Nov. 3
TENNESSEE:
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Memphis for death penalty
case from 1997
A death penalty case from 1997 is back in the spotlight tonight. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one step below with the United States
Supreme Court, was in Memphis today hearing arguments.
This is a rare move for the appeals court which usually hears their cases in
Ohio. The death penalty case centered on a man named Anthony Thomas who was
convicted of murdering an armored truck driver.
Wednesday's appellate hearing involved talks of a payment to a star witness by
the federal government to testify against Thomas.
Robert Hutton, Thomas' attorney, said "so the courts will be looking at the
evidence specifically in this case it's now admitted that a key witness was
paid $750 and then when asked if she received any money denied that and so the
question is should now that's known should Mr. Thomas get a new trial?"
Court records show that witness, Angela Jackson, testified against Anthony
Thomas. On Wednesday, Hutton had 30 minutes to make his case in front of 3
federal judges. "Really all we're talking about today is whether it would've
made a difference?"
District Attorney Amy Weirich was the prosecutor in this death case. Hutton
claims she use the wording "one red cent" when asking the star witness if she
received any money?
That's something the 3 judges brought up several times during Wednesday's
hearing that did not allow cameras or recorders in the court room.
The government used their 30 minutes to argue the witness correctly answered
the question she was asked about the $750 payment.
They could not say how much the witness made at the time but argued the payment
was for lost wages during the trial.
The government also argued other evidence in the trial could have supported the
prosecution beyond jacksons testimony. The judges seemed hesitant to believe
the government's argument making statements like "if this is not perjury by a
witness I don't know what is."
D.A. Weirich's office sent a statement in response to a request for comment
saying "your request should be directed to the U.S. Attorney's Office. It was
their case originally." Requests from the U.S. Attorney Office has not yet been
returned.
The 3 judges can write an opinion that this case be sent back to the state for
a retrial. If that does not happen, Thomas can petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that's a longshot. They get roughly 4,000 of those requests every year and
hear about 80.
(source: fox13memphis.com)
IOWA:
Branstad: Too soon to consider death penalty for cop killers
It's premature to talk about whether Iowa should reinstate the death penalty
for people convicted of killing law enforcement officers, Gov. Terry Branstad
said Wednesday.
The governor also cautioned that the death penalty is not a "panacea" for
attacks on law enforcement.
Branstad, who has supported the limited use of the death penalty, which Iowa
abolished in 1965, didn't rule out the introduction of a death penalty bill
when the Legislature convenes in January.
However, in the wake of the deaths of Des Moines Police Sgt. Anthony Beminio
and Urbandale Officer Justin Martin, Branstad said now is the time to "show our
solidarity and strong support for those people who risk their lives every day
to protect the safety of our citizens."
The 2 officers were fatally shot Wednesday while sitting in their patrol cars
in what police called unprovoked ambushes.
"This is a terrible tragedy," Branstad said after a campaign stop in Hiawatha
with GOP candidates and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Several attempts to reinstate the death penalty have been made over the years.
Typically, legislation is offered after a crime that attracts widespread public
attention. The 2012 abductions and deaths of cousins Elizabeth Collins and
Lyric Cook-Morrissey, then 8 and 10, of Black Hawk County prompted a death
penalty debate at the Statehouse.
The most recent legislation, offered in 2015, would have permitted executions
in cases where a minor was kidnapped, raped and murdered. Sponsor Sen. Randy
Feenstra, R-Hull, said a suspect has nothing to lose by committing murder to
cover up kidnap and rape. Under Iowa law, punishment for 1st-degree murder, as
well as the most serious cases of rape and murder can be life imprisonment.
Majority Democrats, however, declined to debate the bill, Senate File 239. A
new proposal likely would meet the same fate, according to Sen. Rob Hogg,
D-Cedar Rapids, vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
"Attempts to change that law have met with bipartisan opposition over at least
the last 20 years, and I expect that bipartisan opposition to continue into the
future," he said Wednesday.
"Today we should all be focused on the law enforcement officers involved and
their families," Hogg said. "Out of this tragedy, I hope we can unite as a
state to prevent further violence and move away from hatred."
Branstad sounded a similar tone, saying at this time the focus should be on the
officers and their families. There will be time in the future to weigh what
legislative response is called for.
"I think we have to look at this from the perspective of what is the most
effective thing we can do to protect the safety of our citizens?" he said.
