[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, MISS., CALIF.
Aug. 25 TEXAS: Jeff Wood's Stay of Execution Casts More Doubt on the Texas Death Machine Terri Been was being interviewed by a reporter inside a Whataburger restaurant in East Texas on the afternoon of August 19 when the text came in: Her brother, Jeff Wood, on death row for his alleged involvement as an accomplice in the 1996 murder of his friend, and facing imminent execution, had been granted a stay. She read the text sent by Wood's attorney twice before dialing him up. "Are you serious?" she asked. It had been a long and emotionally taxing day: Been and her husband, her parents, Wood's daughter, and another friend had traveled to Huntsville, Texas, the location of the state's execution chamber, for the first of several 8-hour visits with Wood in anticipation that he would be executed sometime after 6 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24. The news from the lawyer, Jared Tyler, was a serious relief. "I consider it a miracle," she told The Intercept. "He's stopped Texas from killing my brother." That afternoon the state's highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, agreed with Tyler that a state district court should determine whether the punishment hearing portion of Wood's 1998 trial was infected by junk science and misleading testimony offered by the notorious Dr. James Grigson. If the district court agrees that it was tainted, Wood could get a new hearing, and a chance to get off of death row. Grigson, who died in 2004, was known even among peers in the psychiatric community as "Dr. Death" for routinely offering scientifically unsupportable testimony that helped to send defendants to death row in a number of capital cases. He was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and its Texas counterpart prior to testifying in Wood's case, where he opined that unless sentenced to die Wood would continue to be violent, a determination he made without ever examining Wood. But the court majority sidestepped - at least for now - the biggest question in Wood's case: Is he legally eligible for the death penalty? That prompted a strongly worded opinion from one of the court's 9 jurists, Elsa Alcala, who for at least the 2nd time this year has called into question whether Texas' death system itself is constitutional - an unusual stance for a jurist on such a conservative and notoriously pro-death penalty court in the state with the nation's most active execution chamber. Indeed, Alcala has been airing concerns that have not been expressed in any meaningful way by any member of that court in nearly 2 decades. Wood, she wrote, "may be actually innocent of the death penalty because he may be categorically ineligible for that punishment." An Unconstitutional Sentence Wood is on death row even though he has never killed anyone. He was convicted and sentenced to die for the January 2, 1996, robbery of a convenience store that ended with the shooting death of his friend Kriss Keeran, who worked at the store. But it was another man, Danny Reneau, who entered the store armed, intending to rob the place, and who shot Keeran. Wood, Reneau, Keeran and another store employee had planned an inside-job robbery for the previous day, but the plan had been aborted. Wood said he had no idea that Reneau intended to rob the store that day, and certainly had no idea that Reneau would kill Keeran. After the murder, Wood admits that he did help Reneau steal money from the store, along with a surveillance videotape, but says he did so only after Reneau threatened to harm his daughter. But a quirk of Texas law allows the state to seek the death penalty against a defendant who never killed or intended to kill anyone. Known as the law of parties, the law posits that if conspirators plan to commit 1 crime - in this case a robbery - but in the course of events someone ends up committing another crime (such as a murder) all parties are liable for the crime committed regardless of their individual intent, under the notion that everyone should have anticipated that the crime committed would occur. Advocates and lawyers argue that Wood's impending execution would violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It is an argument that would appear to be in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which holds that a sentence must be proportional to the crime committed. In 2 cases involving parties to a planned crime that ended in murder, the court determined that the death penalty would be unconstitutional when a person lacked either the intent to kill or failed to exhibit a clear "reckless indifference" to human life. No court has ever considered whether Wood's sentence was proportionate to his crime. Although Tyler finally raised the question directly in Wood???s most recent appeal, in staying the execution last week the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to ask the lower court to address the issue - except for Alcala, who opined in favo
