Sept. 18
WYOMING:
Suspect in Deadly Cheyenne Shooting Could Face the Death Penalty
A 25-year-old Cheyenne man could face the death penalty after allegedly killing
2 people and seriously injuring 2 others in a shooting in east Cheyenne. Andrew
Weaver was booked into the Laramie County jail Monday night on 2 charges of
1st-degree murder and 2 charges of aggravated assault. He has yet to make his
initial court appearance.
Weaver is accused of killing 37-year-old Adrien Butler and 30-year-old Shaline
Wymer, who were found shot to death inside their home at 3436 E. 11th Street
around 4:30 p.m. Monday.
Police spokesman Officer Kevin Malatesta says 2 14-year-old Cheyenne boys,
whose names aren't being released, were also in the house and suffered
life-threatening injuries.
"They are all unrelated," said Malatesta, who didn't know why the teens were in
the house.
"Last I knew, which was this (Tuesday) morning, they were both in the
hospital," he added. "One had been life-flighted to Denver and the other is
here at CRMC."
Malatesta says police "have evidence to believe" the shooting was
methamphetamine-related.
The case remains under investigation by the Cheyenne Police Department.
(source: KGAB news)
UTAH:
Should religious ‘delusions’ keep Ron Lafferty from a Utah firing
squad?----Inmate wants federal appeals court to rehear arguments it rejected
last month
Condemned killer Ron Lafferty wants a federal appeals court to rehear arguments
it rejected last month that would keep him from facing a firing squad.
Lafferty’s federal public defenders filed a brief Monday seeking an “en banc”
hearing before the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. En banc
hearings are rarely granted.
A 3-judge panel last month rejected his request for a certificate of appeal, a
legal document required for another court to hear arguments that a prior appeal
was wrongfully denied. State attorneys said after that ruling that Lafferty
could be months away from execution.
Lafferty’s lawyers argue that the panel’s decision conflicts with previous U.S.
Supreme Court decisions on a defendant’s mental health.
The judges rejected Lafferty’s claim that a 4th District judge erred in finding
him competent to stand trial in 1996. They also rejected his contention that
the judge improperly relied on a psychiatrist’s opinion that Lafferty was
“situationally competent.”
Lafferty and his brother, Dan Lafferty, were convicted of slitting the throats
of his sister-in-law, Brenda Lafferty, and her infant daughter, Erica, in 1984
— crimes they committed after Ron Lafferty claimed a revelation from God told
him to kill them.
A jury convicted Ron Lafferty in 1985 and sentenced him to die. In a separate
trial, a jury convicted Dan Lafferty and sentenced him to life in prison. Ron
Lafferty was retried in 1996 after an appeals court found the judge used the
wrong standard in finding him competent for trial. A jury again convicted him
and sentenced him to die. He chose the firing squad.
One psychiatrist testified at a 1996 competency hearing that Lafferty’s buttons
could be pushed in some instances by defense attorneys or prosecutors who could
manipulate him and render him incompetent. Therefore, he found that Lafferty
was “situationally competent” because he worked well with his lawyers and they
were skilled at dealing with him.
The judge in 1996 also relied on a theory of delusions that was not accepted in
the medical community, according to Lafferty’s latest court filing. The court
failed to take into account that Lafferty’s severe delusions, which stemmed
from his mental illness, prevented him from rationally understanding his legal
proceedings and assisting his attorneys, according to the court filing.
Mental health experts testified that Lafferty received revelations, some of
which came from God, but some of which came from evil beings or spirits he
called “travelers.”
Lafferty identified the “travelers” as homosexual spirit beings with the power
to inhabit the bodies of living persons or hosts, including the judge, the
prosecutors, the experts, his lawyers, witnesses and the jurors. Travelers have
the power to “exude evil” and to control the persons they inhabit. They have
the ability to travel from one human host to another since they knew the “key
words” necessary to travel, according to court testimony.