It's also important to remember that the "death penalty is not something that
happens immediately, so this is not a panacea" to stop attacks on law
enforcement, Branstad said.
(source: thegazette.com)
NEBRASKA:
Garcia's victim's family wants to keep death penalty
Last week, former Creighton Medical Student Anthony Garcia was convicted of
murdering 4 people. One of those people was Shirlee Sherman. Now, less than a
week before elections, her family has a message for voters.
Shirlee Sherman was a housekeeper for Dr. William Hunter's family, who's
11-year-old son, Thomas Hunter, was also killed. After last week's verdict,
Sherman's family says they feel a sense of relief, but will never have closure,
which is why they support the death penalty.
Outside the state capitol Wednesday, Brad Waite and Jeffrey Sherman spoke out.
"They need to come see the photographs of the crime scene and the photographs
of the autopsies of those four victims and then explain to me why they would
not be in favor of the death penalty for this crime," Braid Waite, brother of
Shirlee Sherman said.
Brad and Jeffrey wore shirts in honor of Shirlee and 11-year-old Thomas Hunter.
"Even though the trial is over, you still think about this daily of how it
happened, what he did to them, the torture that they went through," Brad said.
"There's no closure to that."
In 1 week, voters will make a decision whether to repeal or retain the death
penalty.
"We need it," Jeffrey Sherman, son of Shirlee Sherman said. "We absolutely need
this. We need to show that these crimes are not going to be tolerated. A life
sentence is not justice."
Both Jeffrey and Brad acknowledge Nebraska's ability to execute the death
penalty is flawed, and if repealed, still needs some work.
"I think that Governor Ricketts is on the road to do something good," Jeffrey
said.
At the same time, UNL Professor of Law Eric Berger, who has sympathy for
victim's families, says the system is beyond repair.
"It's been broken for decades and we cannot fix it," Berger said. "It will
continue to be expensive and it will continue not to work."
Like many others have argued, Berger says the death penalty is expensive and
rarely carried out.
"I hope Nebraskans are informed about the practice of the death penalty and are
not just thinking about the theoretical question of whether they believe it's a
just punishment," Berger said.
"Do we want to just give [criminals] life in prison while victims families
suffer for the rest of their life," Jeffrey asked. "That's not justice."
Next week's ballot language will read retain or repeal. Retain means you do not
support the death penalty and want Nebraska to get rid of it. Repeal means you
want the state to bring it back and continue capital punishment.
(source: 1011now.com)
******************************
Tony Fulton: Death penalty still needed
The author, of Lincoln, is a former Nebraska state senator.
When I served in the Nebraska Legislature, I was given the great responsibility
of determining whether the death penalty is an appropriate sanction of the
state. It was a question I gave a great deal of thought, prayer and reflection.
Ultimately, I concluded and voted that the death penalty should not be removed
outright. In my mind, it could be changed, but it would be irresponsible to
remove it outright.
If all killers present and future could be incarcerated to ensure the public
safety, then I could support abolishing the death penalty.
In 2008, Jayson Garrett, a man who had, just 4 years earlier, stabbed a
Hastings, Nebraska, man to death, was able to go on a shopping trip to a mall
near my children's school. While on this shopping trip, he simply walked away,
escaping the attention of the Lincoln Regional Center employees charged with
his care.
It happened again in 2010 with a different killer, Shane Tilley, whose crime
occurred in Omaha just 3 years earlier.
I'm not arguing these individuals should have received the death penalty, but
rather that we cannot currently ensure that the public isn't exposed to
dangerous killers.
Could we incarcerate all killers present and future to ensure the public
safety? Indeed, yes.
Do we? Clearly, no.
We seem to have this notion that we can "lock 'em up and throw away the key."
It doesn't work this way. From the prison cell, individuals could continue
killing.
One example was Nebraska inmate David Dunster, who was already serving a life
sentence when he committed his 2nd murder.
He was serving 2 life sentences when he committed his 3rd. Life in prison did
not disallow his continued killing.
Laddie Dittrich was serving a life sentence for a 1st-degree murder committed
in the early 1970s. In 2013 he was paroled after the state commuted his
sentence, and a year later he sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl.
Again: Could we incarcerate all killers present and future to ensure the public
safety? Yes, we probably could.
Do we? Clearly, no.
