March 26
UTAH:
‘Damning revelations’ result in a new hearing for a Utah death row inmate
A Utah inmate who has spent 33 years on death row will get a new hearing after
he raised questions about what perks and benefits two witnesses received from
police.
In a Friday opinion, the Utah Supreme Court found that the new "damning
revelations" could have affected the outcome of Douglas Stewart Carter's case.
In 1985, a jury convicted Carter of murder based on a written confession Carter
gave to police, which Carter later argued was coerced. But prosecutors
presented 2 witnesses at trial to corroborate the confession: Epifanio and
Lucia Tovar, who testified that Carter had bragged about killing 57-year-old
Eva Olesen, the aunt of Provo’s police chief at the time.
Carter was sentenced to die, but he appealed. In 1992, another jury upheld the
death penalty.
The Tovars had disappeared by that time, and prosecutors could not find them to
have them testify at the resentencing. They relied on the couple's words from
the previous hearing to argue Carter should be executed for his crimes.
But Carter’s defense team found the couple in 2011, and they made a bombshell
claim: They said Provo police paid their rent, and gave them groceries and
gifts in the months leading up to the original trial. They were told to lie
about those payments if they were asked about them on the witness stand, they
said. And the couple said they felt pressured to testify by the police, who
threatened to deport them or take their infant son from them if they did not
cooperate.
In its decision, the Utah Supreme Court found that the Tovars' testimonies were
at times inconsistent and "tainted as a whole" in light of these new
declarations.
"We hold that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the
outcome of the trial would have been different but for the absence of the
evidence," the opinion reads.
The high court found that the Tovars’ testimonies were crucial to the state’s
case, because prosecutors relied on their accounts about how Carter told them
he had intended to rape Olesen and laughed about her death.
The case will now be sent back to the district court, where a judge will hold
an evidentiary hearing. No court dates have been set.
Carter has made various appeals over the past three decades, but few have
stuck. He has argued, among other things, that his confession was coerced and
should have been suppressed; that the prosecutor had tainted the jury by
indirectly commenting on his decision to not take the witness stand in his own
defense; and that his counsel had been ineffective.
The Utah Supreme Court has previously rejected all but one issue raised by
Carter — that the jury instructions were flawed in his original hearing — and
ordered that Carter be resentenced in 1992.
Carter is 1 of 8 inmates on Utah’s death row. All have pending appeals, and no
execution dates are set. Another inmate, Douglas Lovell, similarly has an
evidentiary hearing pending in district court over testimony issues in his 2015
retrial.
It’s been more than a decade since Utah prosecutors have secured a death
penalty conviction. The last person sent to death row was Floyd Maestas, who
was sentenced to die in 2008 for stomping a woman to death. Maestas died last
December of natural causes.
(source: Salt Lake Tribune)
IDAHO:
Judge upholds 2 death sentences for Joseph Edward Duncan III
A federal judge has upheld 2 of 3 death penalties for a man convicted in a
gruesome child kidnapping and murder case, and put a third death sentence on
hold for now.
Joesph Edward Duncan III was sentenced to death after an incredibly violent
spate of crimes in which he stalked 2 small children, broken into their Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho, home and killed 3 people there before abducting the 8- and
9-year-old.
Duncan then took the kids deep into Montana's Lolo National Forest, where he
tortured and raped them for weeks. He eventually killed 9-year-old Dylan
Groene, and later returned with the 8-year-old girl to Idaho, where he was
captured.
It was at least his second, and possibly his 4th, child murder: Duncan was
later convicted in the 1997 abduction and murder of a California boy, and
federal prosecutors said Duncan confessed to killing 2 young half-sisters in
Seattle in 1996.
Duncan challenged his sentence in the Idaho case on multiple fronts, saying in
part that his attorneys were ineffective, that graphic video evidence used
during his sentencing hearing unfairly prejudiced the jury against him, and
that the judge failed to appreciate how "irrational and deluded" Duncan was
when he waived his right to appeal.
But Lodge said the court took care to ensure that Duncan was competent to waive
his rights.
"Duncan competently, clearly, knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily and
unequivocally elected to waive his right to appeal," Lodge noted in the ruling.
"Duncan understood and knew the pros and cons of his decision and that the
decision was his to make."
Some of the evidence used in the federal case included videos and photographs
Duncan made that showed him torturing and abusing the children he kidnapped.
Lodge said that graphic evidence — though it was particularly horrific and
difficult to watch — had a "clear and overwhelming" value to the jurors as they
considered whether or not Duncan should be put to death for his crimes.
"The videos capture the very crimes which Duncan has been charged and plead
guilty to; unmistakably showing Duncan's heinous, cruel, and depraved manner in
committing the criminal acts against his victims and the circumstances
surrounding those acts," Lodge wrote.
