruled that Peeler must instead be sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole, because his earlier sentence "must be
vacated as unconstitutional in light of" last year's decision. 3 justices wrote
concurring opinions, while 2 authored dissents, 1 of which said the ruling last
year "inflicted [damage] on the rule of law" that "must be repaired."
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy (D), who signed the 2012 law abolishing the death
penalty, reiterated his opposition to capital punishment on Thursday and
focused on how the new ruling will keep the death-row inmates from ever seeking
parole.
"Today's decision reaffirms what the court has already said: those currently
serving on death row will serve the rest of their life in prison with no
possibility of ever obtaining freedom," he said in a statement. He added: "Our
focus today should not be on those currently sitting on death row, but with
their victims and those surviving family members. My thoughts and prayers are
with them on this difficult day."
According to the state Department of Corrections, Connecticut has 11 inmates on
death row. The only state in New England that still has capital punishment on
the books is New Hampshire, where legislators recently came within one vote of
abolishing it.
Since 2007, 7 states have formally abandoned the death penalty. However, they
have not agreed on what to do with the people on death row once this takes
effect. In some cases, such as New Jersey and Illinois, death sentences were
commuted to life sentences without parole. This is what Nebraska's bill
abolishing the death penalty also would do; while lawmakers there voted to get
rid of capital punishment last year, that law remains on hold until voters
decide in November.
In other cases, though, inmates have remained on death row and the effect on
their sentences has been uncertain after their states abandoned the death
penalty. Like Connecticut, Maryland - the last of the states to formally outlaw
the death penalty - abolished the practice while exempting those already on
death row. Before he left office, former governor Martin O'Malley (D) commuted
the sentences of the remaining inmates to life terms.
Connecticut has executed only 1 inmate since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated
the death penalty in 1976. The state considered abolishing the death penalty in
2009, but Malloy's predecessor, M. Jodi Rell, vetoed a bill that year that
would have eliminated the practice.
Her decision came as the state was reeling after a horrifying home invasion
there 2 years earlier. 2 men broke into a family's home before sexually
assaulting a woman, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her 11-year-old daughter,
Michaela. The 2 men also beat the girl's father, William, before killing
Jennifer, Michaela and the couple's 17-year-old daughter, Hayley. Both men
accused in the case - Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes - were convicted,
found guilty and sentenced to death. This crime was cited as the reason
lawmakers compromised in 2012, getting rid of the death penalty while keeping
it in place for people, like those 2 men, who had committed crimes beforehand.
(source: Washington Post)
***********
Peeler escapes death penalty
The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld its landmark ruling declaring the
state's death penalty unconstitutional and abolishing capital punishment.
The court released its 5-2 decision Thursday in the appeal of Russell Peeler
Jr., who had been on death row for ordering the 1999 killings of a woman and
her 8-year-old son in Bridgeport. The boy, B.J. Brown , was to testify against
Peeler in another murder case.
Peeler now faces life without the possibility of release.
"We welcome today's Connecticut Supreme Court ruling, which takes the prudent
step of ending the state's failed death penalty and the possibility of any
future executions," said Sheila Denion, project director for the Connecticut
Network to Abolish the Death Penalty. "Today's ruling ensures that we can move
beyond this flawed policy to the total abolition of capital punishment in our
state."
Bridgeport State's Attorney John Smriga declined comment on the ruling.
"I appreciate having been granted the opportunity to present the state's
position on all of the issues the present court raised about Connecticut's
death penalty," said Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane. "The court has now
spoken and, as always, we respect its decision. As such, we will move forward
to re-sentence the individuals currently on death row to a sentence of life in
prison without the possibility of release. The Division of Criminal Justice and
I extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims of these crimes
and to their families."
Last year the state's highest court ruled the General Assembly's 2012 repeal of
capital punishment freed all 10 death row inmates from execution not just any
post 2012 people convicted of capital felony as the legislators and Gov. Dannel
Malloy intended.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer, a former prosecutor as is
Malloy, wrote in the court's decision that even though the legislative intent
of the 2012 law was to affect only those convicted of capital murder after
April 25 of that year once the death penalty was repealed for anyone, execution
became "cruel and unusual" punishment and unconstitutional, even for those on
death row.