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., IDAHO
Aug. 25 PENNSYLVANIA: More evidence for Pa. to abolish death penalty Justice has finally come for James "Jimmy" Dennis. Twenty-four years ago, Dennis was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of 17-year-old Chedell Williams. But the jury wasn't presented with all the facts of the case. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that during Dennis's original trial, the prosecution purposefully suppressed evidence that would have proven Dennis's innocence, an unconstitutional and unjust act. While a long appeals process still stands between Dennis and his freedom, this decision marks a huge victory for him and death penalty abolitionists everywhere. Over the years, reforms have been made to America's death-penalty system, and none were able to prevent Dennis from ending up on death row. The state could have easily executed Dennis at some point during his nearly quarter-of-a-century-long ordeal. Fortunately, they didn't, and he lived to witness justice on his behalf. While this was the case for Dennis, others may not be so lucky. The only way to ensure that another innocent man like Dennis isn't executed is to abolish the death penalty, a system that feeds on revenge, hate, and anger. It is our responsibility as citizens of the free world to stand up against injustice when we see it, and this is certainly not an injustice about which we can keep quiet. I am a firm believer (as I'm sure Dennis is, too) that the death penalty is not worth the killing of even 1 innocent person. Emilie Henry Lafayette College, class of 1919 Easton (source: Letter to the Editor, Express-Times) IDAHO: Defender: Seeking death penalty a financial move Prosecution pursuing death penalty in killing of Sgt. Moore Kootenai County Public Defender John Adams will argue next week in district court that prosecutors were motivated by financial reasons to seek the death penalty for the man accused of killing Coeur d'Alene Police Sgt. Greg Moore. Jonathan Renfro, 28, allegedly admitted to shooting Moore in a Coeur d'Alene neighborhood on May 15, 2015, and the Kootenai County Prosecutor's Office filed paperwork in court last January stating its intention to ask for the death penalty. Adams, in multiple legal briefs filed in Kootenai County District Court, alleges the decision to pursue capital punishment was motivated by financial reasons, since the state has a fund set up to help reduce trial costs in counties trying such cases. Idaho's Capital Crimes Defense Fund was established by the state Legislature in 1998 and allows counties to dip into a statewide fund to recoup some of the costs associated with death penalty trials, primarily through the reimbursement of wages paid to attorneys on the case. Every county, with the exception of Jefferson County, participates in the voluntary program, and a 2013 study by the Idaho Legislature found 11 counties have been reimbursed more than $4 million since 1998. "...The existence of the CCDF permits this court to find that there is a clear financial benefit to the county when it pursues the death penalty," Adams wrote in a brief filed Aug. 5. "As to the interest of the taxpayer, first, the prosecutor's duty is to the county, not the taxpayer, and 2nd, clearly spreading the cost of a death penalty case over the entire population of Idaho lessens the burden upon taxpayers in Kootenai County considerably." However, the county prosecutor's office has filed multiple briefs in opposition to Adams' motion asking the court to preclude the death penalty from Renfro's potential punishments. In a brief published on July 27, Kootenai County Deputy Prosecutor David Robins wrote there is no evidence to prove Adams' assertions, which Robins called "unsound fabrications." "From the defendant's slanted argument, he would have this honorable court believe he is a victim of some unfeeling financial calculus, meting out life and death based on financial considerations alone," Robins wrote. "He is no such victim. He is the perpetrator of an extraordinarily callous and cold-blooded murder. The defendant's eligibility for capital sentencing is not the product of financial concern - rather, his eligibility is the product of Idaho law, his actions, his reprehensible history of violence, the brutal nature of his crime, and the goals of justice." Adams, according to court briefs, will argue the additional funding provided by the CCDF is a violation of Renfro's rights under the Eighth Ammendment because it brings in a factor other than the incident itself for prosecutors to consider when pursuing punishment. "The prosecutor's quandary is not his fault but that of the state Legislature in creating a moral hazard by financially incentivizing death," Adams wrote. Renfro is charged with 1st-degree murder, grand theft, removing a law-enforcement officer's firearm, concealing evidence, robbery and eluding police
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CALIF., ORE., WASH.
