June 20
TEXAS:
In State with Most Executions, a Texas Republican Judge Questions
Constitutionality of Death Penalty
Texas' highest criminal court should consider whether the death penalty is
being fairly applied and should still be constitutional, 1 of the 9 judges on
the all-Republican court wrote in a dissenting opinion issued Wednesday.
Judge Elsa Alcala, who was appointed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in
2011 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, agreed with the court's decision to order a lower
court to consider overturning the conviction of Julius Murphy, who was
sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of 26-year-old Jason Erie. However, in
a dissenting opinion she challenged the court's decision to reject, without
elaboration, Murphy's lawyers' contention that "evolving standards of decency"
show the death penalty should be deemed unconstitutional.
"In my view, the Texas scheme has some serious deficiencies that have, in the
past, caused me great concern about this form of punishment as it exists in
Texas today," Alcala wrote.
She wrote that the court has been ignoring similar claims from other inmates as
a matter of routine without regard for "more current events," and said Murphy's
appeal "has presented arguments that are worthy of this court's substantive
review."
The court historically has shown little sympathy for condemned inmates,
although Alcala has been critical of some past rulings. It is the last state
judicial stop for condemned prisoners in Texas, which executes more prisoners
than any other state - 537 since 1982.
In Murphy's case, the appeals court ordered the trial court to resolve Murphy's
appeal and deliver its findings on challenges alleging that prosecutors
improperly withheld evidence showing that two key witnesses were pressured into
testifying against him and that one of the witnesses gave false testimony.
Murphy's attorneys argued that the U.S. executes fewer people than it used to,
that more states have decided to abolish or to not use the death penalty, and
that delays in carrying out death sentences mean prisoners are kept in solitary
confinement for excessive lengths of time, which amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment.
They also questioned whether race has resulted in a disproportionate number of
minority inmates on death row.
Murphy is black, like 44 % of the 246 Texas death row inmates. As of Jan. 1,
1,227 of the country's 2,943 condemned prisoners were black, or 42 % of them.
Hispanics, meanwhile, make up 27 % of Texas' death row inmates and 13 % of the
nation's.
"Given both state and federal case law and the history of racial discrimination
in this country, I have no doubt that race has been an improper consideration
in particular death-penalty cases, and it is therefore proper to permit
(Murphy) the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing about the specifics
in his case," Alcala wrote.
Murphy, 37, was convicted of killing Erie, who was attacked in September 1997
after his car broke down near his father's house in Texarkana. Murphy was
scheduled to die last November but the appeals court gave him a reprieve. The
same court stepped in to halt his scheduled lethal injection in 2006.
Alcala was elected to a full 6-year term on the criminal appeals court in 2012.
(source: Associated Press)
MASSACHUSETTS:
We need the death penalty
How soon we forget. Another police officer was recently killed. Another
horrible and needless tragedy. Another good man gone. Another criminal turned
murderer. We need the death penalty as a deterrent. Prison time is too easy.
It is time the public learned to respect the police and any directives they
make. Incidents of police use of force would thus be avoided. The killing of an
officer is the ultimate proof of lack of respect for all the police stand for
which is law and order.
Parents have a job to do and that is to teach moral standards, common decency
and respect for authority. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers. It is
time for us to demand cooperation as required or face anarchy. It is time to
stop retribution against the police for doing their jobs. They put their lives
on the line to protect ours. It's time to ask if we are worthy of their
sacrifices.
Priscilla J. Ham
Shrewsbury
(source: Letter to the Editor, Worcester Telegram)
NORTH CAROLINA:
4-year-old murder case slated for trial
An Elizabeth City man accused of stabbing his former girlfriend to death at a
local motel in 2012 is slated to go on trial - more than 4 years after he was
initially charged in the crime.
The state's capital murder case against Gerard La???Tea Patterson is scheduled
for trial the week of Oct. 31, District Attorney Andrew Womble said in a recent
email.
Patterson, 28, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of 24-year-old
Shawntae McPherson. Patterson is accused of stabbing McPherson to death with a
knife in a motel room in late April 2012.
