Aug. 18
TEXAS----impending execution
Texas death sentence for accessory challenged by defense lawyer
Texas is planning to execute a man next week for a murder he did not commit.
If the sentence were to be carried out, it would mark the 1st time in the
United States that an accessory with so little culpability to a murder was put
to death, his lawyer said.
Jeffery Wood, 42, is scheduled to be executed on Aug. 24 by lethal injection.
He was convicted of taking part in a 1996 convenience store robbery during
which clerk Kriss Keeran was fatally shot.
Prosecutors and Wood's lawyers agree that he was in a vehicle outside the store
when it was robbed. But prosecutors have said Wood knew the clerk might be shot
and Wood's lawyers have refuted their argument.
Wood's roommate at the time, Daniel Reneau, was convicted of pulling the
trigger and executed on June 13, 2002.
"I am not aware of a case where a person has been executed with so minimal
culpability and with such little participation in the event," lawyer Jared
Tyler said in an interview.
"When people think of the death penalty, they think of the worst of the worst,"
Tyler said. "He was sitting in the truck outside a convenience store when
somebody else of their own volition decided to kill somebody."
Tyler said he has filed motions with the state to halt the execution, citing
culpability, tainted testimony and mental competency issues.
Ten people have been executed as accessories to felony murder since the United
States reinstated the death penalty in 1976, according to the Death Penalty
Information Center, which monitors capital punishment.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill-victim)
Under Texas' "Law of Parties," a person can be charged with capital murder even
if the offense is committed by someone else. "Each party to an offense may be
charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or
accomplice," according to the law.
Texas has said that Wood is culpable because he knew the robbery was going to
take place. After the killing, he entered the store with Reneau to steal the
cash box, store safe and remove a video recorder used for security.
(source: Reuters)
****************
State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, is hoping to stop the upcoming execution of
Jeff Wood.
It's not often that a staunch conservative loses sleep over imposition of the
death penalty, but state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, says he is up nights over
the impending execution of Jeff Wood.
The 2-term legislator has spent the past week poring over court documents and
speaking with the governor's office and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles,
hoping to prevent what would be the state's 7th execution of the year.
Wood is set to die by lethal injection Aug. 24.
"I simply do not believe that Mr. Wood is deserving of the death sentence,"
Leach told the Tribune. "I can't sit quietly by and not say anything."
In the early morning of Jan. 2, 1996, Wood sat in a truck outside a Kerrville
gas station while his friend, Daniel Reneau, went inside to steal a safe said
to be full from the holiday weekend, according to court documents. When the
clerk, Kriss Keeran, didn't comply or respond to threats, Reneau shot him dead.
Reneau was sentenced to death and executed in 2002. Wood received his own death
sentence under Texas' felony murder statute, commonly known as the law of
parties, which holds that anyone involved in a crime resulting in death is
equally responsible, even if they weren't directly involved in the actual
killing.
According to Nadia Mireles, Wood's then-girlfriend, Wood told Reneau to leave
his gun at home the morning of the murder. She said Reneau put the gun down but
picked it back up when Wood left the room. Her testimony was not included in
Wood's trial, but it was in Reneau's.
"This is the reason we have this final step by the Constitution to provide the
governor the right to commute a sentence,"- State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano
Prosecutors argued Wood knew Reneau would kill Keeran if he didn't cooperate
with the robbery. If true, that would make him guilty of capital murder under
the law of parties, which states that a person can be charged with a crime he
didn't commit if he "should have anticipated it as a result" of another crime.
Leach, who ranks among the most conservative Republicans in the House, is for
the death penalty in the most heinous cases, he said. And he believes in the
death penalty under the law of parties in cases where the accomplice was
clearly involved in the murder. But when he came across Wood's case during his
work for the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, it didn't seem right.
"Jeffery Lee Wood's case has caught my attention unlike any death row inmate in
my time in office has," he said. "Once I started digging, I couldn't stop."
Now, Leach is trying to use his voice as a lawmaker to stop the execution and
change Wood's sentence from death to life in prison. He's spoken with Gov. Greg
Abbott's office and the parole board and hopes to convince other legislators to
send letters to the 2 before the board takes up the case on Monday, he said.
