August 31
FLORIDA:
Supreme Court rejects death penalty appeals
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected appeals by 3 death row inmates
in decades-old cases, including the 1991 murder of a Fort Pierce police
officer.
The rulings were part of a long line of similar decisions in cases rooted in a
2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
In 1 of Thursday's cases, justices turned down an appeal by death row inmate
Billy Leon Kearse, who was convicted in the murder of Fort Pierce police
officer Danny Parrish during a traffic stop, according to court records.
In another case, justices rejected an appeal by death row inmate Stephen Todd
Booker, who was convicted in the 1977 murder of 94-year-old Lorine Demoss
Harmon in Alachua County.
In the 3rd case, justices denied an appeal by Ian Deco Lightbourne, who was
convicted in the 1981 sexual battery and murder of Nancy O'Farrell in Marion
County.
Each of the appeals related to a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case known
as Hurst v. Florida and a subsequent Florida Supreme Court decision.
The 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found Florida's death-penalty sentencing
system was unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to judges,
instead of juries.
The subsequent Florida Supreme Court ruling said juries must unanimously agree
on critical findings before judges can impose death sentences and must
unanimously recommend the death penalty.
But the Florida Supreme Court made the new sentencing requirements apply to
cases since June 2002. That is when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling
known as Ring v. Arizona that was a premise for striking down Florida's
death-penalty sentencing system in 2016.
In each of the cases Thursday, the death row inmates had been sentenced to
death before the Ring decision and argued that the new requirements should also
apply to their cases. But the Supreme Court said the Hurst requirements should
not retroactively apply to the inmates.
(source: News Service of Florida)
***************************
Man writes heartless letter about killing gay couple before judge orders
execution----He saw it as his 'duty as a white man'
Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes ordered the execution of Peter Avsenew for the
murder of a gay couple in 2010.
In January, a jury found Avsenew guilty of killing Steven Adams and Kevin
Powell in north Florida. They sentenced him to death. He showed no remorse at
the sentencing, and flipped off the victims' families before being led out of
the court room.
'I have no regrets in my life and I am proud of the decisions I've made,' he
told the jury. 'No one really knows what happened that day.'
Avsenew, 33, killed the couple a few days before Christmas 8 years ago, and
then stole their car to escape.
Broward County, Florida passed a new last year, saying juries must be unanimous
to issue the death sentence.
Holmes could have overturned their sentence, but decided not to.
Avsenew wrote a letter to the judge, revealing his hateful feelings.
'It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence,' the
letter read. 'Homosexuals are a disease to mankind and must be put down.'
Missy Badget, a sister of one of the victims, said she was happy Avsenewe got
the death penalty after what he did and the gesture he made on the day of
sentencing.
(source: Gay Star News)
ALABAMA:
No bond for man charged with capital murder in Mobile
A man charged with 2 counts of capital murder in the beating death of a 70 year
old Mobile man was arraigned Thursday.
Timothy Hall, Junior is the son of Mobile Municipal Court Judge Shelbonnie
Hall.
A district attorney from outside Mobile was brought in to prosecute the case.
Hall was arrested for the beating death last August of 70 year old Larry
Willingham during a home invasion on Pleasant Valley Road in broad daylight.
Defense Attorney Art Powell said, "He just entered a not guilty plea to a two
count indictment charging him with capital murder, and the state has indicated
they're going to seek the death penalty. So, it's going to be a very long drawn
out process."
Spencer Walker represents Clarke, Washington, and Choctaw Counties.
Mobile District Attorney Ashley Rich recused herself from prosecuting Hall.
A special judge, Braxton Kittrell, heard the case.
The prosecution wants to get a sample of Hall's DNA.
Powell said the state's filed a motion to take a swab for saliva from his
mouth.
Walker said, "I would say that that there's forensic evidence that was
collected at the scene that we would like to compare with the defendant."
Judge Kittrell ordered Hall held on no bond.
Walker said, "In the criminal justice system, certainly a capital case is the
most serious crime on the books, but, so, it's a very important case. We've got
a victim who's lost his life and we've got a young man who may lose his if
convicted by a jury of his peers."
Walker talked briefly about how he got involved in the case.
He said, "I believe the defendant's mother is a municipal court judge here in
Mobile County, so the D.A.'s office here recused, and I was appointed by the
attorney general to handle this case."
As for defending a man who is the son of a municipal court judge and is charged
with murder, Powell said, "At this point in time, it doesn't have anything to
do with what I'm doing."
Hall's next scheduled appearance in court is September 6th.