If Patterson is found guilty of 1st-degree murder, the state plans to seek the
death penalty against him.
According to Superior Court records, Chief Assistant District Attorney Kimberly
Pellini said in a filing in January that the state plans to call an analyst
from the N.C. State Crime Laboratory as an expert witness during the trial. The
analyst is prepared to testify that the DNA profile obtained from the blade of
the knife used to kill McPherson is consistent with a mixture of Patterson's
DNA, Pellini???s filing states. The analyst also will testify that the
predominant profile taken from the knife's handle matches the defendant's DNA.
Patterson's attorneys asked for a continuance in the case so a defense medical
expert could review the medical records, documents show. Superior Court Judge
J.C. Cole signed an order April 5 setting the case for trial during the Oct. 31
session of court.
Patterson remains confined at Albemarle District Jail, where he???s been since
Elizabeth City police arrested him on April 22, 2012, the day after a police
officer found a wounded McPherson in the lobby of the Elizabeth City Econo
Lodge on South Hughes Boulevard.
Patterson was first charged with attempted murder, but after McPherson died at
Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Virginia on April 24, 2012, he was charged
with murder. Patterson's secured bond remains at $1 million.
Neither Patterson's attorney, Jack Warmack of Rich Square, nor attorney Sam
Dixon of Edenton, who is assisting Warmack in the case, could be reached for
comment.
Prosecutors first decided to seek the death penalty against Patterson in
February 2013.
At the time, then District Attorney Frank Parrish met with Warmack, then-Chief
Assistant District Attorney Nancy Lamb and Senior Resident Superior Court Judge
Jerry Tillett to discuss the state???s plans in the case.
Because the case involved a possible death sentence, Tillett had to order a
second attorney to assist with Patterson's defense. Warmack has filed extensive
motions with the court objecting to lethal injection as a form of punishment in
the case.
Womble said last October that he still plans to seek the death penalty against
Patterson.
(source: Daily Advance)
*********************
Up-to-date information on Onslow murder cases
The Onslow County District Attorney's office is currently preparing for eight
murder cases, and law enforcement is working on four unsolved murder cases.
Below, find where each case currently stands, recent updates and where the
alleged offender is currently. For a more in-depth background on each case,
visit the links below.
George Shafto
What: Shafto is accused of killing his girlfriend, who died April 2 after being
found unconscious 3 days before.
Charge: Murder.
Arrest: June 16, 2016
Bond: None.
Suspect status: In custody in Tennessee, awaiting extradition to Onslow County.
Next court date: Not scheduled.
Case status: Shafto was arrested in Tennessee on June 16. The same day, his
neighbor Wendy McFarlan was charged with accessory after the fact for allegedly
driving him there.
Previous articles:
http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160616/man-accused-of-beating-girlfriend-to-death-woman-accused-of-driving-him-out-of-state
http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160617/more-details-released-in-domestic-homicide
Nashid Porter
What: Porter is accused of killing a man in Duplin County on Nov. 12, 2014, and
a man who was the key witness in his 2012 Pender County murder trial.
Charge: 1st-degree murder
Arrest: Nov. 13, 2014
Bond: No bond
Suspect status: In jail
Next court date: He was convicted of the Pender County case on Thursday. and
the Duplin County trial dates will soon be decided.
Case status: Porter previously rejected a plea deal in the Duplin County case
in May 2015, and the District Attorney's Office announced they would seek the
death penalty on Feb. 25, 2016.
Previous articles:
http://www.jdnews.com/20150529/man-accused-of-killing-witness-rejects-plea-deals/305299943
http://www.jdnews.com/20150611/man-charged-in-2-killings-removed-from-courtroom/306119959
http://www.jdnews.com/article/20160225/NEWS/160229334
http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160519/update-counsel-assigned-to-homicide-suspect
(source: Jacksonville Daily News)
FLORIDA:
Death penalty bad for economic reasons
Whether you're a bleeding heart liberal or a right-wing tea-party conservative,
or anything in between, you care about money.