But in his request for the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, Assistant
State's Attorney Harry Weller said the court's ruling was flawed and ignored
members of the General Assembly who said during the protracted committee and
floor debates of 2012 that the repeal would not extend to death row.
"Before that bill was signed, the death penalty was fully constitutional,"
Weller told the 7 justices. "The Democratic process in Connecticut worked in
this case. This court's ultimate responsibility is to uphold the Constitution,
to get the law right, to do it in a way that is clear to the public that it
reflects when it has to the standards of our society. The will of the people is
to execute these guys."
Peeler, a Bridgeport drug kingpin, was convicted of ordering the murders in
January 1999 of 8-year-old B.J. Brown and his mother, Karen Clarke, to protect
his drug operation. B.J. was scheduled to testify against Peeler in another
murder case when he and his mother were found shot to death in their Bridgeport
home.
The death of the young boy, who was shot execution-style in the back of the
head, shocked the country and was later responsible for strengthening the
penalties against the murder of witnesses.
"This appeal of the defendant's death sentences is controlled by State v.
Santiago in which a majority of this court concluded that executing offenders
who committed capital crimes prior to the enactment of P.A. 12-5 (the 2012 law)
would offend article first, 8 and 9, of the Connecticut constitution," Supreme
Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers and associate justices Palmer, Dennis
Eveleigh, Andrew McDonald and Richard Robinson wrote in Thursday's decision.
But in dissenting opinion, Justice Peter Zarella called the majority's opinion,
"Completely devoid of any legal basis." And Justice Carmen Espinosa called the
decision, "Distainful."
Both accused the majority of trying to save face in light of its previous bad
death penalty decision.
(source: Connecticut Post)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Death row inmate from Allentown re-sentenced to life
An Allentown man who was sentenced to death for gunning down a 21-year-old man
on a basketball court in 2001 was freed from death row Thursday.
But Raymond Solano will not be leaving the state prison that's been his home
since 2003 any time soon. Lehigh County President Judge Edward Reibman
resentenced Solano, 37, to life in prison with no chance of parole for the
murder of Almondo Rodriguez, following years of legal wrangling over whether
Solano was properly represented at his murder trial.
"Justice is served," Felix Ramos, Rodriguez's cousin, said after the hearing.
"We wanted death, but he got life, and he'll never see the light of day."
The state Supreme Court in December ordered a new sentencing hearing for
Solano, upholding a 2011 decision handed down by Reibman, who concluded that
Solano's public defender, Kate Roberts, was ineffective for not presenting
evidence of Solano's tumultuous childhood.
Instead of seating a jury to decide - again - whether Solano should face the
death penalty or life in prison, prosecutors asked Reibman to sentence Solano
to life.
In a statement, District Attorney James B. Martin said the decision was based,
in part, on the age of the case.
"We did not believe that pursuing a new trial on sentencing would be an
efficient use of the resources of the District Attorney's Office and the
courts," Martin said. "Further, reconstructing the events of 15 years ago would
have been very difficult. The whereabouts of witnesses are, in some cases,
unknown. Proceeding on a sterile record - reading a transcript to a jury -
would not be likely to result in a death sentence."
Solano was found guilty of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing
Rodriguez on June 3, 2001, as he played basketball in Valania Park on Union
Street. Witnesses said Solano pumped 6 shots into the unarmed Rodriguez as
numerous people watched.
During the trial in 2003, jurors were taken to the park so they could see the
scene of the murder, which had no known motive.
Prosecutors successfully argued for the death penalty, saying Solano could
easily have killed bystanders.
Judges who reviewed the case later said Roberts should have consulted experts
to present a more detailed picture of Solano at sentencing, including a
neuropsychologist.
At a hearing after Solano filed a post-conviction appeal, Roberts testified to
her own shortcomings, saying that at the time, she had graduated from law
school only 2 years previously, had never had a homicide case and had no
training in handling death-penalty sentencings, according to the decision
written by former Justice J. Michael Eakin.
While Roberts tried to humanize Solano for the jury by conveying his "horrible
upbringing," she lacked the experience to adequately research and present her
client's story, Eakin said. As a result, Roberts failed to follow up on leads
that would have offered a "more complete picture of Solano's struggles as a
child," he said.