If the parole board votes to recommend that Wood's sentence be changed, Abbott
can accept or reject that recommendation. Without the board's recommendation,
the most Abbott can do is issue a one-time, 30-day delay of execution.
"This is the reason we have this final step by the Constitution to provide the
governor the right to commute a sentence," Leach said, adding that he would
ultimately respect whatever choice the board and Abbott make.
Abbott's office declined to comment for this story. The parole board has
previously said it could not comment on Wood's clemency petition. In a 2008
petition, the parole board and then-Gov. Rick Perry declined to commute Wood's
sentence.
(source: Texas Tribune)
************************
Executing the Getaway Driver Is a Bad Idea
Texas is poised to execute Jeffery Lee Wood next week, even though he was
sitting in the car 20 years ago when his friend went into a convenience store
and fatally shot the clerk. Under existing precedent, sentencing an accomplice
to the death penalty is sometimes constitutional. But it shouldn't be -- at
least when the accomplice doesn't intend for the crime to occur, as was almost
certainly the case for Wood.
The U.S. Supreme Court made its 2 crucial decisions on the execution of
accomplices some 30 years ago -- and they are now ripe for being revisited. The
1st, Enmund v. Florida, came in 1982. It was a close, 5-4 decision, with
centrist Justice Byron White writing for a coalition of liberal justices.
The court struck down the death penalty for Earl Enmund, a getaway driver who
had been in the car when his colleagues committed 2 murders in the course of a
robbery. Under Florida law, he had been an accomplice, which subjected him to
the same penalty as the murderers themselves.
White wrote that such accomplice liability was cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. It had been "rejected by society," he said.
The decision emphasized that the defendant hadn't killed or intended to kill.
"Thus his culpability is plainly different from that of the robbers who
killed," White wrote, "yet the State treated them alike, and attributed to
Edmund the culpability of those who killed."
The decision fell short of saying that only an actual killer could be executed,
leaving room for someone who didn't pull the trigger but "intended" the death
to occur. This position makes a certain amount of moral sense. If 2 people act
in concert, and only 1 pulls the trigger, it's plausible to say that they are
comparably responsible. But if only 1 shoots and kills, and the other had no
intent of causing death -- and wasn't even present when it happened -- then the
punishment for the 2 should not be the same.
Under the Enmund rule from 1982, Wood very likely wouldn't be executed. He knew
the killer had a gun -- and indeed Wood urged him not to bring it on the
fateful trip to the convenience store. But the prosecution didn't prove that
Wood had intended the murder to occur.
Unfortunately for Wood, the Supreme Court wasn't done with this issue in 1982
-- nor was Byron White. In 1987, the court reconsidered accomplice liability in
a case called Tison v. Arizona. This time, White deserted the liberals and
joined an opinion written for the court by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and
joined by t3 other conservatives.
The court held that intent to kill was not necessary for the death penalty --
essentially rewriting the 1982 decision without acknowledging it. Then the
court said that it was constitutional to execute an accomplice "whose
participation is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference
to the value of human life."
That???s the standard that Texas courts applied to Wood in upholding his death
sentence. Texas law still allows for the execution of an accomplice under a
rule sometime called "the law of parties." The courts found that Wood was a
major participant in the crime and recklessly disregarded the value of human
life when it came to the events that led to the murder.
The evidence in support of that conclusion about Wood's role and attitude seems
highly debatable. But that shouldn't matter. It's time for the Supreme Court to
go back to the 1982 rule requiring intent to kill.
Wood's case shows why the 1987 rule is indefensible. First, a getaway driver,
or any accomplice who is aware that a criminal plot is under way, like Wood,
can be considered a "major participant." So that requirement is almost
meaningless.
Quicktake Lethal Injection
Second, anyone who participates at all in a crime involving a gun or other
dangerous weapon can be found recklessly indifferent to the value of human
life, as Wood was. That means that essentially any accomplice can be executed.
In short, the 1987 rule effectively erases the moral boundary between someone
who intends to kill and someone who is along for the ride when someone else
does the killing. Whatever Byron White may have been thinking in 1982, he had
more or less reversed himself by 1987.
