Oct. 5
TEXAS----execution
Execution of Man Who Killed Neighbors First in Months
6 months after the Texas death chamber held its last execution, Barney Ronald
Fuller Jr. was put to death by lethal injection Wednesday for the 2003 shooting
deaths of his neighbors in rural East Texas.
Fuller's execution broke the longest gap between executions in Texas since
2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of
lethal injection. It also marks the 1st time Houston County has put someone to
death since the penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976.
Laid out in the Texas death chamber with an IV in his arm, Fuller declined to
give a last statement. At 6:23 p.m., a lethal dose of pentobarbital started
running through his veins, according to the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. He was pronounced dead at 7:01 p.m.
Fuller, 53, was sentenced to death for killing Annette and Nathan Copeland, his
neighbors on the outskirts of Lovelady, a small town with around 600 residents
at the time about 100 miles north of Houston. In the early morning of May 14,
2003, he fired into their home with an assault rifle before breaking in and
killing them both with a pistol, according to court documents.
"We got a call in the middle of the night that our family had been murdered,"
said Ona Presto, Annette's older sister who became guardian of the Copelands' 2
children.
The tension between the neighbors began several years earlier. In 2001, Fuller
was charged with making terroristic threats against the Copelands after he
allegedly shot and damaged their electric transformer, then threatened them
when they called the sheriff's office, according to testimony from the
sentencing trial. The Copelands called deputies to their home several other
times claiming Fuller was firing weapons, but no action was ever taken.
On May 13, 2003, more than 2 years after charges were filed, Fuller received a
letter from the Houston County courthouse about his upcoming trial, sending him
into a rage, according to testimony from Fuller's wife, Linda. He drank through
the day and night and eventually sent Linda and their children from the house.
At around 1:30 a.m., he walked the 200 yards to the Copeland's home and fired
60 rounds into the house with an assault rifle, according to court documents.
He then broke down the back door, and first went into the bedroom of the
Copeland's 10-year-old daughter, but left when he couldn't turn on her light.
He went into the master bedroom and fatally shot both Nathan, 43, and Annette,
39, with a pistol before heading to their son's room. Cody, 14, was shot twice
in the shoulder, but survived.
During the initial gunfire, Annette managed to crawl into the bathroom to call
911. During the call, the operator heard a man say, "Party's over, bitch"
before hearing pops, then silence, according to court testimony.
"It's just a heinous crime," said Randy Hargrove, an investigator for the
Houston County District Attorney's Office and former sheriff deputy who worked
the crime scene in 2003. "The man doesn't need to be on this earth."
Fuller was arrested at his home several hours later, and pleaded guilty to the
murders in court. After a sentencing trial, the jury handed down the death
penalty.
Hargrove said he couldn't remember another case in Houston County where the
death penalty was pursued. Fuller's was the 1st execution from the county on
record, and no other current death row inmates were sentenced by the county.
Hargrove said he believes the death penalty was right for Fuller but hopes
there will be no future cases.
"It's really sad for both families," Hargrove said, adding that he feels for
Fuller's mother as well as the Copelands. "But you reap what you sow. If you
plant corn, you don't harvest peas ... That's just the way it is."
Presto has always believed the death penalty was the right punishment for her
sister's killer, she said.
"I do believe that God made this determination, and that he is getting justice
done for what he did to 2 innocent people," she said.
Fuller's direct appeal was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and
U.S. Supreme Court, and the one other appeal he filed was also denied. Among
the appellate claims was his incompetence to stand trial or enter a guilty plea
because he acted irrationally and removed himself from the courtroom for most
of the jury selection process and trial.
Fuller waived all further review of his case in May, according to his lawyer,
Jason Cassel. The execution on Wednesday evening was the 7th of the year. 2
other executions are scheduled for 2016.
Presto, along with her sister and the Copelands' 2 children, planned to witness
the execution in Huntsville, though she said beforehand she didn't know what to
expect.
"I don't know if this is our answer or not," Presto said of the execution.
"We're hoping to see a closure once this has all happened."
Fuller becomes the 7th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in Texas
and the 538th overall since the state resumed capital punishment on December 7,
1982.
Fuller becomes the 16th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the
USA and the 1438th overall since the nation resumed executions on Janauary 17,
1977.
(sources: Texas Tribune & Rick Halperin)
**************************
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----20
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----538
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
21---------October 19---------------Terry Edwards---------539
22---------November 2---------------Ramiro Gonzales-------540
23---------December 7---------------John Battaglia--------541
24---------January 11---------------Christoper Wilkins----542
25---------February 7---------------Tilon Carter----------543
26---------April 12-----------------Paul Storey-----------544
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
******************
Supreme Court Hears 'Indefensible' Death Penalty Case Where Race Linked To
Violence
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in the case of Duane Buck, a
convicted Texas murderer sentenced to die after a psychologist testified that
he was more likely to commit violent crimes in the future because he is black.
