August 25
CALIFORNIA:
Prop 62: Death to the death penalty
Is there a problem right now with California's death penalty?
Yes there is.
Activists on both sides of the death penalty debate agree the process in
California is broken. Right now convicts as well as families of victims wait
for years for as the legal system grinds on. A convict on average spends 18
years on death row before he is executed, and executions almost never happen.
The last one was in 2006. Inmates are more likely to die of natural causes or
suicide than to be put to death. On top of that the protracted legal process is
expensive. It costs taxpayers about $150 million a year in attorneys' fees.
Each side takes different approaches to the problem. One wants to reform the
process. They have proposed Prop 66. The other side wants to abolish the death
penalty. They have proposed 62.
What would Prop 62 do?
Prop 62 would repeal the death penalty in California.
Who is for Prop 62 and what are their arguments?
Supporters include long-time death penalty opponent and actor, Mike Ferrell as
well as actor Edward James Olmos, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and Jimmy and
Rosalynn Carter. Organizations in favor of Prop 62 include the ACLU, state
employee unions, innocence projects and some families of murder victims.
They say we should pass Prop 62 because:
-- It would save taxpayers millions of dollars by getting rid of California's
costly and inefficient death penalty process. A death sentence costs 18 times
more than a life sentence. Taxpayers have spent $5 billion dollars since 1978
to carry out only 13 executions.
-- Inmates on death row would still have to spend the rest of their lives in
prison and a greater portion of the wages they earn would go toward victim
restitution.
-- It would provide victim???s families with closure instead of waiting for
years for executions that never happen.
-- It would eliminate the chance that an innocent person is executed. In
California 66 innocent people have had their murder convictions overturned.
-- Murder trials are biased against minorities and Latinos are
disproportionately represented on death row
-- Botched executions make the process inhumane.
Who is against Prop 62 and what are their arguments?
Many law enforcement groups and district attorneys associations are against
Prop 62 along with LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell, former governor Pete Wilson and
some families of murder victims.
They say:
-- It lets the worst of the worst criminals stay alive at taxpayers' expense
long after their victims have lost their lives.
-- People who get the death penalty are guilty of 1st degree murder with
special circumstances. They are serial murders, or they have tortured their
victims, or killed children or police officers. They should be punished more
than other murderers.
-- Prop 62 will cost taxpayers money because inmates must be kept in prison at
a cost of about $47,000 a year for the rest of their lives.
-- The answer to our broken capital punishment process is to reform it, not
repeal it as we propose in Prop 66.
What does a "yes" vote on Prop 62 mean?
A "yes" vote means you want to abolish California's death penalty. Those
already on death row would get life in prison without parole.
What does a "no" vote mean?
A "no" vote means you want to keep the death penalty as part of California's
criminal sentencing laws.
There's another ballot measure, Prop 66, dealing with the death penalty on the
ballot. How do these 2 props effect each other?
If 1 proposition passes and the other fails, then obviously the winning
proposition becomes law.
If they both fail, things stay the way they are now.
If they both pass, then the proposition that received the most votes becomes
law.
(source: KCET news)
***************
Tossed death penalty may signal shift on California Supreme Court
In a ruling that could signal tougher scrutiny of capital cases by California's
highest court, Gov. Jerry Brown's 3 appointees have joined a 4th justice to
overturn a death sentence that a previous majority had voted to uphold.
Monday's 4-3 vote by the state Supreme Court granted a new penalty trial to
Gary Grimes, to determine whether he should be resentenced to death or to life
in prison without parole for his role in the murder of a 98-year-old Shasta
County woman. State voters could take that issue off the table in November if
they approve Proposition 62, which would repeal the state's death penalty law
and resentence the nearly 750 death row inmates to life without parole.
In the meantime, however, the ruling suggests a shift on a court in which the
death penalty has been an overriding issue for nearly 4 decades.
After legislators passed a death penalty law in 1977 and voters expanded it in
1988, the court under Chief Justice Rose Bird reversed nearly every death
sentence it considered until 1986. The voters removed Bird and 2 other Brown
appointees, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, and the newly composed court became
one of the nation's leaders in upholding death sentences, with an affirmance
rate that rose above 90 %. It has also had a majority of Republican appointees
for nearly 3 decades.
The court has become less conservative on social issues over the years, as
illustrated by a May 2008 ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
But it has continued to uphold a large majority of the death sentences it has
considered until 6 weeks ago. Since then, the court has overturned 4 out of 7
death verdicts.
The first 3 reversals were unanimous, based on findings that the trial judge
had wrongly dismissed jurors or interfered with jury deliberations.
In Grimes' case, however, the new ruling was due to a change in the court's
membership, Brown's appointments of Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and
Leondra Kruger, who joined the Democratic governor's previous appointee,
Justice Goodwin Liu.
Grimes was sentenced to death for allegedly ordering the murder of Betty Bone,
who was stabbed and strangled by burglars who broke into her home in 1995.
Prosecution witnesses said the killer was 20-year-old John Morris, who
committed suicide in jail the day after his arrest.
Grimes admitted taking part in the burglary, but denied any role in the murder.