Two of the experts testified that Lafferty referred to some of the travelers as
“factors”: the “B factor” was Beelzebub/Buddha/Mormon/Japan; the “M factor” was
Lucifer/Mussolini/Moroni; and the “H factor” was Satan/Hitler/and Lafferty’s
father, Watson. Lafferty also believed that he was enlisted in a war between
good and evil on the side of God in a premortal existence in which he did
spiritual battle with Lucifer. Experts testified that Lafferty believed he had
“Christ-like powers.”
One psychiatrist conceded in his testimony that Lafferty’s beliefs were bizarre
and not shared by any other religious group or any other single person. He also
testified that Lafferty’s unusual religious ideas were “his own theological
concept.”
Lafferty’s attorneys contend those findings meet the definition for delusions,
and had the judge not relied on an “unverifiable” theory of delusions, he would
have found Lafferty incompetent.
“The trial court treated Lafferty’s irrational belief system as irrelevant to
whether he was rationally understanding his proceedings, despite that fact that
Lafferty’s beliefs were pervasive and involved bizarre beliefs about his case,
the court players, and the entire legal system,” according to the court filing.
Lafferty’s public defenders also argue that during the penalty phase of the
1996 trial, the jurors never heard how evidence of his mental illness or mental
state that could have been considered as mitigating factors to capital
punishment.
“Evidence of this type would have weighed heavily against imposing the death
penalty,” according to the court filing.
(source: deseret.com)
ARIZONA:
Media should hear Arizona executions, US appeals court rules
A federal appeals court says media should be able to hear and not just see the
entire process of executing condemned inmates in Arizona.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the media and
death-row inmates are not entitled to information about the origins of
execution drugs or the qualifications of executioners.
The case challenges procedures created after the 2014 execution of Joseph Wood,
which his attorney said was “horrifically botched.” Those procedures allow
journalists to witness executions through a window, but a microphone is turned
off once an intravenous line is inserted.
The case was brought by seven condemned inmates and the First Amendment
Coalition of Arizona.
They argued the information would help the public determine whether the death
penalty is carried out humanely.
(source: Brown County Democrat)
NEVADA:
Email shows reluctance to prosecute suspects in Nevada inmate’s death
Almost 3 years after a Nevada prisoner was fatally stabbed, a top prosecutor in
the state attorney general’s office recommended that no charges be filed
against the suspects, according to an email obtained by the Las Vegas
Review-Journal.
“Absent some great testimony from a gang expert, I don’t see this as a case
that should be filed,” Michael Kovac, chief deputy in the attorney general’s
criminal prosecution unit, wrote in a November 2018 email to three other
prosecutors.
In the email’s subject line are the words “Williams and Goicoechea,” a
reference to Anthony “Mugsy” Williams and Tarik “Torque” Goicoechea, reputed
members of the Aryan Warriors prison gang who were suspected of stabbing
26-year-old Andrew Thurgood dozens of times inside a cell in February 2016.
“Thurgood comes off as completely unhinged and very likely an aggressor,” Kovac
wrote.
Williams had been released from High Desert State Prison in May 2018 without
facing charges in the killing and went on to commit a series of armed
robberies.
In his email, Kovac described Thurgood as “the one running up on people and
inviting them to his cell to fight” and added, “There’s no way to look at this
objectively and say that it’s not just as likely (if not far more likely) that
he was the aggressor.”
But in a sweeping indictment against the Aryan Warriors unsealed a month ago,
the Clark County district attorney’s office announced murder charges against
Williams and Goicoechea. Last week, county prosecutors said they would seek the
death penalty against the pair.
It was not until the beginning of this year that the Clark County gang task
force, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of
Homeland Security, first started investigating the 23 Aryan Warriors charged in
the case, an officer testified to a grand jury.
Charging decisions
Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson said Tuesday that his office did
not learn of Thurgood’s killing until after that investigation started.
“During the course of the investigation into the AW’s, the DA’s office learned
of the murder at the prison,” Wolfson wrote in a text message. “Our office
contacted the AG, along with the Inspector General’s office, and they assisted
in providing information that led to the indictment.”
News of Thurgood’s death was posted on the Review-Journal’s website shortly
after it occurred.