(source: Fox News)
MISSOURI:
Triple murder death penalty case in Warren County sealed weeks before trial
A triple murder case in which Warren County prosecutors are seeking the death
penalty has been hidden from the public a little more than 2 weeks before
trial.
The trial date for Shawn Kavanagh is set for Sept. 17. Jury selection begins
Sept. 12 before Presiding Judge Wesley Dalton. Jury summonses have been mailed
out, prompting Warren County Circuit Court to seal the case entirely on
Case.Net, Missouri's online court system.
3 days of jury selection among at least 300 prospective jurors is set to start
Sept. 12 in Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court, according to Tara Crane,
Kavanagh's public defender.
If the case weren't hidden, prospective jurors could only find Kavanagh's case
number, charges and docket entries on Case.Net. They still wouldn???t get
access to the filed court documents unless they looked up the case at a county
courthouse's public computer terminal.
Warren County Prosecutor Kelly King and Assistant Attorney General Kevin
Zoellner are pursuing the death penalty against Kavanagh.
Dalton, the presiding judge, issued an order this week sealing the case, his
court clerk said Wednesday. But the explanation wasn't available because that
order, too, is sealed.
A new Missouri Supreme Court rule took effect July 1 aimed at making harder for
judges to seal pending court cases from the public without explanation. The
rule said judges must set forth "specific written findings supporting a
compelling justification to restrict access," echoing a 2001 Supreme Court
case.
Kavanagh, 27, of Bellflower, Mo., is set to stand trial on 3 counts of
1st-degree murder and other charges in the February 2014 stabbing deaths of
Lexy Vandiver, 29, her 7-year-old son Mason and a visiting co-worker Tara Lynn
Fifer, 22, of Montgomery City, Mo. Kavanagh is also charged with stabbing and
wounding his estranged wife.
The night of the killings, Kavanagh called 911 and told police that he had
stabbed his wife and killed several other people at a home in the 26000 block
of Humber Road, off Highway Y, south of Jonesburg, Mo.
Kavanagh was covered in blood when Warren County deputies arrived; Fifer and
Vandiver were found dead from multiple stab wounds. Vandiver's 18-month-old
daughter was found unharmed inside the home. Mason died about 4 days later.
Vandiver worked together at a nursing home in New Florence, Mo., authorities
said. Jessica Kavanagh had been living temporarily with Vandiver, and Fifer had
been visiting the 2.
(source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
OKLAHOMA:
DNA hearing in Julius Jones death penalty case set for Sept. 7
On Friday, September 7, Oklahoma District Court Judge Bill Graves will preside
over a hearing about a procedural question related to DNA testing in the case
of Julius Jones, a death row prisoner who has always maintained his innocence
for a 1999 murder.
The hearing will take place at 9 a.m. in Judge Graves' courtroom #800, in the
Oklahoma County District Court, 320 Robert S Kerr Ave, in downtown Oklahoma
City.
The hearing in Jones v. Oklahoma will address the question of whether the
district attorney's office will be able to communicate directly with the DNA
testing facility, which is testing a red bandana that the state neglected to
test 19 years ago.
The bandana is currently being tested for DNA at the expense and direction of
Jones' attorneys. The state recently agreed to this procedure.
"This evidence should have been tested 19 years ago," said Dale Baich, federal
public defender for Jones. "There is always a concern that with the passage of
time, the sample could be degraded or contaminated. Although this hearing is
important, DNA testing is just one aspect of this case, which includes
overwhelming evidence that not only was Julius Jones wrongfully convicted, but
racial bias also contaminated the trial."
Jones' legal team has previously argued: 1) There is no physical or forensic
evidence tying Jones to the crime. 2) Jones has alibi witnesses that place him
miles from the crime at the time it was committed, but his jury did not hear
them. 3) The only physical description of the shooter in the case matches
Jones' co-defendant, who admitted involvement in the crime; not Jones. 4)
According to sworn statements, the co-defendant, Christopher Jordan, (a high
school teammate of Jones) who served 15 years and is now free, admitted to
setting Jones up. 5) There is newly-discovered evidence that shows at least one
juror harbored racial prejudice that influenced his vote to convict Jones.
Jones, an African American Oklahoma City resident, was on scholarship at the
University of Oklahoma at the time of his arrest. While attending John Marshall
High School, Jones - co-captain of his football, basketball, and track teams -
was a member of the National Honor Society and graduated with a class rank of
12 out of 143, with a 3.8 grade point average.