I'm a practicing Catholic, and I deeply respect the position our Catholic
bishops have taken.
I was also pleased to hear my good bishop, Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln,
say recently that Catholics who support the death penalty may do so in good
standing if they come to that conclusion after thoughtful consideration and
prayer.
I did this in a public way as a Nebraska state senator, and I do so anew as a
citizen preparing to vote on this important ballot question.
We live in a day when innocent people in schools, banks and shopping malls are
gunned down, public places are bombed and law enforcement officers are targets
of violence.
A sober judgment, in my opinion, is that we simply don't meet the condition by
which the death penalty should be removed.
I recognize how some may differ on this issue. I hope, however, some may see
common ground such that they may recognize the rationale from which I am
operating, even if we disagree.
(source: Opinion; Omaha World-Herald)
***************************
Ernie Chambers: Keep death penalty dead
The writer, of Omaha, is a Nebraska state senator.
The death penalty and traditional arguments supporting it comprise an
elaborate, disingenuous legal shell game, played for the highest stakes.
It's arbitrary in application, extremely expensive, unavoidably time consuming
and inordinately burdensome on the courts, which continually are fashioning
additional protective processes and procedures to "fix" a broken, inequitable
system.
At the U.S. Supreme Court level, the death penalty has been labeled "freakish'
and described as being "as random as being struck by lightning," there being
nothing that distinguishes the relatively few cases where it is imposed from
the many where it is not.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it is "withering on
the vine" due to growing disuse and unwillingness of courts to uphold death
sentences. Justice Antonin Scalia, shortly before his death, said it is "just a
matter of time" before the death penalty is declared unconstitutional.
Why do I invoke the term "shell game"?
Supporters contend that the death penalty is "reserved" for the "worst of the
worst" who pose an "ever-present danger" and who have "forfeited their right to
live"due to the "heinous" nature of their crime.
In practice, the overwhelming majority of "death eligible" cases have the death
penalty "taken off the table" via a plea bargain: no death penalty in exchange
for a guilty plea.
Magically, a plea bargain not only removes a "heinous" murderer from the ranks
of the "worst of the worst" but also restores the "right to live" and renders
the erstwhile "ever- dangerous" killer sufficiently "un-dangerous" to mingle in
the general prison population.
Death penalty supporters contend, moreover, that the death penalty serves as an
effective prosecutorial "tool," the threat of which procures plea bargains,
thereby nullifying the expense of lengthy trials and appeals.
A corruption and perversion of the justice system occurs because an individual
is charged and prosecuted as being death-eligible when, under the law and the
facts, he/she actually is not. Such "over-charging" is an abuse of the
prosecutorial function.
Supporters' other main argument is that the Bible justifies, or at the very
least does not forbid, infliction of the death penalty.
The Bible presents 2 actual death penalty cases: one in the Old Testatment
presided over by God; the other, in the New Testament, presided over by His
son, Jesus. In neither instance was death imposed.
The 1st murder occurred in the Garden of Eden, where Cain killed his brother,
Abel. As punishment, God banished Cain, who protested that the punishment was
"greater than he could bear" because "every one that findeth me shall slay me."
God marked him so that such wouldn't happen.
Point, set, game over. Chief Judge God got it right.
The 2nd case is set forth at St. John 8:1-11.
The Pharisees tempt Jesus with an accusation against a woman "taken in the very
act" of adultery. Citing Moses' law, they said stoning was the penalty, "but
what sayest thou?"
Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground, then stood up and uttered the
iconic principle: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
at her."
Again, He wrote on the ground. My surmise is that He first corrected them
regarding the law, which provided that both parties were subject to stoning,
then queried: "Where is the man?" This foreshadowed today's practice of
treating equally culpable offenders differently.
The favored ones get a break. The poor, unpopular and "minorities" get death.
He wrote further: "None is pure or just enough to take a human life, save he or
she who is without sin. And such a one will not cast the stone."
The death penalty crowd, "being convicted by their own conscience, (left) one
by one," and Jesus turned the woman loose.
I am not so naive as to believe that my explication will dissuade any death
penalty advocate from supporting state-sanctioned killing. But at the least, it
demonstrates that there is a biblical alternative point of view.
On Tuesday, vote "retain" in order to preserve the Legislature's virtuous act
of abolishing the death penalty.