The fact is, it costs millions more tax dollars to try a death penalty case and
for subsequent appeals and incarceration, than for simply locking the
individual away for life. That's millions of dollars times thousands of cases.
Got a calculator?
Mat Graves, Monticello
(source: Letter to the Editor, Tallahassee Democrat)
ALABAMA:
The Death Penalty Case Where Prosecutors Wrote the Judge's 'Opinion' ---- Is
that fair? The U.S. Supreme Court could soon decide.
In "Case in Point," Andrew Cohen examines a single case or character that sheds
light on the criminal justice system.
When judges make a decision - especially in a death penalty case - we'd like to
think they weigh all sides, consider the law and come to a measured,
independent conclusion. Not so in Alabama, where a judge's shortcut in the case
of Doyle Lee Hamm has shown how often the state makes a mockery of the appeals
process.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the case of Hamm,
an intellectually disabled and possibly brain-damaged man who was sentenced to
death in 1987 for killing a motel clerk during a robbery. Doyle went to his
fate after a rushed trial marked by an anemic defense and constitutionally
murky decisions by prosecutors and the judge. That's sadly common in Alabama.
What happened next also is common in Alabama - but pretty much nowhere else.
12 years after Hamm was sentenced to death, an Alabama judge rejected an
attempt by his new attorneys to win another sentencing hearing for their
client. The lawyers wanted to present facts from Hamm's grim life that might
have convinced a jury not to impose death - so-called mitigation evidence -
that Hamm's 1st lawyer failed to unearth during his trial. That, too, happens
all the time.
But in turning down the appeal, the judge exposed the entire process as a sham.
He signed an 89-page order written entirely by the Alabama Attorney General's
Office - and did it within 1 business day of receiving it. He didn't even take
the time to cross off the word "Proposed" in the title, "Proposed Memorandum
Opinion." Hamm's attorneys allege the judge never read the opinion before
signing it, and no state attorney has ever refuted that.
Many judges across the country routinely sign perfunctory orders drafted by
lawyers, usually 1- or 2-page documents. But only in Texas and Alabama,
evidently, is this done with substantive opinions on which appellate judges
later rely.
In the Hamm case, the "opinion" is the lynchpin of Alabama's decades-long
defense of its conviction and death sentence. It has been cited as gospel over
and over again since 1999 by state and federal judges to justify their refusal
to give Hamm a new sentencing hearing. Over and over again, the argument
justifying this practice has been the same: it doesn't really matter who wrote
the opinion or even whether the judge who signed it ever read it because Hamm
hasn't proven that the contents of the order were wrong.
No one disputes Hamm's culpability in the murder of Patrick Cunningham. 2
accomplices, who at first claimed they had been kidnapped by Hamm, agreed to
testify against him. But prosecutors probably didn't need them. Hamm confessed
after a lengthy interrogation. The statement was read for the jury, which took
just 50 minutes to come back with a guilty verdict.
It was the next phase of Hamm's trial - the sentencing phase - that raises the
questions now on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hamm's trial attorney did virtually nothing to try to spare his client's life
and called only two witnesses in his 19-minute defense: Hamm's sister and a
bailiff. When prosecutors improperly introduced evidence of Hamm's prior
convictions in Tennessee - convictions that may have been based on flawed
procedures - Hamm's attorney did nothing to correct the error. It took the jury
just 45 minutes to come back and recommend a death sentence.
Jurors were never told that Hamm had been diagnosed as borderline mentally
retarded as early as 1969, nearly 2 decades before the crime. They were not
told about a school record that repeatedly cited his intellectual deficits. Nor
were jurors given any expert evidence about Hamm's lengthy history of seizures,
head injuries and drug and alcohol abuse. The fuller portrait of Hamm's life
was that of a barely literate, brain-damaged man with little impulse control,
someone who might have been perceived as having diminished criminal
responsibility.