Buck shot and killed his ex-girlfriend in front of her three children while she
begged for her life. He killed the man he thought she was sleeping with and he
shot his own stepsister, Phyllis Taylor, who survived the horrific night.
Taylor was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, supporting Buck's attempt to win
a new sentencing hearing. "I pray that it be converted to life," she said,
"because I know who he is, and on that particular day, he was under the
influence of drugs."
To sentence a defendant to death under Texas law, a jury must unanimously agree
that the defendant poses a future danger. In this case, Buck's own lawyer hired
psychologist Walter Quijano, who testified that Buck was generally not violent,
but that he was more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he is
black.
When a similar case involving the same psychologist went to the Supreme Court
in 2000, Texas conceded error. It also found six more cases in which Quijano
linked race to violence, and it pledged to allow all seven defendants to bring
appeals for new sentencing hearings. The state delivered on that promise,
except in Buck's case.
Inside the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, there seemed little doubt that
would change. The question was how.
Would the justices just say that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to
deny Buck a sentencing appeal, a decision that would only affect Buck? Or would
they rule that the Fifth Circuit is an outlier in death penalty appeals and
that its whole approach is wrong?
Representing Buck, Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education
Fund, noted that the jury deliberated for 2 days on Buck's sentence and sent
out 4 notes. One of the notes asked about the possibility of life without
parole - a question the trial judge never answered. Another requested the
report that the defense psychologist had filed, which directly correlated race
to a defendant's likelihood of future violence.
Justice Samuel Alito called the introduction of race as a predictor of violence
"indefensible," but he was also the only justice who voiced skepticism about
granting what's called a certificate of appealability for Buck. The Supreme
Court has ruled in the past that these certificates should be granted in any
case where reasonable jurists could find the legal issue debatable.
In the past, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuked the 5th Circuit for its
refusal to grant these certificates in capital cases. Buck's lawyers compiled
statistics showing that in the 3 federal courts of appeal that cover the
southern states, the 5th Circuit refused to grant certificates of appeal in 60
% of cases, versus a 6 % refusal rate in the neighboring 11th Circuit, and no
refusals in the 4th.
When Texas Solicitor General Bill Keller rose to argue for the state, the
justices took issue with almost every facet of his argument.
Over and over they noted that Texas had initially promised to allow a
sentencing appeal to go forward in all 7 of the cases where psychologist
Quijano had linked race to violence. Why, they wanted to know, did the state
change its mind in Buck's case?
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the facts in the other cases were
"similarly heinous." Driving the point home, Justice Sotomayor noted that in
one of the other cases, a man poured gasoline on his victim, lit it, and
watched her die.
The state's lawyer replied that Buck's case differed from the other cases
because the defense lawyer, not the prosecutor, elicited the racial testimony.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the significance of that distinction. If
Buck's own counsel introduced the testimony, she asked, doesn't that show how
"abysmal" his lawyer was?
Justice Elena Kagan added that "it seems wildly more prejudicial when the
defense attorney introduces" testimony unfavorable to the defendant. Jurors
discount similar evidence introduced by a prosecutor, she explained, because
they realize the prosecution "has an interest" in getting the sentence it
wants. This dynamic, she said, is directly relevant to Buck's claim that he was
denied effective legal representation, a claim that no court has ever heard in
his case.
Turning to the question of whether the 5th Circuit is using the wrong standard
to certify appeals, Justice Kagan noted that the 5th Circuit denies
certification 10 times more often than the adjoining 11th Circuit. It does
suggest, she said, that 1 of these 2 circuits is doing something wrong.
Whether the court will go that far, however, was not clear.
(source: npr.org)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Prosecutors will seek death penalty for NC man accused of killing pregnant
girlfriend
Prosecutors will now seek the death penalty against man accused of killing his
pregnant girlfriend and shooting her young son.
Buncombe County made the announcement this week.
Nathaniel Dixon is facing several charges, including 1st degree murder, in the
killing of Candace Pickens.
Dixon was arrested back in May after Pickens was found dead, shot in the face
in an Asheville Elementary School playground.
Her son was shot found shot in the head, but survived.
(source: WNCN news)
ALABAMA:
Alabama Supreme Court upholds judicial override in capital cases
The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the state's capital sentencing scheme in
which judges can impose the death penalty even if jurors recommend a prison
sentence.