Ultimately, the jury found Duncan should be put to death for three of the 10
federal charges of which he was convicted: kidnapping resulting in death,
sexual exploitation of a child resulting in death and using a firearm during a
crime of violence resulting in death.
Lodge upheld the death penalty for the kidnapping and sexual exploitation
charges, but said his ruling on the death penalty for using a firearm during a
crime of violence would have to wait.
Both the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court are
expected to issue rulings soon in separate and unrelated cases that also
involve the firearm-related charge. Those rulings could determine whether that
federal crime statute is unconstitutionally vague, as Duncan says in his
appeal.
Regardless of the outcome on the firearm-related charge, the imposition of the
death sentences for the kidnapping and sexual exploitation related charges
remain in full effect, Lodge said.
(source: Associated Press)
OREGON:
Oregon still grappling with the death penalty
Oregon’s history tells story of a populace’s fickle approach to the death
penalty.
Initially adopted in 1864, capital punishment has since twice been abolished
and 3 times reinstated by a popular vote of the people. The one time the
state’s Judicial Branch stepped in — holding it unconstitutional in 1981— was
not well received by the voters, who in turn amended the Constitution to
reinstate it just 3 years later.
There are plenty of reasons why the outdated practice of capital punishment is
not only unnecessary, but also unwise. And as a practical matter, Oregon hasn’t
executed an individual since 1997— our court system makes it nearly impossible
to accomplish.
It would seem that the Oregon Legislature is attempting to carve out some
middle ground. While technically not abolishing the death penalty, House Bill
3268 effectively does just that by only allowing capital punishment in cases
involving terrorism-related killing of more than one person. If history lends
any perspective, the independent spirit of Oregon voters will not appreciate
being dictated to by the courts or the legislature, the bill’s nominal effect
notwithstanding.
Rather than use valuable political capital pushing through legislation with
little foreseeable benefit, Oregon’s politicians should engage in a campaign to
educate the public on the folly of death row but allow Oregonians the ultimate
say.
Developments in the social sciences, fiscal impact studies and our society’s
capacity to protect itself from violent criminals speak volumes. The harsh
nature of the death penalty has never proven to be a deterrent. Taxpayers
actually save money when the state doesn’t engage in capital punishment. And
most importantly, too many people are convicted and sentenced, only to find out
later the verdict was incorrect.
In fact, the only rational support for capital punishment boils down to a human
impulse for revenge. But contemporary psychology prescribes that any perceived
gratification that one derives from revenge is not just short-lived, but often
leaves an individual feeling worse than before. Revenge in the place of justice
does not fill the void left when we lose a loved one.
Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., knows as well as
anyone the pain and heartbreak of the senseless murder of a loved one. And
perhaps she says it best: “An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed in
retaliation.”
Even more, perhaps Oregon’s ambivalence surrounding this highly controversial
act lends insight. The state’s history of fluid value judgments regarding the
death penalty provides a narrative of clashing interests, pitting the impulse
for revenge against the instinctive squeamishness that tells us the government
has the right and obligation to protect and to punish, but not to kill. The
collective body ought to always set the bar high, and should never stoop to
dangerously emotional impulses.
Until the people of Oregon come to this conclusion themselves, any legislative
attempt to dictate value judgments appears futile and costly.
The death penalty is a societal agreement that warrants careful assessment.
Oregonians have never backed down from that debate, and the time is right to
have it again.
(source: East Oregonian)
WASHINGTON:
Let Washingtonians decide on death penalty
The governor has weighed in, as has the state Supreme Court. But as the
Legislature considers abolishing the death penalty in Washington, the
discussion is bypassing the most important stakeholder — the public.
A referendum on capital punishment should be placed before voters, allowing us
to clearly identify the values that best reflect our state.
To some extent, a vote regarding the death penalty would be impotent. Gov. Jay
Inslee in 2014 declared a moratorium on executions as long as he is in office,
and future governors might echo that stance. No executions have been carried
out in Washington since 2010.
In October, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state’s application of
capital punishment is unconstitutional because it is “arbitrary” and “racially
biased.” Studies have shown that black defendants are more than four times as
likely to be sentenced to death as white defendants. The court’s decision left
room for the Legislature to reconfigure the death penalty law in order to
adhere with the state constitution.
Instead, lawmakers are considering removing the death penalty from the statutes
and making life in prison without the possibility of release the strongest
punishment the state can mete out. Senate Bill 5339 passed by a 28-19 vote
(among Southwest Washington lawmakers, Annette Cleveland voted in favor, Ann
Rivers was opposed, and Lynda Wilson was excused). The measure now goes to the
House of Representatives.
