Nov. 12
MISSISSIPPI:
2 face capital murder charges in death of Mississippi college student
2 of the 5 suspects being held in the shooting death of 21-year-old Mississippi
State University student now face capital murder charges.
The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reports that officials upgraded the
charges Thursday against 18-year-old Syboris Pippins and 20-year-old Jaylen
Barker, both of Columbus. They are now being held on bonds of $2 million each.
If convicted, both could face the death penalty.
The charges stem from the early Sunday morning robbery and murder of Joseph
Tillman.
Starkville Police Chief Frank Nichols said Tillman, a senior marketing major,
was seen interacting with a group of men in the Cotton District. After
interacting for several minutes, Nichols says Tillman was robbed and shot.
Police have also charged 3 others, including a 16-year-old, with accessory
after the fact to murder.
(source: CBS news)
OHIO:
Facing death, Kevin Keith deserves a new trial
Kevin Keith sat on death row for 16 years. Then, in 2010, Ted Strickland
commuted his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole,
rightly citing "too many real and unanswered questions" about whether Keith
committed a triple murder at an apartment in Bucyrus. That was partial justice
for Keith, once a defensive tackle at Canton-McKinley High School. He still
needs a way to get back into court for a new trial in which the totality of the
evidence would be examined.
Perhaps that opportunity now will come. The Columbus Dispatch recently reported
on grave questions raised about the work of G. Michele Yezzo, a longtime
forensic scientist at the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation. She retired
in 2009 after more than three decades on the job. An examination of her
personnel file has revealed years of erratic behavior, threatening and
otherwise hostile, even a suspension in 1993.
Most troubling, the record points to concerns that Yezzo slanted her results
and conclusions to favor the police and prosecution. The Dispatch noted she
often conducted her analyses of murders and other high-profile felonies with
little oversight.
Lee Fisher, a state attorney general in the 1990s, told the Dispatch he "would
call for an investigation into every case where her findings and conclusions
were instrumental in the final result," citing "an obligation to the integrity
of the criminal-justice system. ..."
Jim Petro, the attorney general a decade later and part of the current Kevin
Keith defense, described Yezzo's work to the Dispatch as "shoddy at best." He
added: "Any case where she provided forensic evidence that resulted in a
conviction now comes into question."
Mike DeWine, the current attorney general, told the Dispatch that his office
has conducted 2 such reviews since learning about the problem in 2015. He
reports the examinations turned up no issues.
That doesn't seem to fit the Keith case. A key factor for the prosecution was
the Yezzo analysis of a partial impression of a license plate number left in a
snow bank by the alleged getaway car. In 2010, the Keith defense hired one of
the nation's leading forensic experts to review the analysis. He found the
impression did not match the bumper of Keith's car. He also concluded there
wasn't sufficient detail about the plate numbers.
Add these findings to the erosion of eyewitness testimony, plus credible
information pointing to a likely alternative suspect, and the case against
Keith weakens to the point of a wrongful conviction.
As the Dispatch reported, a judge in Huron County already has dismissed the
1993 murder conviction of a man due to the sloppy work of Yezzo.
Kevin Keith came within 2 weeks of execution. Imagine the horror if he had been
put to death by the state and 6 years later all of this surfaced. That helps
explain why Ohio lawmakers must enact the recommendations of the Supreme Court
task force on the death penalty, especially those items designed to prevent
wrongful convictions and execution. It also points to doing what is just,
granting Keith a new trial.
(source Beacon Journal Editorial Board)
CALIFORNIA:
Death penalty battle won't die: Fight over Proposition 66 likely to continue
after election
The fight over the death penalty never seems to die.
Even though it's not yet certain if opponents lost both capital punishment
ballot measures, they pre-emptively asked the state Supreme Court to block
Proposition 66 that would speed up executions.