Today's court is gradually getting more progressive about capital punishment,
exempting minors and those with reduced mental capacity. And it's long been the
legal rule that the death penalty can only be applied when someone has been
killed, not for other heinous crimes such as rape.
The court should now reopen the question of executing defendants who didn't
kill anyone. The justices don't even have to invent a new standard -- they can
just apply the 1982 ruling, and restrict the death penalty to criminals who
participated in a murder with the intent to kill.
(source: Bloomberg news)
FLORIDA:
Debate between State Attorney candidates at Jacksonville University gets heated
Just 2 weeks before the Florida primary, candidates for State Attorney faced
off at Jacksonville University on Tuesday night.
There were moments that were heated in the debate between incumbent State
Attorney Angela Corey and candidates Wes White and Melissa Nelson, who are all
running as Republicans.
The audience got into the debate too, with Nelson supporters cheering for her
and a Corey supporter yelling from the crowd that Nelson "stinks."
Corey talked about her record, saying that over the last 8 years, it speaks for
itself. Corey said she helped the office improve its conviction rate and
overall rank. Corey also defended her handling of high-profile cases, including
the George Zimmerman case.
Nelson criticized Corey, saying that if elected, she would work to restore
trust that Corey has diminished. Nelson also touted her experience as a
criminal prosecutor, and said she felt her opponents had been ganging up on her
during the campaign.
White talked about what he would do if elected State Attorney, saying
Jacksonville does not need a weak-willed State Attorney. He said he thinks the
death penalty should only be used when absolutely necessary.
The candidates also discussed the controversy surrounding the closed primary
following the write-in candidate Kenny Lay, with Corey's opponents accusing her
of orchestrating it. After the debate, Corey denied those claims.
"I have said it before, while I don't agree with what they did, that group of
people who did that thought they were doing the right thing for the right
reasons and there is a Supreme Court decision to back them up," Corey said.
"The lack of ownership, from the trick, the ploy to close this primary to the
ads funded and put together by Angela Corey's campaign," Nelson said after the
debate."
"Well, I would change my party affiliation to NPA, which means 'no party
affiliation,' so that everyone could vote. Now, people that know me know that
I'm a conservative," White said after the debate.
The candidates also called each other's integrity into question during the
debate. One case that was brought up over and over again was the trial of a
serial killer from more than a decade ago.
William Wells dubbed himself "The Mayport Monster" after he killed five people
in the early 2000s. Nelson was a prosecutor in that case: on Tuesday night, she
said the families of Wells' victims had asked her not to seek the death
penalty.
Wells was sentenced to life in prison and while in prison, he ended up killing
another prisoner. Nelson said Corey supervised her during that case, but Corey
said she opposed the decision not to seek the death penalty all along.
"That is false," Nelson said after the debate. "Did she produce any evidence
indicating that? That is outright, that is false."
"Even though I helped her a little bit with that case, she and Harry Shorstein
and they alone, made the decision to waive the death penalty on a serial
killer," Corey said after the debate.
"When someone says they are going to kill again, there's only one solution, and
that is to impose the death penalty," White said.
The winner of this race will face the write-in candidate in November.
(source: WOKV news)
ALABAMA:
Alabama death row inmate appeals to U.S. Supreme Court
Attorneys for Alabama death row inmate William Ernest Kuenzel filed an appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court this week seeking a ruling that would allow him to
present new evidence that they say will prove his innocence.
Kuenzel was convicted in the 1987 shooting death of a Sylacauga convenience
store clerk during a robbery. He has gained support for his claims of innocence
from a group of lawyers, former district attorneys, ministers, and actors,
including Law & Order actor Sam Waterston.That group filed a brief supporting
Kuenzel's innocence to the Alabama Supreme Court, which refused to hear the
case in April.
In the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday Kuenzel's attorneys state
that in 2010, and during federal proceedings, attorneys for Alabama disclosed
"critical exculpatory evidence" that it failed to turn over during Kuenzel's
capital trial, which they say violated previous federal rulings.
"This new evidence completely undermines Mr. Kuenzel's already tenuous capital
conviction and vindicates his long-maintained position that he is actually
innocent. Regardless of one's views on the broader questions surrounding
capital punishment, this particular case presents the intolerable risk that an
innocent man will be put to death without any consideration of new exculpatory
evidence that gravely undermines the already limited evidence supporting his
conviction," according to the U.S. Supreme Court petition.