August 25 CALIFORNIA: Prop 62: Death to the death penalty Is there a problem right now with California's death penalty? Yes there is. Activists on both sides of the death penalty debate agree the process in California is broken. Right now convicts as well as families of victims wait for years for as the legal system grinds on. A convict on average spends 18 years on death row before he is executed, and executions almost never happen. The last one was in 2006. Inmates are more likely to die of natural causes or suicide than to be put to death. On top of that the protracted legal process is expensive. It costs taxpayers about $150 million a year in attorneys' fees. Each side takes different approaches to the problem. One wants to reform the process. They have proposed Prop 66. The other side wants to abolish the death penalty. They have proposed 62. What would Prop 62 do? Prop 62 would repeal the death penalty in California. Who is for Prop 62 and what are their arguments? Supporters include long-time death penalty opponent and actor, Mike Ferrell as well as actor Edward James Olmos, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter. Organizations in favor of Prop 62 include the ACLU, state employee unions, innocence projects and some families of murder victims. They say we should pass Prop 62 because: -- It would save taxpayers millions of dollars by getting rid of California's costly and inefficient death penalty process. A death sentence costs 18 times more than a life sentence. Taxpayers have spent $5 billion dollars since 1978 to carry out only 13 executions. -- Inmates on death row would still have to spend the rest of their lives in prison and a greater portion of the wages they earn would go toward victim restitution. -- It would provide victim???s families with closure instead of waiting for years for executions that never happen. -- It would eliminate the chance that an innocent person is executed. In California 66 innocent people have had their murder convictions overturned. -- Murder trials are biased against minorities and Latinos are disproportionately represented on death row -- Botched executions make the process inhumane. Who is against Prop 62 and what are their arguments? Many law enforcement groups and district attorneys associations are against Prop 62 along with LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell, former governor Pete Wilson and some families of murder victims. They say: -- It lets the worst of the worst criminals stay alive at taxpayers' expense long after their victims have lost their lives. -- People who get the death penalty are guilty of 1st degree murder with special circumstances. They are serial murders, or they have tortured their victims, or killed children or police officers. They should be punished more than other murderers. -- Prop 62 will cost taxpayers money because inmates must be kept in prison at a cost of about $47,000 a year for the rest of their lives. -- The answer to our broken capital punishment process is to reform it, not repeal it as we propose in Prop 66. What does a "yes" vote on Prop 62 mean? A "yes" vote means you want to abolish California's death penalty. Those already on death row would get life in prison without parole. What does a "no" vote mean? A "no" vote means you want to keep the death penalty as part of California's criminal sentencing laws. There's another ballot measure, Prop 66, dealing with the death penalty on the ballot. How do these 2 props effect each other? If 1 proposition passes and the other fails, then obviously the winning proposition becomes law. If they both fail, things stay the way they are now. If they both pass, then the proposition that received the most votes becomes law. (source: KCET news) *** Tossed death penalty may signal shift on California Supreme Court In a ruling that could signal tougher scrutiny of capital cases by California's highest court, Gov. Jerry Brown's 3 appointees have joined a 4th justice to overturn a death sentence that a previous majority had voted to uphold. Monday's 4-3 vote by the state Supreme Court granted a new penalty trial to Gary Grimes, to determine whether he should be resentenced to death or to life in prison without parole for his role in the murder of a 98-year-old Shasta County woman. State voters could take that issue off the table in November if they approve Proposition 62, which would repeal the state's death penalty law and resentence the nearly 750 death row inmates to life without parole. In the meantime, however, the ruling suggests a shift on a court in which the death penalty has been an overriding issue for nearly 4 decades. After legislators passed a death penalty law in 1977 and voters expanded it in 1988, the court under Chief Justice Rose Bird reversed nearly every death sentence it considered until 1986. The voters removed Bird and 2 other Brown appoint
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