Bolstering Jones' defense case, in May 2017, the Oklahoma Death Penalty
Commission Report concluded that there were various serious and systemic flaws
in Oklahoma's capital sentencing system.
Included at the end of the Commission's report is a separate study entitled,
"Race and Death Sentencing for Oklahoma Homicides Committed Between 1990 and
2012" - which examines "the possibility that the race of the defendant and/or
victim affects who ends up on death row.
The report found that a Black defendant like Jones, accused of killing a white
male victim in Oklahoma is nearly 3 times more likely to receive a death
sentence than if his victim were a nonwhite male.
Jones' current lawyers state that there was "pervasive and highly racialized
pre-trial media coverage" of Julius???s case, as well as "racialized remarks
made by prosecutors and at least 1 juror" during Julius's capital murder trial.
(Third application for Post Conviction Relief)
Racial bias occurred when a police officer used a racial slur during Jones'
arrest, and new evidence shows a juror used the n-word before jury
deliberations at the sentencing phase.
The State removed of all prospective black jurors except one during the jury
selection process.
According to Jones' legal team, "the U.S. Supreme Court has made unequivocally
clear that our criminal justice system cannot tolerate such blatant examples of
racial prejudice on the part of even a single juror. In this way, Jones' rights
under the state and federal constitutions have been violated and his conviction
and death sentence should be overturned."
In 1999, Paul Howell was fatally shot in the driveway of his parents' home in
Edmond during the theft of his SUV. Howell's sister, who was a passenger in the
vehicle and witnessed the shooting, testified that the shooter had
approximately a half-inch of hair sticking out from underneath a stocking cap.
(Third Application for Post-Conviction Relief at pp. 10-11.)
At the trial, Jones' underfunded and inexperienced public defenders, with no
capital trial experience, failed to show the jury a photograph of Jones, taken
a few days before the shooting, which showed that Jones' had short cropped hair
and Jordan had long, braided hair. (Third Application for Post-Conviction
Relief at pp. 10-11.)
Jordan was released in 2014, after serving only 15 years, despite the fact that
the prosecution told jurors that he was facing 30 years to a lifetime of
incarceration for his role in the crime. 2 prisoners heard Jordan bragging that
he set-up Julius, and that he would get out of prison in 15 years in exchange
for his testimony.
In addition, jurors may not have known that Ladell King, another key witness
against Jones, was never prosecuted in connection with the murder, despite his
admitted involvement.
King's police interrogation from July/August 1999 as well as his preliminary
hearing and trial testimony includes his admissions to being involved in the
crime on the night that it occurred. He admitted to keeping the stolen suburban
at his apartment complex overnight, and assisting in transporting and selling
the vehicle the next day. King also received less than the mandated sentence
for habitual offenders in connection with unrelated charges. (Third Application
for Post-Conviction Relief at pp. 11, 13.).
In November 2017, Jones' current legal team discovered new evidence that at
least 1 juror harbored racial prejudice that influenced his vote to convict and
sentence Mr. Jones to death. A juror reported telling the judge about another
juror who said the trial was a waste of time and "they should just take the
n-word out and shoot him behind the jail." The juror reported that the juror
who made this comment was never removed and the court did nothing. (Third
Application for Post-Conviction Relief at p. 14.)
On July 25, The City Sentinel broke the news that the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals (OCCA) had withdrawn a June order denying requests to look at
evidence of racial bias on the Oklahoma County jury that convicted death row
inmate Julius Jones of murder in 1999.
The court has decided to take a fresh look at some questions raised by Jones'
attorneys earlier this year. The judges also concluded (Case #PCD-2017-1313)
that they could not ignore court mismanagement of exhibits earlier this year.
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to review recent filings in the Jones case,
with a 14th consideration of the matter pending at the High Court when justices
return in September.
Under an "unbroken string of Supreme Court precedent," Jones' attorneys believe
he is entitled to a reversal of his conviction and death sentence or, at a
minimum, to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that the juror's racial
prejudice violated his rights under the state and federal constitutions.
"If Oklahoma is to have the death penalty, the State must do everything in its
power to come to convictions and death sentences fairly and accurately, and
give full consideration to all possible claims of wrongful conviction," Baich
said.
This summer ABC television aired the documentary series, "The Last Defense,"
executive produced by Academy Award winning actress Viola Davis, which brought
global attention to the details of Jones' case, expressly uncovering new
evidence. The docu-series can be seen online.
For more information on Jones' case, visit justiceforjulius.com.
Jones' Third Application for Post-Conviction Relief document can be accessed
here: https://tinyurl.com/yalle4qj.