The 1st volley in what could be a protracted legal battle rankled death penalty
supporters and could be a harbinger of a long road ahead if the reform measure
goes into effect and shakes up the way appeals are handled. Backers claimed
victory with support on about 51 % of more than 8 million ballots counted.
But with millions of outstanding votes, it was still too close to call Friday.
"Proposition 66 was passed by the voters because they are sick of lawyers who
oppose the death penalty constantly undermining the system with lawsuit after
lawsuit," said McGregor Scott, a former state and federal prosecutor who
co-chairs the Yes on 66 Campaign.
"It is not at all ironic, and is in fact a slap in the face to the voters, that
their response to the passage of Proposition 66 was to file another lawsuit
trying to thwart the will of the voters."
With voters shooting down a measure that would have repealed capital punishment
and leaning toward adopting the series of reforms to expedite appeals, they
appeared to give a lifeline to the beleaguered death penalty that has sent 900
of California's most vicious killers to death row in the past 4 decades but
only resulted in 13 executions.
Proposition 66 would make procedural changes in how appeals are heard and who
is qualified to represent condemned killers. Currently, the pool of appellate
lawyers handling capital cases is small and inmates are sometimes not assigned
counsel for more than 5 years after conviction.
The reform effort would expand that pool by assigning attorneys who currently
handle other types of appeals to death penalty cases.
While the California Supreme Court would still hear direct appeals regarding
errors at trial, appeals for claims such as newly discovered evidence,
incompetent counsel or misconduct by jurors or prosecutors would be heard by
the trial court.
Those secondary appeals would have to be filed within a year of conviction
instead of 3, and all state appeals would have to be exhausted in 5 years.
The petition filed Wednesday with the California Supreme Court by former
Attorney General John Van de Kamp and Ron Briggs, whose father wrote the ballot
measure that expanded California's death penalty in 1978, said the reform
measure would disrupt the courts, cost more money and limit the ability to
mount proper appeals. They said the deadlines would set "an inordinately short
timeline for the courts to review those complex cases" and result in attorneys
cutting corners in their investigations.
Death penalty opponents had claimed the reform measure would lead to the
appointment of incompetent lawyers and tight deadlines would prevent appeals
based on new evidence that can take years to unearth.
7 of the past 10 exonerations in the U.S. took 25 years or more to find
evidence of innocence, attorney Barry Scheck said.
"What is going to happen when you have jerry-rigged system with lawyers that
are not competent to do the job, with courts that are overburdened, with time
limits that everything has to be done in 5 years?" asked Scheck, co-founder of
the Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School in New York.
"It could be a bloodbath."
Proposition 66 supporters dismissed the challenge before the California Supreme
Court as a frivolous stall tactic.
Kent Scheidegger, director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation who helped
write Proposition 66, said it will take some time for the California Judicial
Counsel to approve lawyers to handle such cases, but he said they would be
competent. He said the current shortage of lawyers is due to the people
controlling the appointment process who won't consider well-qualified lawyers,
such as former prosecutors, willing to handle appeals.
"Having anti-death penalty crusaders in charge of an important part of the
process has been a big part of the problem," he said.
Experts predicted extensive litigation over Proposition 66.
Sean Kennedy, a law professor at Loyola Law School and former federal defender
who handled death penalty appeals, said the law seeks to speed up appeals like
the federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did in U.S.
courts.
Elements of that law are still being contested and he expects future challenges
in California to argue on due process grounds that expedited appeals hamper
meaningful review.
"I think California is very schizophrenic about the death penalty," Kennedy
said.
"Majorities often support the death penalty ... but people are concerned about
being like Texas and having no real due process.???
(source: San Mateo Daily Journal)
USA:
Roof's mental status uncertain; his attorneys seek delay to Charleston death
penalty trial
The current mental status of accused Charleston church killer Dylann Roof has
emerged as a key issue and may delay the start of his upcoming death penalty
trial.