After a federal petition was denied on procedural grounds, Kuenzel returned to
Alabama state court and filed a second state petition based on the evidence
that the state prosecutors had newly disclosed during the federal habeas
proceedings, according to the U.S. Supreme Court petition. But under Alabama
law, Kuenzel was blocked from seeking state habeas relief during the pendency
of his federal habeas proceedings because of state law that prohibits
prosecuting 2 actions in the courts of Alabama "at the same time for the same
cause and against the same party." "Unusually, Alabama has interpreted this
provision to apply to concurrent litigation in Alabama federal courts, and
mandates dismissal when a 2nd suit for the same cause is brought," the U.S.
Supreme Court petition states.
"Yet the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Mr. Kuenzel's habeas
petition as untimely under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c), which
requires that successive state habeas petitions based on newly discovered
evidence be brought within 6 months of the discovery of that evidence," the
petition states. "By this rule, Mr. Kuenzel was required to file a successive
state habeas petition while his federal habeas proceedings were pending, even
though Alabama Code # 6-5-440 would have required the dismissal of such a
duplicative suit."
The question Kuenzel's attorneys have posed to the U.S. Supreme Court is this:
"Whether it is fundamentally unfair and violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to require a capital habeas petitioner to bring a
successive state habeas petition within six months of the discovery of new
evidence, when Alabama Code # 6-5-440 would have simultaneously barred such a
suit."
Kuenzel was convicted in the shooting death of clerk Linda Offord. His roommate
Havey Venn pleaded guilty as an accomplice.
Venn testified that Kuenzel suggested robbing the store. A number of witnesses
testified to seeing Venn's 1984 Buick Regal automobile at the store the night
of the murder and an unidentified man in the front passenger seat.
Venn testified that he sat in the car while Kuenzel went inside the convenience
store with a 16-gauge shotgun. Venn heard a shot and saw the clerk fall
backwards, according to court records.
A 16-year-old witness also testified she was riding in a car past the store
about an hour before the murder and that she saw Venn and Kuenzel inside the
store. Without her identification, the evidence was insufficient to convict
Kuenzel because state law requires that accomplice testimony be corroborated,
attorneys have argued.
Missed deadlines
The evidence Kuenzel says is new evidence is that grand-jury testimony of the
16-year-old girl, first disclosed in 2010, indicates she could not identify
Kuenzel as the man she saw in the convenience store the night of the murder,
Moore states. Because the discovery of that evidence occurred more than 2
decades after Kuenzel's conviction, his only procedural route for bringing that
evidence before the circuit court for a hearing was a new petition filed within
6 months of discovery of that evidence, he stated.
Kuenzel filed his current petition in September 2013, long past the 6-month
filing deadline. That deadline, however, under extraordinary circumstances may
be disregarded, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote in an opinion in the
case.
Kuenzel argued he had found out about the testimony transcripts while he was
litigating an appeal in federal court. The Court of Criminal Appeals,
perceiving no reason why Kuenzel could not file his 2nd petition while his
federal case was proceeding, affirmed the circuit court's finding that the
petition was untimely.
"Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter. Because of the
irreversibility of the death penalty, however, I believe some leeway may be
warranted in this case," Moore stated in his opinion.
Among the evidence Kuenzel's defense team say they have uncovered since the
trial that jurors never heard or saw include:
--Venn's gun was a .16 gauge shotgun after all despite Venn having claimed it
was a .12 gauge. Offord had been shot with a .16 gauge.
--Grand jury testimony by a prosecution witness, who had testified at trial
that she saw both Kuenzel and Venn inside the store, was not shown to jurors.
During the grand jury testimony she stated she couldn't identify the men.
--Venn's girlfriend said Venn was alone and was not with Kuenzel that night.
--Police notes, which the defense team got in 2010, show Venn had first told
police he was another man, but police never tried to find that man.
--A police officer noted Venn had injuries consistent with that of the victim.
--Venn needed money for an attorney to defend himself at an upcoming drug
trial.
--The shotgun Kuenzel had borrowed had been returned to the relative days
before the shooting.
