March 29
TEXAS----stay of execution
Supreme Court halts execution of Texas inmate seeking to allow Buddhist
spiritual adviser in death chamber
The Supreme Court agreed Thursday night to halt the execution of a Texas
inmate, Patrick Henry Murphy, after he argued that the state was refusing to
allow his Buddhist spiritual adviser to accompany him into the chamber. "The
State may not carry out Murphy's execution," the court said in an unsigned
order, "unless the State permits Murphy's Buddhist spiritual adviser or another
Buddhist reverend of the State's choosing to accompany Murphy in the execution
chamber during the execution."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have denied the stay.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote to explain why he voted to grant the application.
"The government may not discriminate against religion generally or against
particular religious denominations," Kavanaugh wrote.
The case marks the 2nd time in recent weeks that the justices have been asked
to put an execution on hold because a prison policy allows Christian or Muslim
chaplains who are prison employees to be present, but not advisers of other
religions. The prison forbids advisers of other denominations who are not
prison employees into the chamber out of security concerns.
The cases pit an inmate's claims of religious liberty against prison officials
who say the requests are meritless and simply last-ditch attempts to avoid
execution.
Murphy, on death row for the murder of police officer Aubrey Hawkins in 2000,
was scheduled to die at 7 p.m. ET on Thursday, but the court stayed the
execution after 9 p.m. In a flurry of last-minute petitions, lawyers for Murphy
said the state violated his religious liberty because it blocked the Rev.
Hui-Yong Shih from being present in the execution chamber.
Back in February, in a strikingly similar case out of Alabama, a deeply divided
Supreme Court split 5-4 and allowed the execution of an inmate, Domineque Ray,
go forward despite the fact that Ray argued that his religious freedom rights
were violated when the prison barred his imam from being present at the
execution.
The Alabama prison only employed a Christian chaplain. The conservatives on the
court said they acted because Ray had waited too long to seek review.
But Justice Elena Kagan wrote a scathing dissent, joined by the 3 other liberal
justices on the bench, calling the majority's move "profoundly wrong."
"Here, Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be
violated at the moment the State puts him to death," Kagan wrote, saying that
the treatment "goes against the Establishment Clause's core principle of
denominational neutrality." She said her colleagues in the majority should have
allowed the lower court to hear the claim in full.
Supporters of religious liberty also heavily criticized the Conservatives'
vote. Writing for the National Review, David French called it a "grave
injustice."
In explaining his vote in the Texas case Thursday night, Kavanaugh offered one
reason -- in a footnote -- that might explain why he voted in favor of Murphy
after he had cleared the way for Ray's execution.
"I conclude that Murphy made his request to the State in a sufficiently timely
manner, one month before the scheduled execution," Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh also said that states had 2 options going forward: allow all inmates
to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room or allow
inmates to have a religious adviser, including a state-employed chaplain, only
in the viewing room, not the execution room.
"What the State may not do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates
but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the
execution room," he said.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued in briefs that the court should
rule against the inmate because "he is dilatory, he fails to show likely
success on the merits for a variety of reasons, he fails to show irreparable
harm" and that the prison's execution protocol that prohibits chaplains who are
not employees from the execution chamber has been in place since July 2012.
Paxton said the policy is meant to ensure the "safety and security" of the
execution process.
The case prompted a friend of the court brief filed by the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm. Lead lawyer Eric Rassbach said he was
filing the brief to "clarify the law" because he was concerned that the
"time-compressed nature" of the appeal could "obscure" important religious
liberty issues at stake, and that the justices were sure to face similar
petitions in the future.
"The right of a condemned person to the comfort of clergy -- and the rights of
clergy to comfort the condemned -- are among the longest-standing and most
well-recognized forms of religious exercise known to civilization," he wrote.
"Texas is no doubt capable of making this accommodation if required to do so,"
Rassbach added.
After the court acted, Rassbach issued a statement. "Religious liberty won
today," he said. "The Supreme Court made it clear that the First Amendment
applies to every American, no matter their faith."
(source: CNN)
*******************
'Texas 7' lookout man gets last-minute stay of execution
2 hours after he was to be executed for his role in a notorious 19-year-old
crime, Texas death row prisoner Patrick Murphy won a rare stay from the U.S.
Supreme Court based on his request to have a Buddhist spiritual adviser next to
him in the death chamber.
The condemned man, one of the last surviving members of the so-called 'Texas 7'
crew of prison escapees, lobbed a long-shot bid for reprieve earlier this week
when his attorneys raised religious discrimination claims, arguing that the
converted Buddhist couldn't make it to the Pure Land for rebirth without a
spiritual adviser present as he prepared to die.
But the regular prison chaplain is a Christian and, in light of that, the Texas
prison system's refusal to accommodate Murphy's request could be a
constitutional violation.
"As this Court has repeatedly held, governmental discrimination against
religion—in particular, discrimination against religious persons, religious
organizations, and religious speech—violates the Constitution," Justice Brett
Kavanaugh wrote.
"The choice of remedy going forward is up to the State. What the State may not
do, in my view, is allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates
to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room."
2 justices - Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch - dissented, while Murphy's legal
team celebrated the rare win.
"We are pleased the Supreme Court acknowledged both that Mr. Murphy, as a
Buddhist, is entitled to be accompanied in the execution chamber during the
execution by a minister of his own faith just as a Christian would be,"
Houston-based attorneys David Dow and Jeff Newberry said in a statement late
Thursday.
But the late-breaking decision doesn't mean that Murphy can't be executed - it
just means that he gets more time to argue his appeal, unless the Texas prison
system instead chooses to resolve the issue by changing their protocols to
allow Buddhists the same execution chamber religious rights as Christians.