The indictment was the 1st time prosecutors publicly linked Williams and
Goicoechea to the slaying. No other crimes listed in the indictment occurred
before January.
Asked why his office decided to pursue murder charges, despite Kovac’s
assessment of the case, Wolfson responded: “Like any other case, all facts and
circumstances are carefully considered in making charging decisions.”
Last month, Monica Moazez, a spokeswoman with the attorney general’s office,
said reports were turned over to the district attorney’s office as part of the
152-count racketeering case against the prison gang, but she did not say when.
Asked Tuesday about Kovac’s email, Moazez stated: “The determination referenced
in this email is based on the available evidence present at that time. Given
that this case remains ongoing and is being prosecuted by the Clark County
District Attorney’s Office, we have no further comment.”
Within 2 months of Williams’ release from prison last year, the 36-year-old
with a head and face covered with tattoos, led a crime spree that stretched
from Laughlin to northwest Las Vegas. He was convicted and sentenced for those
crimes before he was charged in the killing.
Williams has felony convictions dating back to 2001, while court records show
that the 34-year-old Goicoechea has felony charges dating to 2003.
Prison video
A prison surveillance video that captured the two dragging Thurgood from a cell
depicts Goicoechea and Williams walking around Thurgood’s writhing body before
the two men shake hands and hug. They were handcuffed while corrections
officers awaited a medical response team for Thurgood.
Photographs of Williams and Goicoechea taken at the time do not appear to show
any injuries.
In Kovac’s email, he referenced a description of a phone call in an
investigative report that has not been made public.
“He’s worried about being beat up, while at the same time threatening to stab
people,” Kovac wrote of Thurgood.
A federal lawsuit filed last year by Thurgood’s family states that he was
stabbed 52 times inside a locked cell with the other 2 men.
Goicoechea’s attorney, Kristina Wildeveld, said Tuesday she did not know of
Kovac’s email until a reporter read it to her over the phone.
“It’s always important to get exculpatory information,” Wildeveld said. “We are
already questioning why they waited three years to file charges against Tarik,
especially given the fact that they are now seeking the death penalty against
them. We have questioned why the DA would seek the death penalty in this case
when the death penalty should be reserved for the most egregious of cases.”
An attorney for Williams could not be reached late Tuesday.
(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)
OREGON:
Oregon asks U.S. Supreme Court to hold overturned sentences of Salem teen
murderers
The Oregon Department of Justice is taking the Salem case of twin brothers
sentenced as teenagers to almost 67 years in prison to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is asking the highest court to review
and place a hold on the recent Oregon Supreme Court opinion reversing the
"life" sentences of Lydell and Laycelle White.
The brothers were 15 in 1993 when they broke into the northeast Salem home of
Richard, 82, and Grace Remy, 80.
The Whites beat and strangled the couple then stole Grace's wedding ring, $23
in cash and the couple's car.
Lydell and Laycelle were convicted of the brutal murders and each sentenced to
almost 67 years in prison. The Whites spent decades in juvenile facilities and
prison, later becoming cellmates at the Oregon State Penitentiary.
The Remy family worked to move past the fear, grief and anger caused by the
double murder.
But in May, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the Whites' sentences because
they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment under a 2012 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
That ruling held that it was unconstitutional for juveniles to be sentenced to
life without the possibility of parole due to their transient immaturity and
developing brains.
The twins' lawyer Ryan O'Connor said it marked the 1st time the high court has
applied the Miller decision to sentences that aren't true life, but essentially
add up to life through the number of years.
The sentence would have allowed for the brothers' release at age 81.
State ruling finds sentences too severe
In the ruling, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters said the
circuit court failed to take into account how teen offenders are different from
adult offenders and whether the Whites were some of the "rare juvenile
offenders (so) irreparably depraved" that they required a life sentence.
The ruling shocked and upset the Remy family, said grandson Jay Remy.
"To know that grandma and grandpa, who shared so much love with all of us, were
attacked and killed the way they were — the way they died — was very, very
devastating," Remy told the Statesman Journal in June.