August 25 IRAN: Iran's executions continue as West prioritizes nuclear deal Earlier this month Iran executed at least two dozen political prisoners on various charges of activities against the regime or membership in extremist groups. Though there was nothing new either with the charges or the number of executions, the action this time brought wide condemnation, especially by Kurds who thought the world was turning a blind eye to Iran's human rights violations due to its nuclear deal with the West. "The application of overly broad and vague criminal charges, coupled with a disdain for the rights of the accused to due process and a fair trial have in these cases led to a grave injustice," said Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among those hanged was Hassan Afshar, a 19-year-old who was arrested and convicted of rape at the age of 17. Al Hussein called the execution of juveniles "particularly abhorrent." On August 2, the Iranian government announced that it had executed 20 members of a "takfiri" group (a term used by Iran to denote false Islam) that were mainly Kurdish and Sunnis. A few days later, members of the family of Kurdish nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri said that he had been executed. These executions immediately caught the attention of rights groups who described them as shameful and made Iran a regional leader in executions. "Iran's mass execution of prisoners on August 2 at Rajai Shahr prison is a shameful low point in its human rights record," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, in a press release on August 8. "With at least 230 executions since January 1, Iran is yet again the regional leader in executions but a laggard in implementing the so far illusory penal code reforms meant to bridge the gap with international standards," she added. Many have blamed the West, the United States in particular, for not holding Iran accountable to its human rights violations mainly in order to keep their Vienna nuclear deal in place. But the US State Department says that it remains concerned about human rights in Iran and has raised the issue with them through many channels. "We reaffirm our calls on Iran to respect and protect human rights, and to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings in all cases," a State Department official told Rudaw English. "We have consistently and publicly expressed our concerns about Iran's human rights record through a range of channels." Emad Kiyaei, Director of External Affairs at the American Iranian Council, says that his council has condemned the recent executions in Iran and that it has raised the issue with the US government. However, he believes that the nuclear deal does not mean Iran has been given a blank check to act as it wants. On the contrary, he sees the deal as a chance to bring the Islamic Republic out of isolation and help improve its human rights record. "Instead of resorting to coercive policies, the Council recommends the creation of a joint working group between Iran and the EU to examine policies and methodologies to reform the judicial system in Iran," Kiyaei told Rudaw English. Kiyaei said that the issue of human rights in Iran should be separated from the nuclear deal as it was specific to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, which was not intended to address all the issues that exist between Iran and the international community. "Therefore, it is unlikely that human rights issues would derail this accord." He argued that keeping the sanctions on Iran could only worsen the situation for prisoners and would not necessarily reduce the number of executions. "The Council does not believe that coercive or further sanctions on Iran would improve the human rights condition within the country," Kiyaei said, adding, "Instead, through open dialogue, diplomacy and weaving Iran more intimately within the international community would be more conducive in empowering those within the Iranian government who seek to reform, moderate and transform the country to be more in line with universal human rights." Alex Vatanka, Senior Fellow and Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington differs. He does not think the nuclear deal would improve Iran's human rights record as it was only to make sure Iran did not become a nuclear power which has now turned into a business scheme. "The nuclear deal was never meant to change Iran's overall character but simply to make sure it did not become a nuclear weapons power," Vatanka told Rudaw English. "I don't see any signs that the P5+1 would want to void the deal because of Iranian behavior towards its own people at home." Vatanka believes that Tehran uses the executions as a show of force especially to deter its opponents and drown any dissent. He argues: "At the moment the int. community wants to safeguard the nuclear deal and is looking for commercial opp
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, MO., KAN., NEB., N.MEX.
August 25 OHIO: Botched execution survivor hopes to once again cheat death, legally Romell Broom is a dead man walking. He was meant to be executed 7 years ago, but after the state spent 2 hours and 18 attempts to find a vein, he exited the execution room alive. Now he is trying to keep the state of Ohio from trying again. Broom's botched execution in 2009 may have allowed him to live to see 2016, but whether he will get to keep going is another matter. Claiming that attempting to execute him a 2nd time would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, his lawyer petitioned on Tuesday to appeal to the US Supreme Court to remove him from death row, the Associated Press reported. Broom, 60, pled his case in March to the Ohio Supreme Court, which determined that the state could try again. The 4-3 ruling rejected his claims that another execution attempt would be unconstitutional, because they claimed that the 18 attempts to insert needles and other mistakes occurred during preparation for his execution and not the actual procedure. "Because Broom's life was never at risk since the drugs were not introduced, and because the state is committed to carrying out executions in a constitutional manner, we do not believe that it would shock the public's conscience to allow the state to carry out Broom's execution," Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote in the majority opinion. The attempts to insert the needle into Broom allegedly caused him enough pain that he began screaming and crying. "The day they tried to execute him was horrendous," Broom's lawyer Adele Shank told CNN. She believes that the