Prison spokesman Jeremy Desel said the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
legal team will "be reviewing the ruling" to figure out "what, if any, impact
it will have."
**
The Dallas County man was originally sentenced to die after a prison break and
weekslong crime spree that ended in the slaying of a North Texas cop. As his
six co-conspirators pulled off a brazen store robbery, Murphy stood guard on
the other side of the building.
But even before the gunshots rang out, Murphy knew it wasn't all going as
planned.
Though he'd already helped pull off the escape along with 2 store heists in 11
days, when he saw the police officer pull up outside the store, Murphy realized
his luck was changing.
He radioed back to his friends on the other side of the building, and a few
minutes later, the shooting started. By the time Murphy and his six comrades
fled town with their pilfered guns and money, Irving Police Officer Aubrey
Hawkins was dead and the men of the notorious Texas 7 were wanted killers.
But Murphy, who played lookout, never fired a shot. Nonetheless, he was
sentenced to die under the controversial law of parties, which holds
non-shooters as criminally responsible as triggermen.
As of Thursday morning, he had 2 hopes for avoiding the death chamber: One, his
religious claim in front of the Supreme Court; the other, a plea for 30-day
reprieve from Gov. Greg Abbott.
***
Raised by a single mother who avoided taking care of him, Murphy was beaten and
abused as a child, according to court records. His grandmother taught him to
shoplift at a young age, and by 17 he'd run away and moved into a homeless
shelter.
Eventually, he ended up in prison with a 50-year sentence for sexual assault.
Then in early 2000, he and a group of desperate prisoners at a maximum-security
prison in South Texas started plotting an escape. A charismatic thief named
George Rivas hatched the plan based on a scheme laid out in a crime novel. For
months, he oversaw stockpiling goods, recruiting a crew and setting up a
getaway ride.
On Dec. 13 of that year, the men stayed back from lunch to buff floors in the
Connally Unit maintenance shop. As civilians, officers and other inmates
returned to the shop after eating, the escape crew took them hostage, tying
them up and threatening violence to keep them quiet.
After gaining control of maintenance, some of the men slipped into the armory
and took over the guard tower, where they loaded up with stolen weapons before
driving away in a prison truck.
They switched out their ride for a getaway car left waiting for them in a local
Walmart parking lot, avoiding a police blockade by just a few carlengths as
they drove east to Houston. In the Bayou City, they pulled off 2 heists - one
at a Radio Shack, the other at an AutoZone - and fled north to Irving.
There, on Christmas Eve, the men held up an Oshman's sporting goods store,
stealing $70,000 and 44 guns. But while they were inside, someone in the
parking lot spotted them patting down employees and called police.
The first to respond was Hawkins, who had just finished a family dinner at
Olive Garden when he got the call. Murphy spotted him first.
"He's coming around the corner," he radioed back to his comrades. "Leave.
Leave."
The men inside the building ran out back to the loading dock and 5 of the them
started firing. When it was over, Hawkins lay dead in the parking lot, shot 11
times and run over by an SUV as the men fled.
After a six-figure reward and a spot on the "America's Most Wanted" television
show, the wanted men were finally captured in Colorado more than a month later,
living in a trailer park and posing as Christian pilgrims.
One of the escapees — Larry Harper — killed himself before police could get
him. The rest were sent to death row, where 4 have since been executed.
Aside from Murphy, only Randy Halprin is still alive in prison.
****
The controversial law under which Murphy was sentenced to die has long been the
source of debate, with lawmakers regularly proposing bills to eliminate or
alter it. This legislative session, elected officials are considering bills
that would eliminate death as a sentencing option for cases where the defendant
had no plan to participate in a murder or the underlying felony.
If the bills pass, they wouldn't be retroactive, but Murphy's lawyers argue
that they would open the door to the possibility of new appeals. Even though
Murphy went along the day of the killing, his lawyers say he didn't want to
take part in the crime, pointing out that he left as soon as he told the others
of the officer's arrival. Now, they say, executing him would be cruel and
unusual punishment.
"Five guns played a role in Officer Hawkins' murder," Murphy's defense team
wrote in their clemency petition. "Five individuals have lost their lives as a
result of the role they played in his murder, four of whom have been executed
by the State of Texas for their roles in taking Officer Hawkins' life. Carrying
out the execution of Patrick Murphy, who neither fired a shot at Officer
Hawkins nor had any reason to know others would do so, would not be proper
retaliation but would instead simply be vengeance."
But the parole board unanimously rejected those arguments on Tuesday, so Dow
and Newberry raised them again with the governor. The governor ignored the
request, and in the end it was the U.S. Supreme Court that stepped in, ruling
on his religious discrimination claim just after 8 p.m.
Had the high court failed to intervene, Murphy would have been the 3rd man put
to death in Texas this year. Another 6 executions are still on the calendar.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
**********************
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----42
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----560
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
43---------Apr. 11----------------Mark Robertson----------561
44---------Apr. 24----------------John King---------------562
45---------May 2------------------Dexter Johnson----------563
46---------Aug. 21----------------Larry Swearingen--------564
47---------Sept. 4----------------Billy Crutsinger--------565
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
***************************
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-------Apr. 11------------Mark Robertson------------Texas
1495-------Apr. 11------------Christopher Price---------Alabama
1496-------Apr. 24------------John King------------------Texas
1497-------May 2--------------Dexter Johnson------------Texas
1498-------May 16-------------Donnie Johnson-----------Tennessee
1499-------Aug. 15------------Stephen West-------------Tennessee
1500-------Aug. 21------------Larry Swearingen---------Texas
1501-------Sept. 4------------Billy Crutsinger---------Texas
(source: Rick Halperin)
PENNSYLVANIA----new death sentence
Man gets death penalty for former Reading teen's rape, murder----Grace Packer
was killed as part of a fantasy that Jacob Sullivan shared with her adoptive
mother.