The state supreme court ruled last Friday that the sentencing scheme does not
violate the Sixth Amendment, report the Montgomery Advertiser, the Washington
Post and BuzzFeed News.
The court said judicial override does not violate the right to a trial by jury
because jurors still determine whether aggravating factors make a defendant
eligible for the death penalty.
The defendant, Jerry Bohannon, had contended that the Sixth Amendment requires
jurors to determine not only the existence of any aggravating circumstances,
but also whether aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating factors.
Bonhannon cited Hurst v. Florida, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck
down Florida's advisory death penalty scheme. That decision said Florida law
improperly allowed judges to determine aggravating circumstances meriting the
death penalty. Florida also allowed judges to impose the death penalty despite
contrary jury recommendations, but those provisions weren't struck down.
Florida's revised law nonetheless eliminated judicial override. Alabama is the
only state that still allows judicial override, according to the Montgomery
Advertiser.
(source: abajournal.com)
TENNESSEE:
Is Lethal Injection 'Cruel And Unusual'? Tennessee's Supreme Court Is About To
Decide
Lawyers for 33 death row inmates will argue Thursday before the Tennessee
Supreme Court that the state's execution methods are "cruel and unusual."
It's a case that could help determine whether lethal injection remains legal in
the United States.
The suit, Stephen West, et al. v. Derrick Schofield, et al., is one of several
across the country that challenge lethal injection. It differs from many others
in that it centers on the use of a particular sedative called pentobarbital.
20 states have either used the drug or have plans to. But it's never been
determined to be constitutional, says the Death Penalty Information Center's
Robert Dunham.
He says it's likely the federal courts will be asked to take up the question
regardless of how the Tennessee Supreme Court rules.
"If it turns out in favor of the state, it's very likely that the death row
prisoners will file what's called a petition for certiorari asking the United
States Supreme Court to review the decision," says Dunham. "And if the
prisoners win, and they win on federal law grounds, it's likely that the state
prosecutors will ask the United States Supreme Court to review the decision."
The case also raises interesting legal questions about whether states can break
their own laws or federal statutes in order to perform an execution, Dunham
says.
The plaintiffs in the West case argue Tennessee's contract with its supplier
prohibits it from using pentobarbital in a way that hasn't been approved by
federal regulators. Lawyers for the state of Tennessee say that's a matter
between the government and the supplier - not one that concerns prisoners on
death row.
Lethal injection remains the main method of execution nationwide, though it
faces an uncertain future. Pharmaceutical companies have stopped supplying the
drugs needed, leading Tennessee and many other states to turn to compounding
pharmacies. States have fought to keep the identities of these suppliers
confidential, to prevent them from being pressured into not selling the drugs.
Courts have also questioned whether the current methods are as painless as
states have claimed. Other states have used a sedative called midazolam,
instead of pentobarbital, but in executions involving that drug, witnesses have
reported seeing prisoners snoring, gasping for breath or waking in the middle
of the procedure.
Those are among the reasons why Tennessee hasn't put anyone to death for nearly
7 years.
Gov. Bill Haslam has not shown any inclination to speed executions, but if the
courts do strike down lethal injection, Tennessee lawmakers have approved a
fallback - the electric chair.
But that method also faces constitutional questions that would likely have to
be resolved before the state of Tennessee could use it in executions.
(source: nashvillepublicradio.org)
OKLAHOMA:
Death Penalty State Question Draws Bipartisan Opposition
Oklahoma's execution practices were under the national spotlight when the 2015
legislative session began. A few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
hear a case challenging the state???s three-drug lethal injection cocktail,
Oklahoma state Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, introduced Senate Joint Resolution
31.
'A necessary amendment'
Sykes did not respond to KGOU's requests for an interview. But in March 2015,
Sykes told lawmakers his measure was designed to enshrine the death penalty
into the state constitution.
"I feel this is a necessary amendment to our Constitution to number one,
establish that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment, to number
two, to make it clear that the legislature has the authority to alter those
death penalty statutes, and to also ensure that, if a method of execution is
declared unconstitutional, then the sentence can still be carried out by
another method," Sykes said during the legislative session.
House author Mike Christian, R-Oklahoma City, also failed to return interview
requests, but on the House floor, the lawmaker said the issue deserved a
popular vote.
"Something as important and serious as capital punishment, (Sykes and I) think
the people of Oklahoma should be involved, instead of just the legislature.
It's probably the most serious issue we could deal with as the legislature,"
Christian said.
Both the state House and Senate approved the resolution, and voters will see
its language as State Question 776 in November. It's 1 of 3 criminal justice
questions on the ballot.