botched attempt constitutes double jeopardy, or punishing someone for a crime twice. Broom was found guilty of aggravated murder in connection to the abduction, rape and murder of 14-year-old Tryna Middleton in 1985. (source: rt.com) *** Ohio court upholds death sentences for 2 condemned killers The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld death sentences for a man convicted of killing his girlfriend's ex-husband and for a man who killed a woman he lived with and her 2 children. A shortage of lethal drugs means executions are likely years away. The court voted 6-1 Wednesday in favor of the resentencing of Nathaniel Jackson, convicted in the 2001 murder of Robert Fingerhut near Warren in northeastern Ohio. The resentencing followed the state Supreme Court's reprimand of a judge and prosecutor for teaming up to write sentencing orders for Jackson and Jackson's co-defendant, Donna Roberts. The court also ruled 6-1 to uphold the death sentence of Caron Montgomery of Columbus in the slayings of Tia Hendricks and her 2- and 10-year-old children on Thanksgiving Day 2010. (source: Daily Journal) ** Death penalty in Howland murder case affirmedNathaniel Jackson was convicted in the murder of Robert Fingerhut The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed the death sentence of a man convicted in a 2001 murder in Trumbull County. A trial judge's error prompted the Supreme Court to vacate the death sentence of Nathaniel Jackson in the murder of Robert Fingerhut and ordered that Jackson be re-sentenced. The Court voted 6 to 1 Wednesday to affirm the death penalty in the case. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals vacated the initial death sentence when it found an assistant prosecutor improperly assisted the trial judge in preparing the sentencing opinion. Justice Paul E. Pfiefer concluded the error was harmless and was corrected by the Court's independent evaluation of the sentence. Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, the only dissenting vote, said that the court did not take Jackson's words into account before re-sentencing and that he is entitled to receive a sentencing hearing where his statements are considered before a sentence is imposed. Prosecutors say Jackson conspired from prison to murder Fingerhut after developing a relationship with his wife Donna Roberts. Donna Roberts was sentenced to death for conspiring to have her husband killed by Nathaniel Jackson. Roberts lived with Fingerhut in Howland Township, and Fingerhut had 2 life insurance policies worth a total of $550,000 in which Roberts was named the sole beneficiary. Roberts began an affair with Jackson, which continued while Jackson was confined in the Lorain Correctional Institution. While in prison, Jackson and Roberts exchanged numerous letters and spoke by phone to plot the murder of Fingerhut. At Jackson's request, Roberts purchased a ski mask and pair of gloves for Jackson to use during the murder. Roberts picked up Jackson from Lorain Correctional when he was released and 2 days later, Fingerhut was shot to death in his home. Jackson was indicted on 2 counts of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. In 2002, a jury found Jackson guilty of all charges and recommended the death penalty. The late Judge John Stuard, w
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MISS.
August 25 MISSISSIPPI: Expert witness goes nuts during questioning for Mississippi death penalty case I've been reporting on the crazy death investigation system in Mississippi for about 10 years now. Just when I've thought things couldn't get more surreal, I'm inevitably proven wrong. The latest example comes in a deposition last April of the disgraced "bite mark expert" Michael West. To fully appreciate what happened during and after this deposition, you'd need quite a bit of background. If you have 20 minutes or so, this piece I wrote for Huffington Post a few years ago is pretty thorough. Or try this post, or this post here at The Watch. But here's a rough summary: In the early to mid-1990s, Michael West became a rock star in the world of forensics. West claimed to have developed techniques that he and only he could perform. According to West, those techniques could both identify bite marks on human skin that no other medical specialists could see, and then match those marks to one person, to the exclusion of everyone else on the planet. West helped put lots of people in prison. He soon expanded his repertoire, and became an expert witness in a variety of forensic specialities, including a few he claimed to have invented. In addition to bite mark analysis, West also testified over the years as a a trace metals expert, wound pattern expert, gun shot residue expert, gunshot reconstruction expert, a crime scene investigator, blood spatter expert, "tool mark" expert, fingernail scratch expert, "liquid splash patterns" expert, and "video enhancement expert." He once claimed he could match the bite marks in a half-eaten bologna sandwich found at the crime scene to the teeth of the primary suspect. Not DNA, mind you - the tooth marks in the bread. In another case, West even offered the jury his expertise about how lesbian couples resolve conflict. Though he primarily testified in Mississippi and Louisiana, prosecutors in at least 8 other states retained him as an expert witness. As early as 1994, there were questions about West's credibility. He was the subject of several skeptical media profiles, including by Newsweek, the ABA Journal and "60 Minutes." He has been investigated by and either resigned or was expelled from 3 separate professional organizations. Back in the early 2000s, 1 attorney tricked West into matching photos of bite marks on a murder victim to the dental plate of the attorney's