A man who killed and dismembered his girlfriend's 14-year-old adopted daughter
as part of a rape-murder fantasy he shared with the teenager's mother was
sentenced to death Thursday.
Jacob Sullivan, 46, had pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder and related charges
for killing former Reading resident Grace Packer in 2016.
After deliberating over parts of 3 days, a suburban Philadelphia jury imposed
the death penalty. Sullivan had no reaction as the verdict was read.
Pennsylvania has a moratorium on the death penalty, but juries can still impose
the sentence.
"The butchery in this case was beyond my ability to describe," Bucks County
Judge Diane Gibbons told jurors, thanking them for their service.
Grace Packer was the biological daughter of Rose and Rodney Hunsicker of
Reading.
Berks County Children and Youth Services took Grace and 2 other children from
the couple in 2004 and placed them into foster care.
Rose Hunsicker has said that she was deemed mentally incompetent to raise the
children by the agency.
District Attorney Matthew Weintraub had asked the jury to send Sullivan to
death row, reminding them that Grace's life "ended in a house of horrors that
became a hell on Earth."
The defense asked for a life sentence, insisting that Grace's adoptive mother,
Sara Packer, masterminded the gruesome plot and controlled Sullivan. Sara
Packer, who testified last week and admitted to jurors she wanted her daughter
dead and took part in the plot, is due to plead guilty to first-degree murder
in exchange for a life sentence.
Sullivan and Sara Packer took Grace to a sweltering attic and gave her what
they intended to be a lethal overdose of medicine, authorities say. The couple
bound her hands and feet with zip ties and stuffed a ball gag in her mouth, and
Sullivan sexually assaulted her as Sara Packer watched.
The couple left Grace in the attic to die, but she managed to escape some of
her bindings and spit the gag out, prosecutors say. Sullivan and Sara Packer
returned to the vacant house 12 hours later, and Sullivan strangled her.
Sara Packer and Sullivan stored Grace's body in cat litter for months, then
hacked it up and dumped it in a remote area where hunters found it in October
2016, authorities said.
Sara Packer and her husband at the time, David Packer, adopted Grace and
Grace's younger brother in 2007. The couple cared for dozens of foster children
before David Packer was sent to prison for sexually assaulting Grace and a
15-year-old foster daughter.
Sara Packer lost her job as a Northampton County adoptions supervisor in 2010
and was barred from taking in any more foster children. But child welfare
authorities did not remove Grace from the home, despite evidence of abuse.
The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services launched an investigation after
Grace's murder, but its findings have not been made public.
Pennsylvania last carried out an execution in 1999, and Democratic Gov. Tom
Wolf declared a moratorium on capital punishment in 2015. There are 142 inmates
on the state's death row.
(source: Reading Eagle)
GEORGIA:
Bipartisan lawmakers aim to end Georgia death penalty
A bipartisan group of state legislators wants to abolish the death penalty in
Georgia and instantly commute the sentences of inmates facing executions to
life without parole.
House Bill 702 was introduced Thursday – too late in the legislative session to
gain any traction but timed to spark debate for next year’s gathering of
lawmakers.
It was introduced by state Rep. Brett Harrell, a Snellville Republican, and
seconded by a cast of characters who don’t often team up on legislation.
Democratic sponsors involve some of the most prominent members of the caucus:
House Minority Leader Bob Trammell, Minority Whip William Boddie and state Rep.
Scott Holcomb of DeKalb. The GOP backers include Bill Werkheiser of Glennville
and Scot Turner of Holly Springs.
It will face a skeptical audience. Although Georgia Democrats are increasingly
opposed to capital punishment – Stacey Abrams vowed to end the death penalty
during her 2018 campaign – Republican leaders have largely backed the penalties
for the most severe crimes.
Georgia is one of 31 states that allows capital punishment, and the state has
executed 72 people since 1976. There are still 55 men convicted of murder on
Georgia’s \death row.
But the legal process has come under scrutiny in recent years with high-profile
cases such as the execution of Troy Anthony Davis, a condemned Savannah man who
insisted to his last breath that he was innocent.
The need for the legislation may be waning.
Georgia prosecutors once aggressively sought the death penalty to punish
violent criminals. But the last death sentence imposed in Georgia came in March
2014, and new criminal justice policies
(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
FLORIDA:
Florida Death Row Exoneree #29 !!!
After 43 years in prison including 4 on death row. Clifford Williams has become
Florida's 29th Death Row exoneration
Clifford Williams has become Florida's 29th exonerated death row survivor. The
national number now 165.
Williams was originally sentenced to death in 1976 by a judge who overrode the
jury's recommendation for life. Co-defendant, Nathan Myers, received life. The
Florida Supreme Court overturned William's death sentence 4 years later and he
was re-sentenced to life. Now, 43 years after their wrongful conviction,
Clifford Williams and Nathan Myers have been exonerated and released.
Kudos to 4th Circuit (Jacksonville) State Attorney Melissa Nelson whose
newly-formed Conviction Integrity Review Unit initiated the exoneration
process. Hillsborough and Orange/Osceola Counties have set up similar units.
She asked the Innocence Project of Florida to represent Williams and
co-defendant Nathan Myers in the process.
No one knows how many more innocent people are on Florida's Death Row. No one
will ever know how many innocent people have been executed.