State Question 776 is not a referendum on the death penalty itself. Regardless
of the outcome, executions could still occur in the state.
A 'swift' solution
Robert Dunham is the executive director for the Death Penalty Information
Center. Dunham calls the measure an emotional reaction to the Supreme Court
lethal injection case.
"Proponents of the death penalty felt that it was under siege and this was a
swift but not well thought out reaction to the possibility that Oklahoma could
be without a death penalty if its method of carrying it out was declared
unconstitutional," Dunham says.
State Question 776 says the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment or violate any other part of the state constitution. Dunham says the
referendum would strip those condemned to death of Constitutional rights,
including their protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
"That strikes me and many other observers as violating the federal
Constitution's right to equal protection," Dunham says. "And states are free to
provide rights to defendants but states are not free to discriminate between
classes of individuals and say that some have some rights and others have other
rights."
"The death penalty is obviously kind of litigious program as is and this is
going to give more options for I'm sure appeals and lawsuits," Marc Hyden from
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty says.
Potentially pricey proposal
Hyden argues the measure inevitably lends itself to litigation. And he says
those lawsuits will directly affect Oklahoma taxpayers.
"They're the ones getting stuck with this tab. So they're going to have to pay
an enormous amount of money and they will have nothing to show for it."
Anthony Sykes also co-authored a 2010 House Joint Resolution banning Sharia
Law. Voters approved the measure, and a federal court eventually struck it
down. The challenges cost the state more than $300,000. Robert Boczkiewicz
reports for The Oklahoman:
Muneer Awad sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our
State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.
"This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of
defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are
pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad said.
Hyden says the state could feel a sense of deja vu.
Both conservatives and liberals caution against the ballot measure. Former
state Sen. Connie Johnson chairs the "Say No to State Question 776" campaign.
The Oklahoma City democrat fears the language circumvents the courts and
prevents checks and balances.
"It precludes judges from ruling differently precludes the legislature from
introducing legislation to repeal it," Johnson says.
She calls 776 a waste of time that's premature. Since the measure was adopted
last year, the state has started developing new execution protocols and
multiple groups are reviewing the capital punishment practices. Johnson wants
to know exactly what experts say before the death penalty becomes part of the
constitution.
"This is the wrong time. We need to wait, if we do it at all. And we're going
in the direction that is opposite from the rest of the country."
(source: KGOU news)
CALIFORNIA:
Families of Murdered Victims Spar Over California Death Penalty Propositions
Dionne Wilson and Marc Klaas share a connection no one wants to share. They
both lost loved ones to unspeakable violence and the perpetrators now sit
waiting out their days on California's death row at San Quentin Prison.
But that's where Klaas' and Wilson's views of what should happen next to the
condemned diverge dramatically.
The 2 perspectives mirror competing Death Penalty measures on California's
November ballot - one which would repeal it and the other which aims to speed
up executions.
After campaigning for a death sentence for her husband's killer, Wilson now
believes Irving Ramirez, the man who gunned down her husband, San Leandro
Police Officer Dan Niemi, should live out the rest of his days in prison.
Klaas wants Richard Allen Davis, the man who kidnapped, raped and killed his
12-year-old daughter Polly Klaas in 1993 to be executed as soon as possible.
Prop. 62 is the latest attempt by death penalty foes to end the practice in
California, which hasn???t executed anyone since 2006. Prop. 66 is a
counter-measure, tailored toward moving death penalty appeals to trial courts
and hiring more attorneys to speed up those appeals in an effort to move along
the execution of some 743 prisoners now on death row.
"We're talking about baby killers, cop killers, serial killers, spree killers -
and sexually sadistic psychopaths," said Klaas, sitting in his Sausalito home
surrounded by pictures of his late daughter, Polly. "To think that they deserve
anything less than the sentence that's been handed down is really a disservice
to the system itself."
When Wilson's husband was killed in 2005, she attended nearly every day of the
trial for then-25-year-old Ramirez who was convicted of the murder. Wilson
pushed for the Alameda County District Attorney's office to pursue the death
penalty, which it succeeded in doing.
"I wanted the worst possible punishment," Wilson said. "I wanted him to suffer.
I wanted to pull the trigger."
Wilson expected a sense of healing to accompany the sentence. But as the months
and years rolled by, a sense of closure still eluded her. She began to visit
prisons telling her story to inmates as a way of deterring them from a
continued life of crime. But she emerged as the one most changed - after
hearing countless stories of rough lives shaped by abusive childhoods.
"The more prisoners I talked to," Wilson said, "the deeper my understanding
grew about how unresolved trauma sometimes turns outward into violence toward
others."