"We just stopped talking about them because it brought back the horror of how
they died ...," he said. "From the beginning, it's been a nightmare."
Now 41, the Whites' cases were set to head back to Marion County Circuit Court
for re-sentencing.
But in June, the Oregon Department of Justice asked for a stay on the Oregon
Supreme Court's decision ordering the re-sentencing while the U.S. Supreme
Court to review juvenile sentencing law.
The issue of retroactively resentencing youth offenders sentenced to life in
prison is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Malvo v.
Mathena.
Lee Malvo, one of the men arrested for killing 10 people in the Washington,
D.C., sniper attacks in 2002, was sentenced to life in prison for the murders.
He was 17 at the time of the attacks and is now fighting the constitutionality
of his life sentences.
In the motion, Rosenblum stated the Department of Justice's intent to file a
petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the Whites' case along with
Malvo's.
On June 21, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an order granting a stay of the
appellate judgment pending the filing of the petition.
The Oregon Department of Justice, on behalf of Oregon State Penitentiary
Superintendent Brandon Kelly, petitioned for a writ of certiorari —judicial
review of a lower court's decision — of the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in
White v. Premo.
They also requested the court hold the case pending the resolution of Malvo,
which presented the same legal issue.
"A decision in Malvo will affect this case and all other pending challenges to
non-mandatory juvenile true-life sentences," the petition said.
Attorney general asks equal treatment
Rosenblum said holding the White cases will ensure the brothers are treated the
same as other juvenile offenders in Oregon who were also sentenced a long time
ago.
"There is no reason to single out the White cases for special treatment simply
because of the timing of the two Supreme Courts’ processes," she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Malvo Oct. 16.
Death penalty law: Will those on Oregon's death row stay there with changes to
state's aggravated murder law?
Rosenblum's efforts in filing a petition with the Supreme Court in the White
case drew sharp criticism from the Oregon Justice Resource Center.
“Attorney General Rosenblum’s decision to seek cert in this case comes on the
heels of her recent support of the racist and xenophobic policy of
non-unanimous jury convictions at the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against DNA
testing for an individual on Oregon’s death row who is asserting innocence, and
defending discriminatory jury selection at the Oregon Court of Appeals," OJRC
Executive Director Bobbin Singh said.
June's announcement that Rosenblum would be seeking review came on the heels of
the DOJ's efforts to reform juvenile sentencing, including their work on Senate
Bill 1008.
Singh said the decision to seek review backtracks on youth sentencing reform
and risks jeopardizing reform across the country.
“Attorney General Rosenblum was exactly right when she said at the senate
committee hearing on Senate Bill 1008 that a young person ‘can be many
things…but the one thing they can never be…is an adult'," he said. "She should
remember those words and the apparent contradiction in her department’s
response to the recent Oregon Supreme Court decision in White v. Premo.
"The Oregon Supreme Court rightly recognized that it was time for a more
progressive approach to lengthy prison sentences for young people in Oregon,
coming into line with most other states."
Singh said juvenile offenders who were not emotionally or mentally mature at
the time of their crimes have shown that they can grow, change and be
rehabilitated.
"Denying this reality by seeking to prevent Lydell and Laycelle White from
receiving a hearing that allows for consideration of youthfulness in deciding
what sentence is proportional and appropriate in their cases is the wrong move
by the attorney general and completely contradictory to her professed values,"
he said.
Rosenblum refuted OJRC's claim that she was backtracking on reform.
“I have consistently taken the position that sentences for juvenile offenders
should take into account the age of the offender, and that the criminal justice
system should not automatically treat children like adults," she said in a
statement.
As a trial judge in Multnomah County when Measure 11 took effect in 1995,
Rosenblum said she saw the serious effects removing judicial discretion had on
these sentences.
But, she clarified the White brothers were sentenced pre-Measure 11.
"The trial judge determined, after a hearing, that they should be treated as
adults, and the lengthy sentences he imposed took into account their youth as
well as the vicious nature of their offenses, the vulnerability of their
elderly victims, as well as many other relevant factors," she said.
(source: Salem Statesman Journal)
_______________________________________________
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