Links to all legal briefs can be found at the conclusion of the case
background)
Jones??? Petition for Writ of Certiorari can be accessed here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7pauq89
(source: The City Sentinel)
NEBRASKA:
Death row inmate Lotter argues sentencing procedure is unconstitutional
John Lotter took his latest shot at getting off death row Thursday when his
lawyer attacked the constitutionality of Nebraska's capital sentencing law.
Sentenced to die for the 1993 triple-homicide that inspired the film "Boys
Don't Cry," Lotter has filed multiple unsuccessful appeals and post-conviction
motions during his 22 years on death row. On Thursday, Lotter's attorney told
the Nebraska Supreme Court that the state law violates a defendant's
constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process because it gives judges
the final say when imposing death sentences.
That's a problem because the U.S. Supreme Court has said juries must determine
the facts necessary for a death sentence, said Rebecca Woodman, an attorney
from Lenexa, Kansas, who represents Lotter.
"Nebraska is the only active death penalty state without a sentencing structure
that allows a jury to make the central findings of fact to impose a death
sentence," she said.
Nebraska's system remains constitutionally sound because juries must
unanimously decide aggravating factors, which are the key elements in the
sentencing phase, said James Smith, solicitor general for the Nebraska Attorney
General's Office. The judicial panel then decides if any mitigating factors
exist in favor of the defendant before declaring the sentence.
"Finding aggravating factors is the fact that's significant, the fact that
juries must decide," he said. "The aggravating factors are what makes the
defendant death-eligible."
Thursday's oral arguments came just 2 weeks after Nebraska carried out its 1st
execution in 21 years. Carey Dean Moore was put to death Aug. 14 for the 1979
slayings of Omaha cabdrivers Reuel Van Ness and Maynard Helgeland.
Moore's execution means Lotter takes over as the state's longest-serving death
row inmate. But the state high court is unlikely to consider setting an
execution date for Lotter or the 10 other men on death row before they make a
decision in Thursday's appeal.
The court typically takes several months after oral arguments to publish
decisions. But if it should rule in Lotter's favor, that could mean the
Legislature would have to change the law and the death row inmates would get
new sentencing trials.
Much of Thursday's hearing was spent on how Nebraska should apply a 2016 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in a case called Hurst v. Florida. In that decision, the
nation's high court struck down a procedure in Florida that allowed juries to
make sentencing recommendations to a judge, who then decided whether to impose
a death sentence.
Lotter's attorney said the Hurst decision prompted Florida and Delaware to
change their death penalty sentencing laws. And she argued that the Florida
system was very similar to Nebraska's.
"Nebraska's statutory scheme is unconstitutional because it bases a death
sentence not on a jury's verdict, but on judge-only findings of critical facts
necessary to impose a sentence of death," Woodman said.
Court of Appeals Judge Riko Bishop, who sat in for a high court judge who
recused herself from the Lotter case, questioned why Nebraska's system would be
deficient. She said the law requires the jury - not the judges - to decide
aggravating factors, which are the key element necessary to impose death.
Woodman said a death sentence can't be handed down until the judges weigh the
aggravators against the mitigators. A jury finding evidence of aggravating
circumstances alone is not enough to impose a death sentence, she argued.
She also told the court that the Hurst decision should be applied retroactively
to Lotter, meaning he should get a new sentencing hearing.
Smith, the state's attorney, disagreed. He said the U.S. Supreme Court did not
declare the Hurst decision a new rule of constitutional law nor has it since
ruled that it should be applied retroactively.
In addition, Smith pointed to a recent decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, which found that Hurst did not apply retroactively to a death
penalty case in South Dakota. The 8th Circuit includes Nebraska.
Lotter was sentenced to death for the 1993 slayings of Teena Brandon, Lisa
Lambert and Phillip Devine at a rented farmhouse near Humboldt. The case
generated national notoriety because Brandon, a transgender man, was the target
of Lotter and his accomplice.
The 47-year-old inmate has maintained his innocence despite repeated court
decisions upholding his guilt.
(source: Omaha World-Herald)
*************************
Ricketts, Krist meet in 1st debate at State Fair
On subjects ranging from property taxes to prisons, and Medicaid expansion to
medical marijuana, Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts and his challenger, Democratic
state Sen. Bob Krist, offered contrasting views in a debate at the State Fair
near Grand Island Thursday.
The 1st question was about property taxes. Ricketts touted funneling more than
$800 million in state funds to a property tax credit relief fund, and faulted
the Legislature for blocking his proposals to do more. Krist said those
proposals would have helped upper income people and corporations, and blamed
Ricketts for not building consensus.