(source: Maark Elliott, Executive Director----Floridians for Alternatives to
the Death Penalty----www.fadp.org)
LOUISIANA:
Where do 3 Louisiana governor candidates stand on death penalty? See their
responses
The 3 announced candidates for governor all have different positions on the
future of the death penalty in Louisiana – revealing one of the most striking
policy contrasts among them in the race, to date.
Baton Rouge businessman Eddie Rispone opposes the death penalty; U.S. Rep.
Ralph Abraham thinks it should be used more; and Gov. John Bel Edwards won’t
divulge his personal views, instead saying he will uphold whatever's in state
law.
Abraham and Rispone are both Republicans challenging the only Democratic
governor in the Deep South.
The election is Oct. 12. A Nov. 16 runoff will take place between the top two
vote-getters if no candidate gets more than 50 % of the vote in the primary,
regardless of party.
Louisiana is one of 31 states that still allow the death penalty as a form of
criminal punishment in law. But the state’s last execution was in 2010, and
that inmate volunteered to be executed. The issue has been tangled up in the
legal system amid a fight over the state's process for lethal injection, all
while debate over the death penalty's future has simmered.
The state has agreed that it will carry out no executions at least for another
year as a legal battle wages over its lethal injection protocol, so whoever
wins the governor's race this fall could be instrumental in determining the
future of capital punishment in Louisiana after the new term starts in January
2020.
“I really don’t believe in the death penalty,” Rispone told The Advocate on
Thursday. “It goes back to my faith – really and truly. If it was proven to be
a deterrent and it saved innocent lives, then I would probably have to think
hard about it again.”
Rispone contrasted the death penalty with war, which he said is necessary. “We
have to go to war to save innocent lives,” he said. “But I’m not convinced that
(the death penalty)’s a deterrent.”
He said he came to that conclusion after discussions with prosecutors and
others in law enforcement.
“The DAs say they spend so much time on the death penalty and could be out
prosecuting way more people if they didn’t have to go through that," Rispone
said.
Abraham, meanwhile, has sided with Attorney General Jeff Landry in aggressively
pushing for the use of the death penalty in Louisiana.
“Not only am I in favor of the death penalty, but I’m also in favor of
enforcing it," Abraham, R-Alto, told The Advocate. "If you murder someone in
Louisiana, you should know that when caught you will be put to death.
"While we’re at it, I’d like to see child molesters added to the list of death
penalty eligible person," Abraham added. "There is no greater monster than
someone who harms an innocent child.”
Edwards has repeatedly deferred to state law on the matter and dismissed
questions about his personal views on the topic.
"I took an oath to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
the state of Louisiana," Edwards said in a statement last fall when The
Advocate asked for clarity on his position. "The fact of the matter is that we
cannot execute someone in the state of Louisiana today because the only legally
prescribed manner set forth in state statute is unavailable to us. That's not
through any fault of my own or the Department of Corrections."
Landry, a Republican seeking re-election as AG this year, has helped put a
spotlight on the issue in recent months, accusing Edwards of playing a role in
executions being put on hold and publicly criticizing the governor's lack of
clarity on his personal position. The AG recently orchestrated a State Capitol
hearing on the future of the death penalty that included testimony from
families of murder victims whose killers remain on death row.
Proponents of abolishing the death penalty say it will reduce costs and could
save innocent lives of those wrongly convicted. Opponents say the measure comes
across as soft on crime and lessens the weight placed on the most heinous
crimes committed in the state.
The debate over the death penalty often is further complicated in heavily Roman
Catholic populated south Louisiana. Pope Francis, an outspoken critic of the
death penalty, has issued a proclamation that the death penalty is unacceptable
in any case in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
Edwards and Rispone are Catholic (as is Landry), and Abraham is Baptist. All
oppose abortion, a position frequently noted in the death penalty discussion.
Attempts to abolish capital punishment have been made in recent years at the
State Capitol, but the effort continues to face major resistance in both the
Republican-controlled House and Senate. The debate hasn't gotten a formal
recorded vote in either chamber in the past two years that it’s been proposed.
Multiple bills have been prefiled ahead of the regular session that begins
April 8 that again call for an end to the use of capital punishment in
Louisiana. Separately, legislation has been proposed that would conceal
providers of lethal injection drugs, possibly freeing up the state to resume
carrying out executions.
(source: The Advocate)
KENTUCKY:
Momentum continues building to abolish the death penalty in Kentucky
30 lawmakers from all sides of the political spectrum are co-sponsoring a bill
to abolish the death penalty in Kentucky.
While House Bill 115 languishes in the House Judiciary Committee, supporters
say the high number of sponsors indicates views on capital punishment in the
state are shifting. Aaron Bentley is chair of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish
the Death Penalty, and the grandson of a murder victim.
"In Kentucky, we haven't had an execution since 2008, no one has been added to
death row since 2010, Kentucky juries are moving away from death, the country
is moving away from death, our standards of decency have evolved to the point
that we don't think it's needed," says Bentley.
A 2011 report released by the American Bar Association analyzed death-penalty
cases in Kentucky and found serious problems related to due process for
individuals on death row. The report also found more than 60 % of death-penalty
sentences have been overturned on appeal by Kentucky or federal courts.
Bentley says prosecuting death-penalty cases is expensive. He says it's been
estimated that death-penalty prosecutions cost the state roughly $10 million
per year, and that cost and flaws in the legal system are pushing many states
away from the death penalty.
"The number of states and counties that still actually execute people is much
lower than the 30 states that still technically have the death penalty," says
Bentley. "4 states largely carry out most executions."