Representatives should reject the bill and leave the next word on the death
penalty to the people of Washington. After all, voters established the current
law in 1981, when they approved changes to provisions that had rendered the
previous law unconstitutional. Voters should be the ones to decide whether the
death penalty must remain on the books.
That being said, there are good arguments for abolishing capital punishment.
New California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced a moratorium on the death
penalty in his state, echoing Inslee’s example, and 20 states along with the
District of Columbia do not have a death penalty.
There clearly is a moral justification for eschewing the death penalty. In
announcing his moratorium 5 years ago, Inslee noted that of 32 defendants who
had been sentenced to death since 1981, 18 had those sentences converted to
life in prison and 1 had been set free. Nationally, the Death Penalty
Information Center reports that 164 death row inmates have been exonerated
since 1973.
The death penalty carries weighty moral and philosophical questions, with the
most prominent involving the risk of executing somebody who is innocent.
Meanwhile, there also are practical implications. A study from Seattle
University found that pursuing the death penalty adds an average of $1 million
to the cost of a trial for prosecutors, and the price of the appeals process
and eventual execution typically exceeds the cost of housing a prisoner for the
remainder of their life.
On the other hand, longtime Clark County residents likely remember Westley
Allan Dodd and the terror he inflicted on the community. Dodd kidnapped,
molested and murdered 3 young boys in 1989; he was executed in 1993. It is
difficult to argue that the public interest would be served by keeping such a
monster alive under the care of the state.
That debate, however, is something that should be left to the people of
Washington. While the governor and the Supreme Court have had an opportunity to
weigh in, voters should have a say.
(source: Editorial, The Columbian)
*******************
Finish the death penalty once and for all
California’s new governor channeled his inner Jay Inslee last week when he shut
down the largest death row in America. Gavin Newsom called the death penalty
“inconsistent with our bedrock values” and said it “strikes at the very heart
of what it means to be a Californian.”
We’ll give Newsom credit for strong convictions, if not originality, and accept
that the world seldom notices a West Coast social movement until it takes hold
in California.
Leaders in our state have long known capital punishment is an inherently
wasteful, erratic and morally fraught practice — and that it runs counter to
what it means to be a Washingtonian.
Inslee set the tone in 2014, during his first term as governor, when he said no
executions would proceed on his watch. The Washington Supreme Court was next to
lay down a marker, unanimously ruling last fall that the death penalty as
applied is unconstitutional because it’s “arbitrary” and “racially biased.”
All that remains is for lawmakers in Olympia to pass a bill that wipes the
death penalty from state statute and leaves nothing to chance.
The Senate has approved legislation that would make life imprisonment without
possibility of parole the only option for prosecutors pursuing aggravated
first-degree murder charges. The House should now pick up Senate Bill 5339 and
carry it to the finish line, before the 2019 session runs out.
Some argue legislative action is unnecessary because the death penalty is, for
all practical purposes, dead in Washington. No executions have taken place here
since 2010, and the decrees by Inslee and the Supreme Court ensure none will
happen in the foreseeable future.
But the court left wiggle room for a future Legislature to try to enact a
new-and-improved way to execute the worst of our state’s worst offenders — one
that doesn’t place black defendants at more than quadruple the risk of being
sentenced to death as their white counterparts.
If 50 years of failed fixes have taught us anything, it’s that the death
penalty is beyond repair and lawmakers should abolish it once and for all.
In Walla Walla — home of the Washington State Penitentiary, where eight men
awaited death by lethal injection before last year’s court ruling, including
three for murders in Pierce County — an in-depth report by the Union-Bulletin
newspaper in 2009 pegged the cost of carrying out the death penalty over three
decades at $20 million.
In that time, five men were executed, while countless family members were
dragged through excruciatingly long appeals.
Life without parole is a more cost-efficient punishment, and is no less
effective as a criminal deterrent — especially when you factor in the threat of
solitary confinement for bad behavior that hangs over inmates’ heads.
Meanwhile, Washington residents grapple with uneven application of the law.
Green River killer Gary Ridgway, who killed dozens of young women, wasn’t sent
to death row. Nor was Terapon Adhahn, who abducted and killed 12-year-old Zina
Linnick in 2007, despite saying he’d prefer to die for his crimes against the
Tacoma girl.
To those who fear ending the death penalty signifies Washington leaders are
going soft on hardcore criminals, we beg to differ. A bill this year that
would’ve given some inmates serving life sentences a shot at freedom never made
it out of committee. Washingtonians aren’t ready for that conversation.
But they’re more than ready to wash their hands of the state-sanctioned
business of taking people’s lives.
The governor did it. So did the Supreme Court. Legislators should follow their
lead, show our state speaks with one voice on this matter and make clear who
the West Coast’s true progressive leader is when it comes to shedding an
archaic apparatus of injustice.