Ricketts brought the issue up again when he got to ask Krist a question. "The
one bill you introduced into the Legislature, LB468, would have actually gutted
the property tax credit relief fund. And for your average Nebraska home of
about $150,000, that would have driven that property tax up by $263. Given that
you've been there 10 years and haven't done anything on property taxes, why
should the people of Nebraska believe you now, that you're running for
governor, that you're actually going to work on this at all?" Ricketts asked.
Krist said his bill was intended to make a point about how Ricketts is handling
the state budget. "It was trying to get everyone's attention to the fact that
you're pulling money out of the rainy day fund and giving money back. We are
depleting our rainy day fund. It has less than $290 million dollars in there.
When I was there in 2009 we had about $800 million going into that
recession/depression and we barely made it out the end. We're at a point right
now if we see that same thing again and the escalation of you taking money out
of the rainy day fund and giving money back, we're going to be in big trouble,"
Krist said. In Krist's turn to question Ricketts, he asked about the loss of
jobs at Cabela's, the Sidney-headquarted sporting goods chain. "Paul Singer,
who's been called the 'doomsday investor,' orchestrated the sale of our own
jewel in Sidney, Cabela's. It cost us 2,000 jobs and many, many families who
are hurting because of it. That man gave you a large amount of money for your
campaign, and also gave your father's PAC, your PAC, a large amount of money.
Why did you stand by and let us lose that jewel, Cabela's, and 2,000 jobs?"
Krist asked.
"What the senator's talking about is that Bass Pro, a company based in
Springfield, Missouri, basically negotiated with Cabela's to be able to buy
them. That was something that was done between Bass Pro and Cabela's - they
negotiated that. And I didn't have anything to do with that, because that's a
private sector transaction," Ricketts replied.
The 2 also clashed over a Medicaid expansion initiative scheduled to appear on
the November ballot. Krist supported it. "We can find the kind of support that
we need for 90,000 people who are uninsured. 35,000 of those are my fellow
veterans. It is not going to cost the state that much money, and it needs to be
done. I supported the petition and I will vote for it and I will help enable it
as governor," Krist said.
Rickketts voiced opposition. "The solution has to be that the federal
government needs to take this on, and in Congress and working with the
President, get real health care reform - something that would make it
affordable so people could actually buy it," Ricketts said.
The candidates also split over the death penalty, with Ricketts in favor. "This
is an important tool that we use at the state to be able to protect the public
safety. And in particular I think about our corrections officers, who we ask to
go into our prisons where we know there's dangerous people because we put them
there. It also helps protect our law enforcement officers. And so it's really
incumbent upon us as the state to be able to carry out the sentences as ordered
by the court, and the will of the Nebraska people. Remember, Nebraskans voted
61-39 to restore the death penalty when the Legislature, including Sen. Krist
abolished it," Ricketts said.
Krist, who like Ricketts describes himself as pro-life, defended his opposition
to the death penalty. "I will own that vote. I voted to abolish the death
penalty, and I voted to override the governor's veto on the death penalty.
Check my record -- measure and weigh it -- that's where it is. The death
penalty issue has been an incredibly emotional issue for many people in this
state. And I too have traveled around this state. I can tell you, if we are
really a state of pro-life, then we need to all phases of pro-life," Krist
said.
On the state's overcrowded prisons, which have seen riots and inmate deaths
during Ricketts' `st term, the governor saw progress. "We are working on
things. We've done things like end the terrible practice of co-ed
incarceration. We're working expanding capacity, we're working on expanding
programming. And we've been successful in those areas. Now certainly, it was
underinvested for a long time. We've got a lot of work yet to do, but we're on
the right track," Ricketts said.
Krist saw things differently. "It's not working. Corrections is a debacle. And
what we have right now is a 1/3 turnover of every Corrections officer. 30 %
attrition. Try to run your business with a 30 % attrition," Krist said.
The 2 also clashed over budget cuts Ricketts proposed for the University of
Nebraska. Krist was critical. "What we've done is cut $48 million in 18 months
and raised tuition by $5,000 a kid. That's not the way to get to where we need
to get," Krist said.
Ricketts said with farm income down, the University needs to economize like
other state agencies. "But the university of Nebraska is run separately. It's
run by a board of regents - it's got its own management. And it doesn't report
to the governor. So when we go through these tough economic times, we've asked
them to tighten their belts just like we've had to do. And they need to manage
that to be able to serve the people, the students that they're serving,"
Ricketts said.