Those opposed to ending capital punishment say perpetrators of heinous crimes
should not be exempt from being sentenced to death.
3 people have been executed in Kentucky since the Supreme Court reinstated
capital punishment in 1976. 2 of those cases involved inmates who dropped their
appeals and agreed to be executed.
(source: Richmond Register)
CALIFORNIA:
Is the Tide Finally Turning on the Death Penalty?----The momentum gained at the
state level might be enough to break through on the federal level.
As recently as 3 years ago, California voters rejected a ballot measure to end
the death penalty, but last week California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he was
ordering a moratorium on executions in the largest state in the country.
Newsom’s order would offer a reprieve to the state’s 737 death row inmates,
making it a landmark day in the history of death penalty abolition in this
country.
This is just one event in the quiet revolution against the death penalty that
is happening across the country, says Cassy Stubbs, director of the ACLU’s
Capital Punishment Project. The governor in Colorado, which already has an
effective moratorium in place, has been pushing legislators to make a permanent
decision about the state’s death penalty before 2021. In New Hampshire, the
state Senate is due to vote on a measure abolishing the death penalty that
already passed the House by a veto-proof majority. In Ohio, Republican Gov.
Mike DeWine put an effective halt to the state’s death sentences earlier this
year. It’s all part of a nationwide trend that Stubbs sees as altering the
landscape of the death penalty in this country in a way that has not happened
in decades. I spoke with Stubbs last week about these events and how the case
for abolition is playing out in courts and statehouses throughout the United
States. The conversation has been condensed for length and clarity.
Jeremy Stahl: What background do you think is important for people to
understand about Newsom’s announcement and the broader picture surrounding the
death penalty in the United States?
Cassy Stubbs: This year feels like a turning point for the death penalty. Last
year, obviously, Washington abolished the death penalty. That was a big
victory. But I think what’s kind of unique right now is that we see a lot of
different camps moving in the same direction at the same time. For example,
there’s the pope coming out with the strongest statement in history about the
death penalty and the church’s view of the death penalty. We see there are
conservative groups that are really becoming concerned about the death penalty
from a religious and moral perspective—and also from cost—while at the same
time you have the Democratic Party announcing that [abolition is] part of their
platform.
Kamala Harris just talked about how the death penalty is never appropriate in
any case in her view. Newsom just issued that powerful defense about why we can
no longer stand behind the death penalty and it is morally incumbent on us to
break from this when it’s been shown to be so racially biased and inherently
discriminatory and unfairly applied. This kind of full-spectrum attack on the
death penalty is just reaching a noise level that, to me, at least it feels
very different than I’ve seen in over a decade, in terms of a critical mass of
voices.
There was [also] kind of a trajectory [where] we saw a number of governors do
things that were good on the death penalty, like issue stays or moratoriums or
commutations, and then survive political attacks. We saw that the electorate
was no longer voting on the death penalty. There was not the kind of backlash
against folks who came out saying “we need death penalty reform” that we had
seen in the 1980s. That was the first stage. Now, we’re really in this new
phase where we see people both from the right and the left aggressively
promoting death penalty repeal.
Who are you thinking of when you talk about recent politicians who have not
necessarily faced a backlash?
We saw the governor of Colorado [John Hickenlooper] was targeted around the
death penalty and was re-elected [in 2014], despite his granting of reprieves
on the death penalty and despite [an effective] moratorium on the death penalty
in Colorado. We saw in Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown was re-elected [last year] with
a moratorium on the death penalty. We saw in Kansas, the Kansas state judges
had been very robust in their review and had appropriately overturned death
sentences that [we believe] violated the U.S. Constitution on a pretty regular
basis, and they got attacked for that and they survived those challenges. We
saw it in the Washington state Supreme Court, which [last year] wrote this
really sweeping opinion finding racial bias in the application of the death
penalty under the Washington state Constitution. They issued that opinion right
before the judicial elections, which in the lore of litigator strategy, you’d
never expect a state court to issue a big decision right before judicial
elections. There’s no backlash.
What are some of the states where you see potential for the next big moves on
this issue?
Ohio is another example where there has been this legal injection litigation
for some time that has been really bogged down in questions of whether or not
the defendant has shown and proposed a better way—a less painful way—of killing
himself. A lot of the lethal injection litigation has lost sight of the fact
that there’s this enormous compelling record that we are carrying out
executions with a drug, midazolam, that is in fact leading to torture of
prisoners in a number of states. We just saw the [Republican] governor of Ohio
[Mike DeWine] say, we’re not going to do this.
We have this huge [death] row in California, a row that I think is so much
bigger than any other row in the country. So [Newsom’s] announcement all alone
would be a major development in the history of the death penalty in America.
But the fact is that it’s happening at the same time you have a state like Ohio
moving forward with a moratorium, and you have a state like Pennsylvania that’s
got a large [death] row [moving ahead] with a moratorium.
You’re talking a lot about state-level action. Is that because action at the
federal level is such a heavy lift? For advocates of abolition, it seems to me
that recent decisions from the Supreme Court may not have been so inspiring.
I’m talking about that recent case before the Supreme Court, where the court
let Domineque Ray be executed in Alabama despite being denied access to his
imam, and the court deciding not to rule on the religious discrimination
question there.
There is a lot of movement in states and by state executives and state courts,
and I think that’s in part because we haven’t seen enough movement from the
U.S. Supreme Court yet. But that does not mean that I am in any way giving up
on federal courts, or giving up on the U.S. Supreme Court abolishing the death
penalty. I do think that is coming.
“We certainly would not have predicted where we are today in terms of the low
number of new death sentences.”