(source: Opinion, Omaha World-Herald)
**********************************
2 families. 2 victims. 2 different views of Nebraska's death penalty.----Over
the years the death penalty has divided the people with the most personal stake
possible in the issue: family members of the murder victims.
Having watched the crimes, the trials, and years of delays in the executions,
they have reached very different conclusions about the merits of the death
penalty.
During the public hearings held in October by the Nebraska secretary of state,
family members touched by 2 different death penalty cases presented testimony.
THE NORFOLK BANK MURDERS
In 2002 3 men burst into a bank in Norfolk, Nebraska. In a matter of minutes
they had fled with money, leaving 4 bank employees and a customer dead. All 3
killers were sentenced to death. To date, none have been executed.
The daughter and mother of the customer killed that day, Evonne Tuttle, remain
strong advocates of maintaining the death penalty in Nebraska. Vivian Tuttle,
Evonne's mother, testified at the hearings in Omaha and Lincoln. Christine
Tuttle, Evonne's daughter, spoke in Kearney.
The pain, the sorrow, never goes away. I went to every single trial. I sat
through every one of them and I saw 6 different times my daughter get down on
her knees, bow her head, put her hands behind her back, and (Jose) Sandoval
shot her in the back of the head. I saw that 6 times, and that's never going to
go away. That's always going to be with me.
Yes, I want these people to have the death penalty. The law of our land said it
was such a heinous, terrible crime, that they should have the death penalty.
You talk about the money? Let me tell you. My daughter's blood that was spilled
on that bank floor was worth more than any of the money that it took to do any
of this.
I don't have any data. I don't have any statistics. I don't have any Bible
verses. I just have my story. As far as the price of the death penalty goes,
there are all different kinds of figures, but honestly, the price does not
matter to me. How much would just one more hug with my mom cost, or how much
would just one more Christmas or birthday cost? Some things you just can't put
a price on. Capital punishment is an investment worth taking. These 10 men on
death row have nothing to lose. I believe, if they had an opportunity to kill
again, they would. The only way this can never happen is for them to be
executed.
MICHAEL RYAN'S CULT MURDERS
The deaths of 2 people at the hand of Michael Ryan remain one of the most
bizarre chapters in Nebraska criminal history. The names of the victims,
26-year old James Thimm and 6-year old Rickie Stice are, to the disappointment
of their families, often overlooked.
Ryan lead a small doomsday cult on a farm outside of Rulo, Nebraska. After
Thimm questioned the group's beliefs he was tortured to death on Ryan's
command. Ryan was sentenced to death. He died on death row of brain cancer 30
years after the murders took place.
Thimm's sister, Miriam, has opposed the death penalty. She spoke at the hearing
in Lincoln.
In 1985, my brother James, Jim to us, was tortured to death, and his killer,
Michael Ryan, was eventually sent to death row. I have seen, over and over, how
Nebraska's penalty is a false hope to victims. When they sentence someone to
death, we sentence the family, too.
Michael Ryan was sentenced to death over 30 years ago; at that time, my son was
in diapers. My son now has children of his own, and until last year, Michael
Ryan sat on death row, and when he died of cancer, the justice of execution
that was promised my family never came.
When we were assured by authorities, over and over again, that his sentence
would soon be carried out, it breaks my heart to see how other families in our
state are hanging on to this false promise of an execution.
I would give anything to go back in time, and change that death sentence to
life imprisonment. If that happened, my children would have grown up without
seeing their uncle's killer become a celebrity, as he slowly worked his way
through the court system.
For "Classroom Conversations: Nebraska's Death Penalty Vote," NET News brought
advocates from each side of the issue to answer questions from students at
Western Nebraska Community College in Scottsbluff,Northeast Community College
in Norfolk and Metropolitan Community College in Omaha. These lively
discussions are the foundation of a 30-minute television program and additional
web content you can find on the project web site.
Some in my family waited in vain for these decades for Michael Ryan to be
executed. Each year, their pain was compounded by the fact that the justice
system failed to deliver the justice that they were promised. Had we been given
a sentence of life without the possibility for parole, we would have left the
legal system behind 30 years ago, and be able to focus our energy on our
family, and our grief, and not the false promise of an execution. This is
purgatory.
Some in my family wished Michael Ryan executed; others didn't. We should have
been united in remembering our loving memories of our brother, Jim, comforting
one another. This punishment created a rift in our family. Sadly, our case is
not unusual; Nebraska has not executed in almost 20 years, and we have 1 man
who has been sitting on our death row since 1980.