The pair also divided over legalizing medical marijuana. Ricketts said it
should be left to the federal Food and Drug Administration. "What I think that
all drugs should do is go through the FDA process. This is how we determine
whether or not drugs are safe and effective, in what quantities, for what
ailments, and make sure there's no unintended consequences And that people know
about those when they take that drug if there are. And that's what marijuana
needs to do as well," Ricketts said.
Krist supported legalization." I have a special needs daughter who is
surrounded by folks who suffer from seizures and other ailments. And medical
cannabis in many forms... it is an amazing drug that brings the unintended
consequences and the bad side effects of some of the process under control,"
Krist said.
Ricketts and Krist are scheduled to debate twice more before the November
election.
(source: netnebraska.org)
CALIFORNIA:
Gov. Brown's office seeks San Bernardino County DA reply in Kevin Cooper case
Gov. Jerry Brown's office has asked the San Bernardino County District
Attorney's Office to respond to claims from Kevin Cooper's attorneys, seeking
new DNA tests in their effort to win clemency for their client, convicted and
sentenced to death for a 1983 Chino Hills quadruple murder.
Cooper's attorneys earlier this month sent Brown's office for review a 34-page
response, plus attachments, to questions from the governor's office regarding
Cooper's claim of innocence and need for a more recently developed DNA test
that they believe will exonerate him.
The last series of DNA tests in the case, in 2002, concluded Cooper was the
killer, but his attorneys have continued to dispute that.
San Bernardino prosecutors have said Cooper's claims are empty, and previously
filed a 94-page document with the governor's office that preceded its formal
request for both sides to answer questions about the case. The governor's
office letter dated Aug. 29 asks the District Attorney's Office to respond by
Oct. 11.
Documents from both sides will be used by the governor's office to evaluate
whether the tests sought by Cooper are warranted.
The June 4, 1983, attack for which Cooper was convicted in 1985 took the lives
of Doug and Peggy Ryen; their 10-year-old daughter, Jessica; and neighbor
Christopher Hughes, 11, who was staying overnight at the Ryens' home.
The boy was a friend of the Ryens' 8-year-old son, Joshua, who survived the
attack with a slashed throat.
Cooper, 60, has exhausted all appeals. California's death penalty remains on
hold while its procedures are reviewed in court cases.
(source: The Press-Enterprise)
USA:
Public Banned From Murder Trial Hearing
Saying that potentially "volatile" testimony during a pretrial hearing in the
capital case against accused killer Donald Fell could taint a jury pool, a
federal judge closed a proceeding to the public.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford, before issuing the order to clear the courtroom on
Wednesday morning, called such a move "rare" and a step he was not taking
lightly.
VtDigger filed an objection with the federal court in Rutland to the closing of
the courtroom.
However, the hearing behind closed doors began before the judge took up the
news organization's bid to have the proceeding take place in public.
Prosecutors, while the hearing still was open to the public, also objected to
the barring of the public from the proceeding.
Later Wednesday, at the start of the afternoon session, the judge did take up
VtDigger's objection in open court. He then reiterated his position on the need
to close the courtroom to protect against tainting the jury pool.
"I think that this is the exception," he said in response to an argument that
courtrooms should be open to the public.
Crawford made his initial ruling to close the courtroom from the bench
following brief remarks at the start of a hearing Wednesday morning in the case
of Fell, who is facing capital charges in the beating death of 53-year-old
Teresca King, of North Clarendon, Vt., in November 2000.
The hearing was set to take up pretrial issues in the case, and after attorneys
met briefly with the judge in chambers, the parties emerged for a short public
courtroom session.
In that session, Crawford said that Fell's defense team had requested that the
courtroom be closed to hear testimony regarding a "prison informant." The
informant was not named, and the substance of the expected testimony was not
revealed.
Crawford did term the testimony potentially "volatile," and with the initial
jury screening about a week away he said he didn't want that information
tainting the process.
The judge added that the expected testimony was not concerning whether Fell was
guilty or innocent of the charges against him, but instead went to matters that
may be raised in a potential penalty phase of the trial where jurors would
decide whether to impose the death penalty.
According to a public court filing, among the items that were expected to be
taken up at the hearing Wednesday was a defense motion, "To exclude the
testimony of proposed witness 'GS' on the subject of future dangerousness and
to exclude any and all evidence of alleged gang or group related evidence from
the penalty trial."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sonia Jimenez, who is part of the prosecution team,
objected to the closing of the courtroom. She said that several members of
King's family were in attendance and should be allowed to observe the court
proceeding.