The Jones case was this case out of California where the federal district court
found the death penalty in California unconstitutional because of the
incredibly broken nature of California’s death penalty and the delays
there—it’s just absolutely arbitrary who might get executed in California. At
the same time, there was a federal court in New Hampshire that ruled the death
penalty unconstitutional a number of years ago. Those cases ultimately did not
stand, but the merits of those cases did not actually reach the Supreme Court.
I think that when you look at the benchmarks that the Supreme Court has set
forward for whether or not the death penalty today is constitutional under the
Eighth Amendment, the evolving standard of decency says let’s look at what’s
happening in the states. Let’s look at the number of executions, let’s look at
the trends, let’s look at the new death sentences. All of those are moving in
the same direction. It is just an incredible downward-sloping number.
We certainly would not have predicted where we are today in terms of the low
number of new death sentences, the low number of executions each year. There is
an incredible showing, I think, under the Eighth Amendment, and it is just a
matter of time before the Supreme Court is going to take one of these cases.
I think if you look at the Supreme Court’s record, it has issued a number of
opinions where we’ve seen that it is concerned about some of these same things
that Newsom was talking about, some of these same things that the Washington
state Supreme Court was talking about.
Now, we were very dismayed, and I would not ever defend the Supreme Court’s
allowing Ray’s execution to go forward. I think that that was a coming together
of some of the worst ways in which the death penalty plays out, including the
fact that, because of the way that Supreme Court rules work under [deadline] of
an execution, it’s very difficult to get a claim heard that you would otherwise
normally get heard. So they had enough votes to hear the briefing and make a
reasoned decision on the merits of the religious discrimination that was going
on in that case, but they didn’t have enough votes to stop the execution
because of the way the state rule works. Time and time again, super important
legal issues don’t get a real hearing because the push for finality and moving
to execution just ends up outweighing decency and justice. So that was really a
setback, and discouraging, but I think that we’ve seen from this court over the
years—even though they rule against a claim that is brought on the eve of
execution, that doesn’t tell you how they would rule on the merits of the
claim.
(source: slate.com)
***********************
California Supreme Court justice blasts death penalty system
The death penalty system in the nation's most populous state is dysfunctional
and expensive, and a ballot measure approved by voters to speed up executions
will not make it workable, a California Supreme Court justice said Thursday in
an unusual opinion that added to a renewed debate about capital punishment.
Associate Justice Goodwin Liu made the comments two weeks after Democratic Gov.
Gavin Newsom placed a moratorium on executions and said he is advocating for
the repeal of capital punishment in California.
Liu said he was not expressing any view on the morality or constitutionality of
the death penalty and would continue to uphold capital sentences when required
by law. He joined the rest of the justices to unanimously affirm the death
sentence of Thomas Potts, who was convicted of killing an elderly couple in
1997.
But in a separate opinion in that case, Liu expressed concerns about the death
penalty system in California and Proposition 66, a 2016 ballot measure that
aimed to remove regulatory hurdles to executions.
Voters narrowly approved the measure while rejecting a competing effort to ban
the death penalty. The state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 66 in 2017,
including Liu, who expressed some concerns in that decision but went further in
his new opinion.
The measure did not enact the "key reforms that leading authorities consider
fundamental to a workable death penalty system," Liu wrote in Thursday's
opinion, which Associate Justice Mariano Florentino-Cuellar joined.
Former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed both justices.
The measure did not reduce the backup of death penalty appeals at the state
Supreme Court or provide additional resources to appoint qualified attorneys
for inmates or allow courts to expedite capital cases, Liu said.
"In these respects, Proposition 66 promised more than the system can deliver,"
he said.
Without additional funding for the court system, the measure cannot reach its
goals, Liu said.
He added that "the promise of justice in our death penalty system is a promise
that California has been unable to keep" and a discussion on the effectiveness
and cost of capital punishment was overdue.
Opponents say Proposition 66 does address the bottleneck of death penalty
appeals at the state Supreme Court by moving a big chunk of cases to lower
courts.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
which has been fighting to force the state to resume executions, also disputed
Liu's claim that the measure required additional funding.
"The notion that massive additional resources are the answer is a fabrication
of the opponents created to bolster their argument that we should repeal the
death penalty because it costs too much," he said in an email.
California has the nation's largest death row, with 737 inmates. Only 13 people
have been executed since 1978 — the last in 2006. Condemned inmates are more
likely to die of old age during decades of appeals.
Newsom praised Liu's opinion in a statement Thursday. When he signed the
moratorium this month, the governor said the death penalty is applied unevenly
and that innocent people can find themselves on death row.
He said he also may commute death sentences and is pushing to ban capital
punishment. Fellow Democratic lawmakers introduced a ballot measure that would
repeal the death penalty next year.
Critics, including President Donald Trump, accused Newsom of usurping voters'
will. Some said his decision could face legal challenges.
In a poll released Thursday by the Public Policy Institute of California, just
38 percent of likely voters favored the death penalty when asked whether
someone convicted of first-degree murder should get a death sentence or life in
prison with no possibility of parole.
(source: Associated Press)
******************
2 California Supreme Court justices say the state’s death penalty system
doesn’t work
2 weeks after Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a moratorium on executions, 2 justices
on the state’s highest court called California’s death penalty “an expensive
and dysfunctional system” that delivers neither justice nor timely closure.
The California Supreme Court justices decried the state’s administration of the
death penalty in a concurrence to a unanimous decision upholding the death
sentence of Thomas Potts, who killed and robbed Fred and Shirley Jenks in their
Hanford home in 1997.
The case was the 1st death penalty decision issued by the court since Newsom
announced the moratorium.