(source: netnebraska.org)
*********************
Campaign group publicizes Foley's 2014 stand on death penalty
With a week left to get its message out before a Nov. 8 vote, Retain a Just
Nebraska sent out a statement made by Lt. Gov. Mike Foley in 2014 that mirrors
its own anti-death penalty view.
Foley was running for governor then, and when asked by Nebraska Public Radio
during a debate about his stand on the death penalty, he indicated that
"vicious and violent" criminals should be put in prison for life.
Nebraska, he said, was spending millions of dollars pretending it could execute
people.
"We can't do it," he said on March 23 that year.
Nebraska didn't have a functioning capital punishment system, Foley said during
his race against now-Gov. Pete Ricketts. It didn't have the drug protocol or
the legal structure in place to carry it out.
"The real issue here is, how are we going to protect society from the vicious
and the violent?" Foley asked then. "That's why we have our maximum security
prisons."
Foley, who is Catholic, took the point of view of Nebraska's 3 bishops and the
Nebraska Catholic Conference in opposing the death penalty. Ricketts, the
governor he now serves, is also Catholic but takes a different view. He
supports the death penalty.
Foley issued a statement Wednesday, saying: "The governor sets policy, and he
has been clear that his administration supports keeping the death penalty as an
option for the most heinous crimes in Nebraska."
Taylor Gage, Ricketts' spokesman, said it is inappropriate for the Retain
campaign to use Foley's voice and image without his permission.
"This is an attempt to confuse Nebraskans about the administration's position,"
Gage said.
Retain spokesman Dan Parsons said Foley's statement is a matter of public
record and no permission was needed.
Parsons posted Foley's statement on his own Facebook page and shared it on
Foley's, where it was still posted Wednesday afternoon.
The anti-death penalty campaign also sent a news release this week with
messages from 2 conservative Nebraska senators who voted in 2015 to repeal the
death penalty.
Sens. Laura Ebke of Crete and Mike Gloor of Grand Island said the state's
expected budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion should motivate the governor and
lawmakers to shift funds from a program that hasn't been used in 20 years to
more critical needs.
Ebke, a former Republican and now a Libertarian, said money spent on the death
penalty should be used to reduce property taxes and better support law
enforcement.
"When our state is facing intense revenue shortfalls and agencies are being
forced to make tough cuts, it's irresponsible to continue to invest in a death
penalty system we have gotten no return on in nearly 20 years," she said.
A study by Ernie Goss, professor of economics at Creighton University, showed
Nebraska's maintenance of the death penalty cost the state $14.6 million
annually above the cost for life without parole. Pro-death penalty supporters
have disputed that cost.
"I've heard loud and clear from my constituents that property taxes are too
high, especially in light of the struggling ag economy," Ebke said. "At the
same time, our Department of Corrections is struggling to find the resources it
needs to operate safely. If we are truly serious about public safety, that
should be our No. 1 priority."
Gloor of Grand Island, who once supported the death penalty but voted for
repeal because of the cost, supports Goss' study, according to the news
release.
"Even before Dr. Goss' study showed the $14 million annual price tag of
Nebraska's death penalty, the Unicameral examined dozens of studies from around
the country. They are all very clear: The complicated requirements to try to
maintain a constitutional death penalty create additional expense," Gloor said.
The money would be better spent on tax breaks, or to aid some of the struggling
state agencies that have been asked to tighten their belts, he said.
Ebke said it is the responsibility of conservative senators to find and root
out broken government programs, and that is what they did when they ended the
death penalty.
"I trust Nebraskans concerned with fiscal responsibility, limited government,
or rooting out ineffective government problems will join the 16 conservative
senators who voted to end our broken death penalty," she said.
On Thursday, a number of faith leaders will gather at Trinity Episcopal
Cathedral at 109 N. 18th St. in Omaha for an anti-death penalty rally.
The leaders represent the Catholic, Episcopal, United Methodist, Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, Jewish, Buddhist, Presbyterian, Unitarian
Universalist and United Church of Christ.
The rally is at 10 a.m. and will be streamed live at
www.ustream.tv/channel/Cy7yMU6Pwf9.