Jimenez added that the defense had only just raised the issue and left the
prosecution with no opportunity to submit more extensive written court briefs
on why the courtroom doors should not be closed to the public.
Members of Fell's defense team did not make an argument during the open
session, instead telling the judge they stood by comments they had earlier made
on the matter during the meeting in chambers.
The hearing behind closed doors began around 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday and
continued throughout the afternoon following a short lunch break.
Fell, who was 20 at the time of the arrest and is now 38, attended the hearing,
the 1st court proceeding in months he has taken part in.
He wore a red prison uniform and entered the courtroom with both his wrists and
ankles in shackles. Court officers did unlock a cuff on his right hand so he
could write down notes during the hearing.
Fell faces the death penalty for his alleged role in the November 2000
carjacking in Rutland and later slaying of King in New York state. His friend
and alleged accomplice, Robert Lee, died in prison in 2001 before he could be
tried on capital charges.
Fell is facing his 2nd death penalty trial. In the f1st one, he was convicted
and sentenced to death, but a judge tossed out that verdict and sentence in
2014 over juror misconduct.
According to an order issued Tuesday by Judge Crawford regarding jury selection
procedures, 900 people have summoned. Starting next week, jurors will begin
filling out case questionnaires. Individual questioning of potential jurors is
set to begin on Oct. 1, the order stated.
"The court will remind each juror that questions about his or her attitudes
toward the death penalty should not give rise to an expectation that a death
sentence is more likely than a life sentence with opportunity for release and
that Donald Fell is presumed innocent of the charges in the case," Crawford
wrote.
"'Stake out' questions seeking to commit a juror to a particular result if he
or she hears evidence of one description or another will not be allowed," the
judge added. "Jurors may be asked about their willingness to consider potential
mitigating or aggravating factors, but not what effect the facts would have on
their verdict."
(source: Valley News)
**********************
Where the public stands on key issues that could come before the Supreme Court
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin confirmation hearings on Brett
Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, Kavanaugh would
replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in July after 3 decades on the
court.
In a Pew Research Center survey just after Kavanaugh's nomination, Americans
were divided: 41% said he should be confirmed, 36% said he should not and 23%
offered no opinion. There was far more agreement over the importance of the
selection itself: 83% of U.S. adults said the choice of the next Supreme Court
justice is important to them personally, including 63% who said it is very
important.
Ahead of the Senate's deliberations over Kavanaugh, here's a look at where the
public stands on some of the major legal, political and social issues that
could come before the justices in the years ahead, based on surveys conducted
by Pew Research Center.
Abortion
Little public support for overturning Roe v. Wade as of 2016
The high court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade - which established a woman's
constitutional right to an abortion - has loomed large over recent nominations
to the court, and Kavanaugh's is no exception.
In the Center's July survey, 39% of Americans said they thought Kavanaugh would
vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if he is confirmed. Smaller shares said he would
not overturn the ruling (29%) or said it wouldn't matter or gave no opinion
(32%). On a separate question, 61% said Supreme Court nominees should be
required to answer senators' questions on issues like abortion during
confirmation hearings.
There is little public support for a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. In a
survey from December 2016 - the last time the Center asked about it - around
3-in-10 U.S. adults (28%) said they would like to see the Supreme Court
completely overturn Roe v. Wade, but around 7-in-10 (69%) said they would not.
On a more general question about abortion that the Center asked in June 2017,
around 6-in-10 U.S. adults (57%) said abortion should be legal in all or most
cases while 40% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Public support
for abortion rights has remained relatively steady in recent decades.
Americans' views about abortion differ markedly by their political and
religious affiliation and educational background. 3/4 of Democrats, for
example, believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but around 2/3
of Republicans (65%) take the opposite view. 6-in-10 independents say abortion
should be legal in all or most cases.
Death penalty
Death penalty support ticks up in 2018 after years of declineThe Supreme Court
often has the last word on whether individual executions in the United States
can proceed or not, and the justices have ruled on several broad legal
questions related to capital punishment since they effectively reinstated the
death penalty in 1976.
Over the past 2 decades, public support for capital punishment has declined
substantially in the U.S., as have death sentences and executions. But in the
Center's most recent survey on the death penalty - conducted this past April
and May - support was up slightly: A narrow majority of Americans (54%) said
they favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder, up from 49% in
2016. Partisans were sharply divided: Around 3/4 of Republicans (77%) supported
the death penalty for those convicted of murder, while a majority of Democrats
(59%) opposed it. Independents were more inclined to support the death penalty
than oppose it (52% versus 40%).