Justice Goodwin Liu, joined by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, both
appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, reiterated the evidence Newsom cited when
he announced the moratorium.
The capital sentence the court upheld Thursday “does not alter a fundamental
reality,” Liu wrote.
“A death sentence in California has only a remote possibility of ever being
carried out,” he said. “As leaders of the judiciary have long observed, the
death penalty presents serious challenges for the fair and efficient
administration of justice. For decades, those challenges have not been
meaningfully addressed.”
The 2 justices also said that Proposition 66, passed by voters in 2016 to speed
up executions, will not resolve the problem because it did not provide
additional funding.
“In the meantime, the judiciary will continue to do its duty under the law,
leaving it to the voters and our elected representatives to decide whether
California should double down on the current system or chart a new course,” Liu
and Cuéllar said.
They described Thursday’s decision on Potts’ appeal of his death sentence as
“instructive.”
“The death judgment was issued in 1998,” they said. “Now, 21 years later, we
affirm the judgment on direct appeal, but there is more litigation to come in
the form of habeas corpus petitions in state and federal courts. This timeline
is typical of our capital cases.”
Liu noted that he has voted to uphold “scores” of death sentences and would
continue to do so if the law required it. He also said he was expressing no
view about the morality or the constitutionality of capital punishment.
“It is impossible to review these cases without feeling tremendous compassion
for the victims and their families, who have suffered unimaginable heartbreak
and loss,” Liu wrote.
“But the promise of justice in our death penalty system is a promise that
California has been unable to keep,” he added.
Both California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and her predecessor, Ronald
M. George, Republican appointees, have said that California’s death penalty
system is broken.
Referring to a comment by Cantil-Sakauye, Liu and Cuéllar said California was
long overdue to have a “merit-based” discussion about the costs and
effectiveness of the death penalty.
Newsom issued a statement commending the two justices for their pronouncement.
Newsom said the death penalty “violates foundational principles — like equal
justice before the law and the timely administration of justice — upon which
our entire legal system is built.”
(source: Maura Dolan is the California-based legal affairs writer for the Los
Angeles Times. She covers the California Supreme Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals----Los Angeles Times)
******************
Poll Shows Most Californians Agree With Gavin Newsom’s Death Penalty
Opposition----A survey found record-high support in California for life
imprisonment rather than the death penalty for first-degree murder. headshot
A new poll found a record high percentage of Californians are against the death
penalty for murder - showing that public opinion in the state aligns with Gov.
Gavin Newsom’s (D) recent decision to place a moratorium on the practice.
In a survey released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, 62
% of adults in the state who were asked to choose a penalty for 1st-degree
murder chose life imprisonment without parole over the death penalty, which 31
% of adults supported.
Support for the death penalty has dropped dramatically since 2000, when
California adults were about evenly split on the issue (49 % in favor of the
death penalty, 47 % in favor of life imprisonment), and even since 2012, when
55 % of respondents supported life imprisonment versus 38 % supporting the
death penalty.
Earlier this month, Newsom signed an executive order suspending the death
penalty in California, calling the practice “immoral” and saying it
discriminates against people of color and poor people.
The governor halted executions for the 737 inmates on death row in the state,
which houses 25 % of the nation’s condemned inmates - the largest death row
population in the U.S. However, California hasn’t executed anyone since 2006
due to legal challenges.
Meanwhile, some conservatives criticized Newsom’s policy change, with
Republican commentator Carl DeMaio, who has pushed for a recall of the
governor, falsely tweeting that Newsom ”ignores [the] will of the voters” by
halting the death penalty.
(source: Huffington Post)
OREGON:
Oregon still grappling with 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: Editorial, The Daily Astorian)
USA:
Death-penalty decision in deputy’s killing could take a year
Federal prosecutors on Thursday said it could take a year before a decision is
made on whether to seek the death penalty for a Springfield man accused of
killing a federal task force member in Rockford earlier this month. Floyd E.
Brown, 39, is accused of shooting through the door of a Rockford hotel room,
jumping out of a 3rd-story window and then shooting McHenry County Sheriff’s
Deputy Jacob Keltner in the parking lot outside before fleeing on March 7.
Brown was captured after crashing his car on Interstate 55 near Lincoln.
During a hearing at the U.S. District Courthouse in Rockford on Thursday,
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Pedersen said based on a “conservative
estimate,” it could take 6 more months — and possibly as much as 9 months — to
collect all the evidence and continue investigating. At that point begins a
lengthy process to determine whether federal prosecutors will seek the death
penalty for Keltner’s killing.
“We think it could take an additional 6 months after that” before U.S. Attorney
General William Barr decides whether to seek death, Pedersen said. The process
involves lawyers on both sides, and Keltner’s family, arguing for and against
the death penalty based on a variety of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Keltner’s family had asked for all proceedings to occur in the Rockford
courthouse instead of the federal courthouse in Chicago, where U.S. District
Judge Matthew Kennelly is based. Kennelly has been appointed to preside over
Brown’s case.
“All of the proceedings to be done in this case will be done here,” Kennelly
said Thursday.
Keltner was shot outside the Rockford hotel while he and other members of the
U.S. Marshal’s Great Lakes Regional Fugitive Task Force tried to arrest Brown.
A federal grand jury indicted Brown last week on the charges of murder of a
federal law enforcement officer, illegal possession of firearms by a felon and
illegal possession of firearms with an obliterated serial number. The federal
murder charge, which carries the stiffest penalty, is punishable by life in
prison or death.
“We’re anticipating filing additional charges based on the investigation,”
Pedersen said Thursday, not elaborating on what those additional charges will
be or when they might be filed. “There is still evidence being processed and
collected.”