Among the evidence the jury did have was that Venn had blood from the victim on
his clothing and Kuenzel didn't, the lawyers have also argued. Also, Kuenzel
and his step father both testified that Kuenzel was asleep at home, without
access to a car, that night.
(source: al.com)
OHIO:
Worley Indicted On 19 Counts, Could Face Death Penalty Surrounding Abduction &
Murder
James D. Worley, 57, Delta has been indicted Tuesday, August 16 on 19 counts
concerning the death of Sierah Joughin, 20, Metamora. Joughin's body was found
in a field on July 22, 2 days after she had gone missing during a bike ride.
Worley could face the death penalty as a result of the charges which now
include:
2 counts of aggravated murder, unclassified felonies, with specifications for
the death penalty
2 counts of murder, unclassified felonies
2 counts of aggravated robbery, 1st degree felonies
4 counts of kidnapping, 1st degree felonies
2 counts of felonious assault, 2nd degree felonies
2 counts of abduction, 3rd degree felonies
1 count of tampering with evidence, a 3rd degree felony
2 counts of having weapons while on disability, 3rd degree felonies
1 count of possession of criminal tools, a 5th degree felony
1 count of abuse of a corpse, a 5th degree felony
Worley has been held without bond at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio
since he was originally charged with 1 count of aggravated murder, an
unclassified felony, and 1 count of abduction, a 3rd degree felony.
The duplicated counts of new charges are due to the crimes being listed in
different subsections of the Ohio Revised Code.
Worley's arraignment on the new charges was scheduled for Friday, August 19 at
10:30 AM.
(source: thevillagerporter.com)
****************
Bond set at $1 million for 1st of 8 charged in Hamilton shootings
Bond was set Wednesday at $1 million for Cornell McKennelly II, the 1st of 8
people to be arraigned on charges connected to 2 Hamilton shootings that killed
3 people.
McKennelly, 38, of Franklin Street, Hamilton, is charged with murder and having
weapons under disability, for allegedly killing Hamilton's Kalif Goens at
Doubles Bar on July 24. He is scheduled to be back in Butler County Common
Pleas Court in October for a pre-trial hearing.
Judge Greg Stephens set the high bond after prosecutors pointed to McKennelly's
past criminal history that includes a conviction for drug trafficking in
cocaine in 1999 in Butler County, serving a prison sentence for escape from
Warren County, and conviction on a heroin charge in 2006 in Washington, D.C.
"This is a very emotional case containing a sequence of tensions in a sequence
of events. For the safety of the public and, quite frankly, your safety Mr.
McKennelly, I am setting bond at $1 million, not 10 %," Stephens said.
The courtroom was full of people that were searched with a hand-held metal
detector before entering the courtroom. They left without comment after the
hearing that lasted about 5 minutes.
The remainder of the defendants will be arraigned Friday, also by Stephens.
They are:
--Mondale Goens, 21, of Maple Ave., Hamilton, charged with 2 counts of
felonious assault, in the Doubles Bar shooting. He is represented by attorney
Lawrence Hawkins.
--Rodrick Curtis Jr., 20, North 7th Street, Hamilton, charge with felonious
assault and having weapons under disability, for the Doubles Bar shooting. He
is represented by attorney Scott Blauvelt.
--Zachary Harris, 24, of Columbus, charged with counts of aggravated murder
with a death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire, and a
classification as a repeat violent offender, and having weapons under
disability. for the Central Avenue drive-by shooting that killed Orlando
Gilbert and Todd Berus. Harris is represented by attorneys Tim McKenna and
Wilkes Ellworth
--Tony Patete, 23, of Newark, charge with 2 counts of aggravated murder with a
death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire, for the Central
Avenue shooting. He is represented by attorneys Elizabeth Agar and William
Oswall Jr.
--Cory Cook II, 23, 9th Street, Hamilton: Felonious assault, for the Doubles
Bar Shooting. bar with the specification that a gun was used in the crime. He
is represented by attorney Melinda Cook.
--Michael Grevious II, 23, of Maple Ave., Hamilton, charge with 1 count of
aggravated murder with a death penalty specification alleging the crime was for
hire and classifying him as a repeat violent offender for the Central Avenue
shooting and felonious assault and the classification of a repeat violent
offender, and having weapons under disability, for the Doubles Bar shooting. He
is represented by David Washington and Ed Kathman.