Wilson's feelings toward the death penalty changed. She now believes the
sentences of condemned inmates should be changed to life without possibility of
parole, and that any financial savings should be put toward crime prevention
programs for at-risk youth. She now is actively campaigning across California
for Prop. 62.
"I want to prevent the creation of new victims," Wilson said. "That's what my
justice looks like. And we can't do that when we prop up a system like this
that is so broken."
Supporters and opponents of the death penalty routinely clash over hot-button
issues such as whether the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent to
crime, whether innocent people face execution and whether people of color are
statistically more likely to receive a capital sentence.
Klaas believes the state's extensive appeals system is the safeguard keeping
the wrongfully convicted from the execution chamber. And he supports the notion
that the potential for execution turns some from more serious crimes.
"The deterrent effect of the death penalty does exist," Klaas said. "It's very
real. And when we execute people in one year, you're going to find less murders
in the year after."
Wilson disagrees, saying there is little evidence the death penalty deters
crime - and adding that more than 150 people on death row across the U.S. have
been exonerated of their crimes.
"If we speed it up," Wilson said, in reference to Prop 66, "we're actually
putting potentially innocent people in danger faster."
California's execution chamber has been silent since 2006 following a myriad of
legal challenges over the state's manner of lethal injections. Even after
developing a court-ordered single lethal drug method, appeals have kept the
state from resuming executions.
If there is a point where Klaas and Wilson agree, it's that the state's death
penalty is in serious disarray - mired in legal issues with scant tangible
results of its effectiveness as a tool of criminal justice.
But there - their paths toward healing and a sense of justice split down
opposite roads, winding to places that mercifully, it's impossible for most
people to fathom.
(source: nbcbayarea.com)
USA:
Richard Wilbern, man accused of Xerox killing, could face death penalty
The Rochester man accused of a 2003 homicide at a credit union at the Xerox
Corp. campus in Webster is facing the federal death penalty - for now.
Richard Leon Wilbern appeared in federal court Wednesday, and U.S. Magistrate
Judge Jonathan Feldman appointed additional counsel for Wilbern, a standard
step with cases that could result in execution.
However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Gregory said in court that federal
prosecutors have asked for an "expedited" decision from the Department of
Justice as to whether to seek the death penalty for Wilbern. That is a likely
sign that the area prosecutors have recommended against the death penalty.
Feldman said as much in court Wednesday, noting a "significant possibility"
that the case will not end up as one with an execution as a possible outcome.
Wilbern is accused of robbing the Xerox Federal Credit Union in August 2003 and
fatally shooting Raymond Batzel during the robbery.
A former Xerox employee who'd unsuccessfully sued the company claiming racial
bias in the workplace, Wilbern was arrested last week on the federal charges.
Wilbern had family in court Wednesday, but they declined to comment after the
court session.
Rowena Bennett, the mother of Batzel, said after court that she did not have
difficulty being in court the 1st time with the man accused of fatally shooting
her son.
"We've had a long time to get ready for this," she said.
Bennett said she would support the death penalty for Wilbern, if convicted, but
she understands why attorneys may not want to push for the crimes to be handled
as a capital case. The process for federal capital cases can be extremely
lengthy, greatly extending the time for prosecution.
The process allows defense attorneys to piece together the life of the accused,
looking for reasons why the individual should be spared execution if convicted.
This "mitigation" process, as it is called, can last months and require travel
and additional costs.
The defense team then presents its case to the federal authorities in the
region, who then make a recommendation to Department of Justice officials in
Washington, D.C. The Attorney General decides whether the prosecution will be
handled as a capital case.
However, federal prosecutors early in the process can ask for a fast-tracked
decision from the Attorney General. Such a request is a likely sign that they
are recommending against a capital case.
Gregory said a decision from the Attorney General could come in 30 to 45 days.
Feldman Wednesday asked for attorneys to return to court on Nov. 7 for an
update. He encouraged defense attorneys to be conservative with the costs of
the work done on Wilbern's behalf between now and then.
Representing Wilbern are Assistant Federal Public Defender Anne Burger and
local attorney William Easton. Both have experience with cases that were
eligible for the death penalty.
Easton said after court that Wilbern's alleged crimes would be atypical for a
federal death penalty, which is rarely used.
"It doesn't fit the template for other death penalty cases around the country,"
he said.
Easton and Burger said they will represent Wilbern vigorously, while
recognizing Feldman's request that the possible defense costs be tempered some
over the next month.
"They've had this case for 13 years to do their investigation,and we need the
time and space to do our own," Easton said.
(source: Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle)
_______________________________________________
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