Brown pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on March 20.
Brown didn’t speak during Thursday’s court appearance. He sat in a wheelchair,
clad in dark green jail scrubs and wearing a back brace.
A Winnebago County grand jury on Wednesday indicted Brown on 75 charges.
Brown’s girlfriend was injured before Brown fled the hotel. 3 other officers
were with Keltner to serve the arrest warrants when Brown fired at them,
according to the Winnebago County indictment. The stiffest of the Winnebago
County charges, 60 counts of 1st-degree murder, are punishable by what would
amount to life in prison. Brown also is charged with 3 counts of attempted
1st-degree murder, 1 count of aggravated battery with a firearm, 2 counts of
being an armed habitual criminal, 4 counts of aggravated discharge of a
firearm, 2 counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, 1 count of aggravated
unlawful restraint, and 2 counts of possession of a firearm without a Firearm
Owner’s Identification card.
(sourceL Journal Star)
***********
Judges in Idaho, Nebraska Order States to Release Execution-Related Records
Judges in Idaho and Nebraska have ordered prison officials to release
execution-related records the states had sought to keep secret. Finding that
the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) acted frivolously and in bad faith in
its prior response to a public records request, a state court judge ruled on
March 21 that officials at IDOC must release documents related to the state’s
death-penalty and execution processes. In Nebraska, a federal district court
judge ruled on March 15 that the state must provide information to lawyers
representing Arkansas death-row prisoners relating to how Nebraska obtained the
fentanyl used in executing Carey Dean Moore in August 2018.
In the Idaho lawsuit, Fourth District Judge Lynn Norton chastised IDOC for its
bad faith in barely responding to a public records request for
execution-related documents submitted by University of Idaho professor Aliza
Cover. Judge Norton ruled that the Department must release documents that will
include the state’s source of execution drugs it used in its last execution and
ordered that IDOC pay court and attorney’s fees for Cover.
Cover had sought copies of receipts, purchase orders, and other information
related to the drugs Idaho used in its last 2 executions in 2011 and 2012 and
those it expects to use in future executions. The department disclosed only a
copy of the state’s execution policy manual, claiming that the remaining
documents were exempt from public review. Cover, who studies the death penalty
and its application, sued. IDOC redacted dozens of items from execution
records, including not only the names of prison staff who participated in
executions, but their handwriting, and the names of people only tangentially
involved in executions, such as clergy who counsel death-row prisoners and
hairdressers who give prisoners their final haircuts. The state claimed,
without evidence, that the redactions were necessary to protect those
individuals from protest, harassment, or violence. Similar claims of threats
against execution team members in other states have been found to be
unsubstantiated. Idaho officials also withheld information on the source of
execution drugs used in the past, claiming that suppliers would no longer
provide the drugs if their identities were revealed.
Norton’s ruling will force the IDOC to release a receipt for lethal-injection
drugs from a compounding pharmacy that were used in Richard Albert Leavitt’s
2012 execution, the most recent execution in Idaho. IDOC will be able to
withhold information about the drugs from Paul Ezra Rhoades’s 2011
lethal-injection execution because the source may still be supplying drugs used
in lethal injections.
In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Laurie Smith Camp gave
the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services until April 12 to turn over
documents detailing its efforts to obtain its execution drugs, but allowed the
state to redact information concerning the identity of the pharmacy that
supplied the drugs because the company had “made a business decision to decline
any future sales of chemicals to any state, including Nebraska.” Arkansas
prisoners who are challenging that state’s use of the drug midazolam in
executions were seeking the information to meet the obligation imposed by the
U.S. Supreme Court that they prove that an alternative drug was available. The
court required Nebraska to disclose records related to how the state identified
the pharmacy and persuaded it to supply fentanyl to Nebraska.
Many states attempt to shroud their execution processes and practices in
secrecy. “When the state keeps secret basic information about the death
penalty, the public cannot ensure that it is carried out humanely or
constitutionally,” Cover said.
(source: Death Penalty Information Center)
*******************
Death penalty-related dates scheduled in federal homicide case
Whether Sterling Roberts faces a death penalty trial in the murder of a
Beavercreek man will play out in court during the next 13 months.
Roberts, 35, was federally indicted for the August 2017 murder of Robert
“Bobby” Caldwell, 35, who was killed in front of 3 of his sons in a Riverside
parking lot.
Roberts and Tawnney (Caldwell) Thomas — Bobby’s ex-wife — face possible death
penalty cases. 4 others were indicted in the conspiracy case in Dayton’s U.S.
District Court.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rose gave Roberts’ attorneys until Dec. 31 to
provide to prosecutors “any mitigating evidence or argument that it intends to
present regarding whether the death penalty should be sought.”
The judge also ordered that “if the U.S. Attorney’s Office intends to seek the
death penalty, notice of that intent shall be filed and served” on Roberts by
May 1, 2020.
A similar order has not been issued in Tawnney Thomas’ case, but more funds
have been allowed for her attorneys to fight against capital punishment.
The others facing federal charges are Christopher Roberts and Chance Deakin
(Sterling Roberts’ brothers) and Chandra Harmon and James Harmon (Tawnney
Thomas’ mother and step-father).
Christopher Roberts is in jail on a bond violation, while Deakin was released
from jail with conditions in January. Chandra Harmon and James Harmon are out
on bond.
James Harmon’s trial is scheduled for April 29. None of the other defendants
have trial dates after Rose ruled the case “unusual and complex.” Many court
documents in the case are under seal.
(source: Dayton Daily News)
_______________________________________________
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