Elections
Recent Supreme Court decisions on subjects including redistricting, voting
rights and campaign finance have shaped the way American elections are carried
out. A major Pew Research Center report earlier this year explored how
Americans see various aspects of their electoral system.
The study found broad public agreement over the importance of certain issues
related to voting. For example, 2/3 of Americans (67%) said it is very
important for U.S. elections that no ineligible voters are permitted to vote.
Around 7-in-10 (72%) said it is very important that congressional districts are
fairly drawn, and more than 8-in-10 (83%) said it is very important that no
eligible voters are denied the vote.
But Americans are skeptical about whether these goals are being achieved in
practice, the survey found. Around 3-in-10 U.S. adults (29%) said either of the
following 2 statements - "no eligible voters are prevented from voting" and "no
ineligible voters are permitted to vote" - describe the country's elections
very well. And only 12% said the statement "the way congressional voting
districts are determined is fair and reasonable" describes U.S. elections very
well.
The same report found that Americans overwhelmingly support limits on campaign
contributions and believe new laws could reduce the role of money in politics.
Around 3/4 of U.S. adults (77%) said there should be limits on the amount of
money that individuals and groups can spend on political campaigns, while 20%
said individuals and groups should be able to spend as much as they want. And
around 2/3 of Americans (65%) said new laws could be written to effectively
reduce the role of money in politics, while 31% said such laws would not be
effective.
Gun rights
In a pair of groundbreaking cases in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled
that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual
right to bear arms and that state and local governments cannot violate that
right. The 2 rulings have underpinned recent debates over gun policy proposals
in Congress and in state legislatures.
The U.S. public is narrowly divided over whether it's more important to control
gun ownership or protect the right of Americans to own guns. In a 2017 survey,
51% said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 47% said
protecting the right to own guns is more important. There were wide partisan
differences on this question, with Republicans and Republican-leaning
independents more than three times as likely as Democrats and Democratic
leaners to say it's more important to protect the right to own guns. (Explore
long-term partisan and demographic trends on this question using this
interactive.)
Some gun policy proposals draw bipartisan supportSome gun policy ideas receive
broad support from Democrats and Republicans alike, according to surveys
conducted in 2017. For example, nearly 9-in-10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning
independents (89%) - and the same share of Republicans and GOP leaners - said
they strongly or somewhat favor preventing mentally ill people from purchasing
firearms. And at least 8-in-10 adults in both groups said they favor preventing
people on no-fly or watch lists from buying guns (85% among Democrats, 82%
among Republicans).
But many other commonly proposed ideas drew sharp partisan differences. 8-in-10
Democrats favored a ban on assault-style weapons, compared with 54% of
Republicans. A similar share of Democrats (79%) supported a ban on
high-capacity magazines, compared with 47% of Republicans. And while clear
majorities of Republicans supported proposals to allow concealed carry in more
places and to allow teachers and other officials to carry guns in K-12 schools
(72% and 69%, respectively), those proposals were backed by just 26% of
Democrats.
Labor unions
One of the biggest cases of the Supreme Court's most recent term involved
public employee labor unions. In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that
public-sector workers who are represented by unions - but are not members of
them - cannot be required to pay fees that cover the costs of the union's
contract negotiations. The decision overturned a 1977 high court ruling and was
seen as a major setback for unions.
Union membership in the U.S. has declined substantially in recent decades: The
share of wage and salaried workers who are members of unions declined from
20.1% in 1983 to 10.7% in 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When it comes to public opinion, Americans generally have a favorable view of
unions and believe that the long-term decline in their membership has been more
of a bad thing than a good thing.
A 55% majority of U.S. adults said earlier this year that they view labor
unions favorably, compared with a third who viewed them unfavorably. These
views have fluctuated over the past two decades, but are now more positive than
they were during the Great Recession. In the same survey, around 1/2 of
Americans (51%) said the reduction in union representation over the past 20
years has been mostly bad for working people, while around 1/3 (35%) said it
has been mostly good.
Same-sex marriage
Public support for same-sex marriage reached new milestone in 2017The justices
effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in a major 2015 ruling. But
even before the decision, public opinion had turned in favor of gay marriage.
In the Center's most recent survey on the question - conducted in June 2017 -
62% of Americans said they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally,
about twice the share who opposed it (32%). As recently as 2010, a larger share
of Americans had opposed than favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry
legally (48% vs. 42%).
(source: Pew Research Center)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