(source: Editorial, News Tribune)
USA----countdown to nation's 1500th execution
With the execution of Billie Wayne Coble in Texas on February 28, the USA has
now executed 1,493 condemned individuals since the death penalty was
relegalized on July 2, 1976 in the US Supreme Court Gregg v Georgia decision.
Gary Gilmore was the 1st person executed, in Utah, on January 17, 1977. Below
is a list of scheduled executions as the nation approaches a terrible milestone
of 1500 executions in the modern era.
NOTE: The list is likely to change over the coming months as new execution
dates are added and possible stays of execution occur.
1494-------Mar. 28------------Patrick Murphy------------Texas
1495-------Apr. 11------------Mark Robertson------------Texas
1496-------Apr. 11------------Christopher Pike----------Alabama
1497-------Apr. 24------------John King------------------Texas
1498-------May 2--------------Dexter Johnson------------Texas
1499-------May 16-------------Donnie Johnson-----------Tennessee
1500-------Aug. 15------------Stephen West-------------Tennessee
1501-------Aug. 21------------Larry Swearingen---------Texas
1502-------Sept. 4------------Billy Crutsinger---------Texas
(source: Rick Halperin)
US MILITARY:
U.S. Said to Have Tapes of Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Plotting With
Co-Conspirators----The tapes featuring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 3 of his
accused co-conspirators were made between April and October 2001, prosecutors
say.
Military prosecutors say they have tapes of telephone calls between the alleged
mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and 3 of his
accused co-conspirators talking in code about the plot months before it took
place, a defense lawyer disclosed on Monday.
The lawyer, Jay Connell, revealed the existence of the tapes as part of a
protest over plans to use them as evidence at the death penalty trial of the
alleged conspirators. More than 17 1/2 years after the attacks — in which 19
hijackers commandeered 4 commercial airplanes and crashed them into the World
Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, killing nearly 3,000
people — there is still no date set for the trial in the proceedings at
Guantánamo Bay.
Prosecutors gave defense lawyers the original audio and transcripts of their
translation on Sept. 30, 2016, Mr. Connell said, and made clear they planned to
use them at trial. Defense lawyers sought to investigate their origins and
later discovered that the original trial judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, had
issued a secret order preventing them from knowing about the phone call
collection system or asking questions about it.
Mr. Connell, who is representing Mr. Mohammed’s nephew, Ammar al-Baluchi, said
that prosecutors secretly obtained a ruling in August 2018 from Colonel Pohl
forbidding defense lawyers from learning how the phone calls were collected or
investigating that question. The phone calls in at least two languages were
made between April and October 2001.
Mr. Connell said the restriction on investigating the origins of the tapes
violated a defendant’s basic right to challenge the evidence being used against
him. He argued in court on Monday that the evidence should be suppressed or
that the case should be dismissed. He said the constraints the defense faces
regarding the tapes violate the Sixth Amendment, which sets out the rights of
defendants in a trial.
The military trial judges have yet to decide, however, which aspects of the
Constitution apply at the military commissions, the war court established by
President George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks.
A prosecutor, Clayton Trivett, responded that defense lawyers would be allowed
to question an F.B.I. linguist who compared samples of the voices of the
defendants to the voices on the tapes to confirm they were Mr. Mohammed, Mr.
al-Baluchi and 2 other alleged plotters.
Mr. Trivett said defense lawyers would be allowed to question an F.B.I. analyst
who decoded the conversation. The only restriction, he said, is on defense
lawyers trying to investigate “how the United States government got those
calls,” something prosecutors persuaded the judge would endanger national
security.
Colonel Pohl had said prosecutors could describe the evidence as having been
acquired from “telephone calls from between April and October 2001 that were
later determined to pertain to the planned attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.”
Terry McDermott, co-author of “The Hunt for KSM,” said his research found that
United States satellites “randomly scooped up” calls between Mr. Mohammed and
an alleged deputy, Ramzi bin al-Shibh. “The N.S.A. intercepted calls but didn’t
listen to them or translate them until after 9/11,” he said. “Afterward, they
went through this stuff and found out what it was.”
Mr. Trivett did not disclose how or when the F.B.I. got voice samples of the
accused plotters. Mr. Connell questioned in court whether they were recorded
during the years that Mr. Mohammed and the other the defendants were held in
the C.I.A.’s secret prison system.
Mr. Trivett announced that the samples were not from the C.I.A. black sites
where the five alleged plotters were held before they were brought to
Guantánamo for trial in 2006.
This week a new military judge, Col. Keith Parrella of the Marines, is hearing
lawyers and prosecutors argue in the 34th round of pretrial hearings since the
5 men were arraigned in 2012.
(source: New York Times)
_______________________________________________
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