Alabama prosecutors maintain that information would have made no difference in
his sentencing. The 1999 opinion naturally took a took a dim view of the
relevance and timeliness of the evidence presented by Hamm's new defense
attorneys. The opinion states the evidence wasn't "new" but "cumulative" -
essentially, repetitive - a legal standard that makes a difference in winning a
new hearing. How evidence that was never introduced at trial could be
considered "cumulative ' 12 years later was a question left unanswered.
No judge evaluating this case has ever declared the "Proposed Memorandum
Opinion" invalid. The closest anyone came was last year, during oral arguments
before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, when an incredulous Judge
Adalberto Jordan questioned Alabama attorneys about the appearance of
partiality created by the "opinion." Wouldn't you be hollering if the judge had
rubber-stamped an 89-page ruling drafted by defense attorneys, the judge asked
state lawyers? And isn't there something fishy about such a detailed opinion
being signed on a Monday after being submitted on the previous Friday?
The state had no good answer to those questions, but it didn't matter. Jordan,
like all the judges before him, shrugged and joined 2 other appellate judges in
denying relief to Hamm.
Both in and out of court, Alabama has defended both Hamm's sentencing hearing
and the ghostwriting episode. The "Proposed Memorandum Opinion" is sound no
matter who wrote it, state lawyers argue, and there is no reason to think it
unreasonable that the judge who signed it did so without considering its
contents.
It would be one thing if the ghostwriting scenario that took place in the Hamm
case was a one-off event. It is not. In support of Hamm, a group of former
Alabama judges and past state bar presidents told the justices in Washington
that it is routine practice in Alabama for prosecutors to write proposed orders
for judges in capital cases. In 2003, a study found that in 17 of 20 recent
capital cases the judge had denied relief in orders written entirely by
prosecutors.
Sure, the criminal justice system would move more quickly if prosecutors
ghostwrote appellate decisions in capital cases. No defendant ever would win an
appeal. No conviction or sentence would ever be adjudged unfair or unjust.
Judges could knock off early. But that's not how our system works, at least not
beyond the borders of Alabama. Hamm may be a convicted murderer. But that
doesn't mean the state can subvert his rights in such a blatant fashion.
This shouldn't be a tough call for the Supreme Court. The case presents a
straightforward opportunity to send a clear message to lower court judges:
whatever else due process means, whatever else federal habeas corpus rules
mean, they require a judge to at least pretend to carefully consider the
evidence before rendering judgment in a capital case. If the Supreme Court does
this and no more in the Hamm case, it will be furthering the interests of
justice.
(source: themarshallproject.org)
CALIFORNIA:
Democrats back pot legalization, repeal of death penalty
The California Democratic Party on Sunday stayed true to its left-leaning
political ideals, voting to support ballot initiatives to legalize pot and
repeal the death penalty.
The party's executive board voted to endorse the recently qualified November
ballot measures during a weekend meeting in Long Beach. Delegates at the
party's convention in February already had voted to endorse initiatives to hike
cigarette taxes, affirm a law banning plastic grocery bags and impose stricter
gun control.
The only mild surprise was the party's decision to take no position on an
initiative by the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation to bar the state
from paying more for prescription drugs than the cost negotiated by the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Drug companies have mounted an aggressive
opposition campaign to the measure.
Among the measures supported by the party:
-- Marijuana : The so-called Adult Use of Marijuana Act would legalize
recreational pot use, allowing those 21 and older to possess and use up to an
ounce. The measure would impose a 15% tax on retail sales of the drug and
require the state to regulate the cultivation, distribution and sale of
recreational marijuana.
-- Death penalty : A measure that would eliminate death sentences and replace
them with a sentence of life without parole.
-- Citizens United: A symbolic measure that asks voters whether lawmakers
should attempt to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens
United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The ruling in favor of a
conservative nonprofit group opened the door to unlimited spending by
corporations and unions in federal candidate campaigns. The measure carries no
force of law.
Among the initiatives opposed by the party's executive board:
-- Condoms: An initiative that would require porn actors to wear condoms.
-- Death penalty: The measure expedites appeals of death row inmates, with the
intent of speeding up executions.
(source: Los Angeles Times)
_______________________________________________
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