Roberts, "despite her good intentions of garnering the jury's compassion for
Solano, did not employ the means necessary to achieve this end," Eakin wrote in
the opinion.
Terence Houck, the prosecutor who won Solano's conviction, said it is
disappointing that his death sentence was reversed for the reason it was.
"There should be something in place that protects somebody from coming in at a
later date and saying, 'Oh, I was ineffective,'" said Houck, who is now first
deputy district attorney in Northampton County. "There's just too much work put
into this."
Houck said he was not surprised that Lehigh County prosecutors concluded it
would be too difficult to seek another death sentence.
"I would imagine that there was a lot of thought put into this and it would
have been very, very difficult to put on another penalty hearing, given the
passage of time," Houck said.
In court Thursday, Lehigh County Senior Deputy District Attorney Heather
Gallagher told the judge that Rodriguez's family was consulted about the
decision to bypass another sentencing hearing and agreed with the decision.
Numerous members of Rodriguez's family were in the courtroom for the
re-sentencing hearing but all declined to testify. Several people were also on
hand to support Solano, but did not speak.
Solano made a brief statement, after his lawyer, James Moreno of the Defender
Association of Philadelphia, told the judge his client wanted to "acknowledge"
the victims' loss.
"They didn't have to go through all this but they did. That's just how it is. I
feel for them," Solano said.
(source: Morning Call)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Prosecutors to seek death penalty in Franklin County triple murder
The man accused of murdering 2 women and an 18-year-old man in Louisburg in
March will face the death penalty if convicted, a judge ruled in a pretrial
hearing Thursay morning.
Darius Robinson has been indicted on three counts of first-degree murder. He is
accused of killing Keisha Wilder Livingston, 36, of Louisburg, Shamare Malik
Harris, 18, of La Grange, and Diana Marie Edgerton, 23, of Louisburg on March
26.
Harris and Edgerton were both visiting Livingston at the time of the shooting,
officials said. A 4th person survived the attack.
Family members were at Thursday's hearing.
"It really hurts. I don't understand it and the way it was done out today, but
I just want justice done for the victims," said Livingston's mother, Joan
Wilder.
"How could he do such a crime, and then he come in the courtroom with a smirky
grin looking at the audience? Like it was his day, like it was his day view. It
was terrible the way he looked out there grinning at folks. I don't have any
use for him because he done destroyed a lot of lives," said Dinah Williams,
Livingston's aunt.
At a court hearing on April 6, family members of both the suspect and victims
were in the court room, and many were in tears during the proceedings.
"I have never believed in capital punishment; we don't give life, so we
shouldn't take it, but then how he took those 3 lives...I want the death
penalty for him," said Williams at the time.
Williams had said she was trying "not to hate" Robinson but said, "We've got to
forgive him, but I just can't right now."
CBS North Carolina learned that Robinson is actually a cousin-in-law to
Edgerton and the family believes robbery was the motive.
"They had a loss, but I got a loss inside of there too, it's sad all the way
around and we've been praying for their family as well as them praying for us,"
said Angela Edgerton, Robinson's mother.
The prosecutor sought the death penalty and the judge agreed to continue the
case as a capital case. The judge deemed the case "exceptional" based on
Robinson's priors.
A 2nd attorney was requested and no bond was issued for Robinson.
(source: WNCN news)
FLORIDA:
Life sentence is cheaper, more humane than Florida's death penalty
It is irrefutable, folks. We kill a lot of innocent people. If that wasn't bad
enough, because of our lengthy appeals process, the death penalty is very
expensive. It is time to bring a little more sanity to our punitive approach.
From the beginning of time, we have said: "It is wrong to kill, and to
demonstrate how wrong it is to kill, we will kill you if you kill."
Still, throughout history, men and women have murdered each other.
The traditional humanist concludes capital punishment is not a deterrent. Of
course, the traditional humanist is wrong in a very relevant sense. There is no
recidivism among the executed. They never kill again.
However, it is no easy matter to decide who should be executed. There isn't
much uniformity in sentencing practices in the 50 states.
An individual can be executed in one state for a crime that is not a capital
offense in another state. Even among those states that have retained capital
punishment, there are great disparities in sentencing.