Prosecution witnesses said he had directed the killing, watched it take place
and laughed about it with Morris afterward.
The disputed issue in the case was the trial judge???s refusal to allow defense
witnesses to testify that Morris told them Grimes had taken no part in the
killing and had been shocked to see it happen.
A different 4-3 court majority, led by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye,
upheld Grimes' death sentence in January 2015, saying the testimony was
properly excluded as secondhand hearsay accounts by other witnesses and would
not have affected the verdict, because the prosecutor had never claimed Grimes
was the killer.
But Cuellar and Kruger joined the court before the ruling became final and
voted to reconsider it, joining 2 of the dissenting justices, Liu and Kathryn
Mickle Werdegar, a generally moderate appointee of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.
On Monday, a new majority led by Kruger upheld Grimes' murder conviction but
reversed his death sentence.
Kruger said Morris' reported statements about Grimes should have been allowed
into evidence because the killer appeared to be taking responsibility rather
than blaming someone else, a type of hearsay that is legally admissible. She
said the statements might have persuaded 1 or more jurors to spare Grimes'
life.
In dissent, Cantil-Sakauye said the ruling "opens the door to potentially
untrustworthy hearsay" in future cases, and also argued that the evidence would
not have affected the jury's decision.
Matt Cherry, executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco
nonprofit that opposes capital punishment, said the ruling and other recent
decisions may reflect "a newfound courage" on the court.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-capital punishment Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation, responded, "It's a little premature to be calling it a trend
for 1 case."
The case is People vs. Grimes, S076339.
(source: San Francisco Chronicle)
OREGON:
Lara back in Bend; in court today----COCC public safety officer facing 4 counts
of aggravated murder
Edwin Lara, accused of the July murder of Kaylee Sawyer of Bend, was booked
into the Deschutes County jail early Wednesday and will appear for the 1st time
in Deschutes County Circuit Court today.
Lara, 31, faces 4 counts of aggravated murder, including 2 counts that allege
kidnapping and attempted sexual abuse. Booking records show he was booked at
3:34 a.m. in the jail in Bend and is expected to appear by video for an
arraignment at 4 p.m. today before Deschutes Circuit Presiding Judge Alta
Brady.
Authorities say Lara killed 23-year-old Sawyer, kidnapped a woman in Salem and
then fled to California, where he allegedly committed a series of violent acts
including attempted murder and carjacking. He was arrested July 26 and jailed
in Siskiyou County, California, and waived extradition Aug. 16.
Sawyer was last seen the morning of July 24 outside her apartment building in
Bend near the Central Oregon Community College campus, where Lara worked as a
campus safety officer. Her body was found 2 days later off state Highway 126
east of Sisters.
Lara, of Redmond, is married to Bend Police Officer Isabel Ponce-Lara. Court
documents indicate Ponce-Lara questioned her husband's odd behavior the day
after Sawyer was reported missing; she told Redmond Police that Lara told her
Sawyer walked in front of his COCC campus security vehicle and he hit her and
disposed of the body.
Aggravated murder is the only crime in Oregon punishable by the death penalty,
though the governor's office has had a moratorium on executions since 2011.
Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel has not said whether he will
seek the death penalty in the case.
Due to what Trial Court Administrator Jeff Hall described in a memo issued
Wednesday as "heightened media interest," the court will enforce media pool
rules allowing only 1 video camera and 1 still camera in the courtroom.
(source: The Bend Bulletin)
WASHINGTON:
Luyster arraignment postponed, again
Woodland triple murder suspect Brent Luyster's arraignment in Clark County
Superior Court was postponed for a 2nd time Wednesday morning.
Luyster, 35, is accused of murdering 3 people and attempting to kill a fourth
at a rural Woodland home July 15 while out on bail for an alleged assault on
his ex-girlfriend in Longview.
He's been charged with 3 counts of aggravated 1st-degree murder while armed
with a firearm and 1 count of 1st-degree attempted murder.
Luyster's defense attorney, Bob Yoseph, who is representing him along with
Vancouver lawyer Ed Dunkerly, asked Superior Court Judge Robert Lewis to push
back Luyster's arraignment because - he alleged - Clark County Deputy
Prosecutor Luka Vitasovic breached professional rules of conduct.
According to the defense team, Vitasovic violated conduct rules when he spoke
openly with other prosecutors about representing Luyster as a public defender
in a previous domestic violence case.
Yoseph wants more time to request additional information regarding Vitasovic's
representation of Luyster. He also wants to depose Vitasovic under oath about
the conversation he had with other prosecutors. Yoseph is arguing that by
speaking with others about Luyster, Vitasovic has made it harder for the
prosecutor's office to make a fair decision on whether to seek the death
penalty.
Luyster could ultimately face the death penalty, although Gov. Jay Inslee
announced a moratorium on executions in 2014. A committee of prosecutors is
assembled to decide whether to seek the penalty, and Yoseph wants Vitasovic and
Deputy Prosecutor Jessica Barrar barred from that committee. Barrar is married
to Jeff Barrar, the head of the Vancouver public defender's office, Vancouver
Defenders.
Luyster's arraignment was rescheduled for 9 a.m. on Nov. 8.
(source: The Daily 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