(source: Lincoln Journal Star)
COLORADO:
Frontier Diary: Glenwood narrowly avoided its only hanging
"I have never denied killing this man, but I believe, and always shall, that if
I had not, I should have lost my own life." -- Herman C. Babcock, The Daily Ute
Chief, Oct. 17, 1888
Herman Charles Babcock was a man of few words and possessed even less regret.
Confined to his cell in the Garfield County Jail, he had time to recount the
events of Aug. 24, 1888. Yes, he had killed James M. Riland on that fateful
day. But Babcock, being a man of conviction, believed deeply his actions were
just.
Living his life on his property at Sweetwater east of Glenwood Springs was
uneasy. Riland, his neighbor, was a 63-year-old Civil War veteran. Babcock
himself never stepped down from a fight. He was 38 years old, and had
experienced the rough responsibilities of running a saloon and hotel in Frisco.
The 2 men disliked one another. That dislike escalated in August 1888 over a
dispute involving some mules. Babcock took the dispute further by disparaging
Riland's Civil War service. Both parties, in the presence of witnesses, hurled
death threats toward each other. Both armed themselves for self-defense.
Earlier in the day of Aug. 24, 1888, words again were exchanged, but both
parted company. It was later in the day when Babcock crossed Riland's path.
Babcock claimed he felt his life threatened and in response shot Riland once.
Riland would not recover from his injury.
Babcock went immediately to Glenwood Springs and presented himself to the
authorities. He was promptly jailed and knew he would need legal help. He
quickly hired H.T. Sale for his defense.
Opinion regarding Babcock's innocence divided Glenwood Springs, Garfield County
and the state of Colorado. Those loyal to Riland decried this seemingly
senseless murder and screamed for justice. Those in Babcock's camp proclaimed
his innocence, and would take up arms if Babcock was found guilty of murder.
The trial of The People of the State of Colorado versus Herman C. Babcock began
Oct. 8, 1888. To a courtroom filled to capacity with interested parties and
onlookers from across the state, District Attorney Edward T. Taylor presented
the case against Babcock. Witnesses took the stand for both the prosecution and
defense. By Oct. 15, 1888, Attorney Sale petitioned for a new trial with a
change of venue. Sale argued his client could not receive a fair trial in
Glenwood Springs. Part of his argument hinged on media reporting by the Ute
Chief Newspaper, of which the editor was James L. Riland, son of the murder
victim. Judge Thomas Rucker denied the new trial.
On Oct. 16, 1888, the jury returned its verdict. Babcock was guilty of murder
in the first degree; however, the jury asked for the mercy of the court. No
mercy could be granted. Colorado's death penalty law stated the punishment for
1st degree murder was death by hanging. Judge Rucker had no option but to
sentence Babcock to death, with the execution date set for Nov. 9, 1888.
Babcock's attorney immediately petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for a stay
of execution and a retrial. The petition alleged in part that Judge Rucker had
been biased against Babcock, and media coverage did not allow for a fair and
impartial hearing. While the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court, Babcock
was placed on death watch. Preparations for Glenwood Springs's 1st hanging
began in earnest, with scaffolding and ball weight ordered from the state
penitentiary in Canon City.
Good news came to Babcock on Nov. 8, 1888. The Colorado Supreme Court ordered a
stay of execution and a retrial. 2 years later, in October 1890, Babcock was
retried and was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 8
years in the state penitentiary in Canon City. Again, there was outrage across
the state that justice had not been served.
Babcock's light blue eyes focused confidently on the camera as he posed for his
prison mug shot. His hair was shaved nearly as close as the beard stubble on
his round shaped face. He wore a dark colored dress suit jacket, buttoned, but
the horizontal stripes of his prison uniform could be seen under the jacket.
Babcock then settled into the life of a model prisoner.
Good behavior paid off. On Dec. 30, 1892, Babcock was pardoned by Colorado Gov.
Routt. A free man, Babcock was never again seen in Glenwood Springs.
The gallows were never used in Glenwood Springs, in part due a change in the
death penalty law in 1890 that required executions to be conducted exclusively
within the walls of the state penitentiary. The ball weight, a grim reminder of
the near execution of Herman Babcock, remained stored in Glenwood Springs until
World War II, when it was scrapped to help with the war effort.
(source: Willa Kane is former archivist of and a current volunteer with the
Glenwood Springs Historical Society and Frontier Historical Museum
----postindependent.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