It is a deplorable fact that three people found guilty of the same crime can be
given three distinctly different sentences.
While there seems to be little uniformity in sentencing, the greater problem is
that it is so difficult to play God. Hugo Adam Bedau, in his remarkably
comprehensive book, "The Death Penalty in America," documented 74 instances in
which we executed individuals who were later proved to be innocent of the
crimes for which they were executed.
The manner of their post-mortem vindication took the form of everything from
the conventional deathbed confession by the real culprit, to the grimly ironic
discovery of the supposed victim very much alive.
According to The Innocence Project, a well-known group that works with many
inmates to try to clear their names based on DNA evidence, they have documented
341 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Between 1989 and
2011, Florida exonerated 32 individuals who were incarcerated for crimes they
never committed.
Frank Johnson was the first inmate executed in Florida's electric chair on
October 7, 1924. In 1929 and from May 1964 to May 1979 there were no executions
in Florida. Since then, Florida has executed 85 criminals. The average age of
the criminal at the time the capital offense was committed was 29, while the
average age at which the criminal was executed was 46.
While lethal injections appear to be the humane way to execute people, some
states have had horrible experiences with the drug cocktails because some of
their convicts appeared to suffer greatly during the executions.
The use of a guillotine or a firing squad once was favored by many countries
and may be the most humane way to execute people. They tend to be messy, but
quick and effective.
However, no matter the method of execution, we must deal with the very real
risk of executing innocent people. According to Floridians for Alternatives to
the Death Penalty, since Florida resumed executions in 1976, 24 wrongfully
convicted death row prisoners have been exonerated. Saving innocent lives is
important, but so is saving money on costly appeals.
According to estimates by the Palm Beach Post, because the lengthy appeals
process is so expensive, Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing
all first-degree murderers with life in prison without the possibility of
parole, instead of executing them.
Much of the civilized world has already abolished capital punishment. Isn't it
time Florida joined them? It's not only the humane thing to do, but we would
eliminate the risk of killing innocent people, and save a truckload of money
each year.
(source: Commentary; Donald Gilleland----TCPalm)
******************
Florida Supreme Court opens the door for new hearings for juvenile killers
The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that juvenile killers serving lengthy
sentences tantamount to life in prison must have their cases reconsidered by a
judge, even if they are eligible for parole.
The opinion could dramatically expand the number of juvenile offenders who must
be resentenced, granting a second chance for release to potentially hundreds of
people who committed murder in their youth. It's unclear how broadly the
decision would be applied to juveniles serving similar sentences
The ruling was 4 to 3 with the majority decision written by Justice Barbara J.
Pariente.
The case centered on Angelo Atwell, who was 16 years old in August of 1990 when
he was charged with armed robbery and murder. At the time, the death penalty
was still permissible for underage defendants - it has since been declared
unconstitutional - but a jury recommended a life sentence for the teenager by a
vote of 7 to 5.
Atwell was given the only sentence available at the time for murder: life in
prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
But that did not mean the state had any intention of releasing him.
(source: Tampa Bay Times)
LOUISIANA:
Defender bill an odd way to reform
There was nothing particularly unusual about the case of David Brown.
Prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that might have helped him, and he
wound up on death row.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether to cancel his date with the
executioner. That wouldn't be particularly unusual in an appeal out of
Louisiana, either.
The lead prosecutor in the Brown case was Louisiana's itinerant death penalty
specialist, Hugo Holland. DAs who really want a defendant dead will call in
Holland.
It doesn't make much difference in the long run. As Louisiana Public Defender
Board Chairman Robert Burns noted in a recent letter to the editor, 50 of the
52 death sentences imposed in Louisiana since 2000 have been thrown out by
higher courts. 7 death-row inmates have been entirely exonerated.
It was no great shock, therefore, when Holland, along with several other
prosecutors, appeared at the State Capitol again last week to support a bill
that tilts the odds against defendants in capital cases. The bill, which has
now passed, revamps the state Public Defender Board and diverts state funds
from death cases, which are frequently farmed out to private outfits. The idea
is to free up some of the millions spent on capital cases and bail out local
public defender offices handling less heinous offenses.