Legal papers on the U.S. District Court internet site made public Friday make
it clear that defense and prosecution lawyers are wrangling over the issue of
Roof's mental competency. They are also fighting over whether a final hearing
on Roof's mental status - now scheduled for Wednesday in Charleston - will be
open or closed.
After that hearing, U.S. Judge Richard Gergel will likely issue an order saying
whether Roof is mentally fit to stand trial, or whether he should be
hospitalized until he is competent.
Under the law, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him and assist his lawyers in his own defense. Roof, 22, is
an avowed white supremacist from the Columbia area. He faces 33 charges
including hate crimes in connection with the June 2015 Charleston church
massacre, in which 9 African-Americans were killed execution-style. His lawyers
have said in open court he will plead guilty and be sentenced to life without
parole in prison if prosecutors drop their demand for the death penalty.
According to a defendant's filing in the case made public Friday, U.S. Judge
Richard Gergel has already made a finding "that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or
defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial..."
Although the defense motion does not say when Gergel made that finding, the
judge apparently did so after a closed hearing Monday at which the public and
prosecutors were excluded. At that hearing, Roof's defense lawyers presented
evidence indicating he was not mentally stable.
As prescribed by law when questions of a defendant's mental competence arise,
Gergel then appointed an independent mental health professional to examine
Roof. That examination is now apparently finished, or near finished, and the
results will be given to Gergel.
The results of that examination will likely play a large role in Wednesday's
upcoming hearing and may determine if Roof's trial can go on as scheduled.
"If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering
him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him...," the defendant shall
be hospitalized, federal law law says.
That hospitalization shall continue until the defendant's mental condition
improves to the point where he can stand trial, federal law says.
Defense lawyers are seeking to close Wednesday's hearing about Roof's mental
status, according to a filing unsealed Friday.
"Any (open) competency hearing will pose equally grave threats to the
deffendant's right to a fair trial, to a fair and impartial jury, and to the
assistance of counsel," defense lawyers wrote.
However, prosecution lawyers argue in a strongly-worded brief that, for
numerous reasons, the Wednesday hearing about Roof's competency should be open
to the public and victims.
"The victims should not be held in the dark about the competency hearing," the
government argued. "The victims in this case have a right to know what is
occurring in this case."
"While the defendant does have a right to a fair trial, so too do the victims
have a right to a fair trial, one that affords them access to the information
and proceedings that address their experience and loss as well as the person
who caused it," the government argued.
Government lawyers also reminded Gergel that U.S. courts are traditionally open
and there is "a strong presumption of open proceedings."
Moreover, since the public already knows that Roof's mental competence is an
issue, "there is no sufficiently compelling interest in closing the hearing,"
prosecutors wrote.
Roof's mental status is currently being evaluated in a confidential setting.
Judge Gergel is expected to get a report on Roof's competence soon.
"Should the defendant be found incompetent, we presume that the Court would
order him transferred to a Bureau medical facility for further evaluation and
treatment aimed at restoring him to competence," defense lawyers wrote.
Defense lawyers also indicate they want to delay jury selection now for perhaps
an indefinite time, as the matters concerning Roof's competency are legally
complex and will likely take a long time to deal with in a manner that will
protect Roof's rights.
"With a holiday coming up, we wish to avoid having to make any more last-minute
requests for time to resolve the numerous issues of constitutional dimension
that seem to be arising now virtually on a daily basis," wrote Roof's defense
team, headed by noted anti-death penalty lawyer David Bruck.
"We suggest that the Court adopt a new schedule that avoids resuming jury
selection on Nov. 21-22," Bruck and his team wrote.
Gergel announced earlier this week he wanted to start jury selection on Nov.
21, the Monday the week of Thanksgiving.
Gergel had originally planned to start jury selection last Monday, but to
everyone's surprise, Roof's lawyers asked for and got a closed court hearing at
which last-minute mental competency issues concerning Roof arose. Neither
prosecutors nor the public were allowed to attend that hearing.
(source: thestate.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