--Melinda Ann Gibby, 35, of Lancaster, charged with 2 counts of aggravated
murder with a death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire for
the Central Avenue shooting. She is represented by David Brewer and Tamara
Sack.
Gun violence at the Main Street bar on the city's west side killed Kalif Goens
and injured 7 others, according to Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser.
Days later, 2 men were killed in a drive-by shooting along Central Avenue,
which officials say was a murder for hire, according to the indictment.
(source: journal-news.com)
OKLAHOMA:
Another mental exam ordered for Oklahoma beheading suspect
A judge in Oklahoma refused Wednesday to accept a guilty plea from a man
accused of beheading a co-worker at a food processing plant in 2014, instead
ordering another mental evaluation.
Cleveland County District Judge Lori Walkley said she wouldn't accept the plea
from Alton Nolen, who has said he wants the death penalty for the attack at
Vaughan Foods in Moore, because Nolen is not mentally competent enough. He will
go to the state mental hospital for more tests.
Nolen is charged with 1st-degree murder in the beheading of Colleen Hufford,
54, at the plant shortly after he was suspended from the company for making
racial remarks. He was also accused of stabbing and wounding another co-worker
before a company executive shot him.
"They're entitled to justice," Walkley said of the victims and their families.
"While it may not be swift, it will be sure."
The victim's daughter, Kelli Hufford, said in a statement that "justice was not
served."
"The level of disappointment my family and I are experiencing at this moment is
almost incomprehensible," she said. "Giving this monster any more time on this
earth rather than charging him and sentencing him to the death penalty for
killing my mother is inexcusable."
Nolen's defence attorneys have argued that he is mentally ill and unable to
co-operate with them. At a hearing last week, a neuropsychologist testifying
for the defence said Nolen is schizophrenic.
"He has lost touch with reality. ... He can't think rationally because he
firmly believes he is being held captive, and we are all evil and the devil,"
Antoinette McGarrahan said.
District Attorney Greg Mashburn told Oklahoma City television station KFOR
Wednesday (http://bit.ly/2biLZrM ) that he hopes there won't be much delay due
to the new round of tests ordered.
"I think he is competent," Mashburn said. "We'll have him looked at one more
time and get back and hopefully get this case back on track."
(source: timescolonist.com)
*****************
Another mental exam ordered for Oklahoma beheading suspect
A judge in Oklahoma refused Wednesday to accept a guilty plea from a man
accused of beheading a co-worker at a food processing plant in 2014, instead
ordering another mental evaluation.
Cleveland County District Judge Lori Walkley said she wouldn't accept the plea
from Alton Nolen, who has said he wants the death penalty for the attack at
Vaughan Foods in Moore, because Nolen is not mentally competent enough. He will
go to the state mental hospital for more tests.
Nolen is charged with 1st-degree murder in the beheading of Colleen Hufford,
54, at the plant shortly after he was suspended from the company for making
racial remarks. He was also accused of stabbing and wounding another co-worker
before a company executive shot him.
"They're entitled to justice," Walkley said of the victims and their families.
"While it may not be swift, it will be sure."
The victim's daughter, Kelli Hufford, said in a statement that "justice was not
served."
"The level of disappointment my family and I are experiencing at this moment is
almost incomprehensible," she said. "Giving this monster any more time on this
earth rather than charging him and sentencing him to the death penalty for
killing my mother is inexcusable."
Nolen's defence attorneys have argued that he is mentally ill and unable to
co-operate with them. At a hearing last week, a neuropsychologist testifying
for the defence said Nolen is schizophrenic.
"He has lost touch with reality. ... He can't think rationally because he
firmly believes he is being held captive, and we are all evil and the devil,"
Antoinette McGarrahan said.
District Attorney Greg Mashburn told Oklahoma City television station KFOR
Wednesday (http://bit.ly/2biLZrM ) that he hopes there won't be much delay due
to the new round of tests ordered.
"I think he is competent," Mashburn said. "We'll have him looked at one more
time and get back and hopefully get this case back on track."
(source: timescolonist.com)
_______________________________________________
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