With 20 of Louisiana's 42 local offices insolvent, the criminal justice system
is in danger of grinding to a halt. Prosecutors, thus, had a legitimate and
compelling interest in the bill, for they cannot go about the business of
racking up convictions unless counsel is provided for all defendants.
Prosecutors were not just for this bill but proved its most vociferous
advocates at committee hearings. That might raise a suspicion that the welfare
of indigent defendants was not the bill's principal concern.
Holland certainly thinks the state Public Defender Board has spent too much
hiring what he calls "boutique law firms" to provide defense counsel in capital
cases. He was gung ho for the bill, because it changes the make of the board,
which he thinks has been dominated by "anti-death penalty zealots."
Holland is something of a zealot on the other side, devoting his life to
securing the death penalty. He was drafted in for Brown's 2011 trial in St.
Francisville. Brown is not the kind of convict whose plight will tug at the
heartstrings, for he already was doing life for murder when he and 5 other
Angola inmates took 3 guards hostage during an escape attempt. One of the
guards, David Knapps, was beaten to death when he refused to hand over his
keys.
Trial judge Jerome Winsberg threw out Brown's death sentence, though not his
conviction, because Holland and his fellow prosecutor, Tommy Block, had
withheld a statement from another prisoner. According to that statement, Brown
had not administered the fatal beating.
The state Supreme Court reversed Winsberg, when 4 of the 7 justices reached the
bizarre conclusion that the statement would not have helped Brown avoid the
death penalty. So the U.S. Supreme Court, which has cried foul in plenty of
Louisiana capital cases, is being petitioned to do it again.
Prosecutorial misconduct is common enough in Louisiana to suggest that spending
less on indigent defense in capital cases is not the way to serve justice. But
leaving local public defenders without the wherewithal for bread and butter
cases is no way to serve justice, either. There just isn't enough money for the
state board to do everything.
The bill mandates that the board dedicate 65 % of its budget - currently at $33
million - to the local offices, which also derive some income from court fees
and traffic tickets. Legislators, unable or unwilling to come up with more
money, have opted to shift around what they have.
They have also changed the composition of the board, which was set up in 2007
with 15 members and is responsible for training and regulating the local
defenders. Now, it will have 11 members. Gone are the law professors Holland
dismissed as zealots, while 5 members will be nominated by the local public
defenders they are supposed to oversee.
The whole idea of robbing capital defense is to improve the quality of local
defense efforts. Imposing a glaring conflict of interest on the state board is
an odd way to achieve that.
(source: Commentary; James Gill, The Advocate)
CALIFORNIA:
Convicted killer changes mind about testifying in death penalty hearing
A man convicted of killing an 8-year-old girl in 2013 who had insisted that he
testify in his trial changed his mind Thursday.
Darnell Williams, 25, was convicted May 6 for the murders of Alaysha Carradine,
8, and Anthony Medearis, 22, in 2013. Now during the penalty phase of his
trial, a jury will decide if he deserves the death penalty or life in prison
without parole.
On Wednesday afternoon, just minutes after a psychologist testified that
Williams exhibited signs of a psychopath and impulsive behavior, Williams
announced through his attorneys that he would like to testify.
Both of his attorneys, Deborah Levy and Darryl Billups, said in court that they
had strongly advised him against it, but he insisted.
"What the (expletive) do you mean, it's not helping," Williams whispered to
Levy Wednesday.
On Thursday morning, the jury was ordered back when Levy announced that the
defense rested its case, and no more witnesses would be called.
Judge Jeffrey Horner sighed, as did some jurors.
Members of Medearis' and Alaysha's families shook their heads in the courtroom
and expressed disappointment outside the court.
Court bailiffs ejected Dolanda Medearis, Anthony Medearis' mother and another
family member. They were visibly upset, with Dolanda Medearis saying "That's my
son."
In the past, Williams has gone against the advice of his attorneys. During the
guilt phase of his trial, he insisted that police reexamine his cellphone for
unknown reasons. With the help of new technology, a previously deleted photo of
a gun, a Sig Sauer P228, was found on the phone -- the gun that was likely the
murder weapon in Alaysha's death. On Monday, Williams also insisted that he
would like to go without a jury during the penalty phase and instead present
evidence to the judge during the penalty phase. Judge Horner did not agree.
The trial resumes Tuesday with closing statements.
(source: Mercury News)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