own private investigator. By the late 1990s West was considered something of a quack even within the already dubious forensic speciality of bite mark analysis. Yet Mississippi (and Louisiana) prosecutors continued to use him, Mississippi and Louisiana trial courts kept allowing him to testify, and Mississippi and Louisiana appellate courts kept upholding the crazy things he'd claim on the witness stand. In 2007, Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks were exonerated of the rape and murder of 2 little girls in Noxubee County, Mississippi. The 1st crime occurred in 1990. Local police suspected Brooks for the sexual assault and murder of a 3-year-old girl. West's bite mark voodoo and testimony from (also controversial) medical examiner Steven Hayne were the main evidence against Brooks, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The next little girl was raped and killed less than 2 years later, just a few miles away. This time, police zeroed in on Brewer as the killer, and once again West's bite mark matching was the main evidence against him. Brewer was convicted and sentenced to death. After spending a combined 30 years in prison, the 2 were released when DNA testing in the Brooks case pointed to a convicted sex offender named Justin Albert Johnson. He was arrested and admitted to both crimes. In fact, Johnson was briefly a suspect in the 1st crime, but West "excluded" him after finding that Johnson's teeth failed to the match what West said were bite marks on the victim. (Indeed, it's possible there were no bite marks at all - in his confession, Johnson made no mention of biting either little girl.) That still wasn't enough to convince Mississippi officials to take another look at all the other cases in which West had testified. So let's move on to the case at the heart last April's crazy deposition. In 1994, Eddie Lee Howard was convicted for the rape and murder of an 84-year-old woman, mostly due to testimony from Hayne and West. Hayne didn't initially claim to have seen any bite marks on the victim's body. It was only several days later, when then-district attorney Forrest Allgood identified Howard as his chief suspect that Hayne recalled seeing marks that could be bites. (Allgood is also the prosecutor who convicted Brewer and Brooks.) The victim had by that time been buried. She was exhumed, and West then performed his magic, claiming to match the alleged bite marks to Howard. Howard was convicted and sentenced to death. As late
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., VA., FLA., ALA.
Aug. 25 TEXAS: Death Watch: The Quality of State KillingsWhy is the TDCJ so reluctant to test death drugs? Friday's news that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Jeffery Wood's execution - remanding the case back to Wood's Kerr County trial court so a judge can reconsider the testimony of Dr. James Grigson, the since-deceased forensic psychiatrist nicknamed "Dr. Death" because of his recurring state testimonies in capital cases - means the Texas' Department of Criminal Justice has seen each of the state's last 10 scheduled executions be stayed or delayed. (The state hasn't executed anyone since Pablo Vasquez on April 6.) Wood's stay, officially issued with respect to Grigson's testimony, was hopefully spurred in part by questions over the ethics of executing an individual who did not actually kill anyone (see "Death Watch: Executing Texas' Law of Parties," Aug. 12). It comes one week after the state temporarily spared the life of fellow inmate Robert Pruett, who also went to prison as an accomplice to a murder, and later went to death row for the murder of a prison guard in Beeville - though evidence is mounting that he may not be responsible for that killing, either. Meanwhile, the state turns its attention to Rolando Ruiz, scheduled for execution Aug. 31. Ruiz, 44, was sent to death row for the 1992 murder-for-hire of Theresa Rodriguez. After agreeing to a $2,000 payment from Rodriguez's husband, Michael, and her brother-in-law, Mark, Ruiz shot Rodriguez in the head in her San Antonio garage; the brothers were trying to collect on a couple of hefty life insurance policies. Mark received a life sentence for capital murder. Michael - a member of the Texas 7, who broke out of the state's John B. Connally Unit on Dec. 13, 2000 and went on a crime spree - was sentenced to death and executed Aug. 14, 2008. 2 other men involved with the arranged killing were also sentenced to life for the crime. Ruiz's chances for mitigation during the sentencing portion of his trial got muddied by the role he reportedly played during an uprising at the Bexar County Jail shortly after his arrest. Ruiz was convicted of aggravated assault on a peace officer, and attorneys say he lost the opportunity to present himself as a non-threat in the future. His habeas appeals were guided by what his trial attorneys failed to produce during that portion, specifically a psychologist's report detailing the "significant reduced mental capacity" Ruiz possessed at the time of Rodriguez's murder as a result of the drugs and alcohol he consumed to cope with an abusive upbringing. On Aug. 12, with Wood and 3 of the 4 other inmates currently scheduled for death dates, Ruiz filed a complaint in Judge Lynn Hughes' federal district court that challenges the testing methods TDCJ employs for its doses of compounded pentobarbital, the highly secretive drug TDCJ uses to carry out its killings. The inmates' argument is rooted in the courtesy extended in Whitaker et al v. Livingston, a case from 2013. The case initially proved unsuccessful, but played a major role in fellow plaintiff Perry Williams' execution date getting withdrawn this summer (see "Death Watch: A First Time for Everything," July 15). In 2015, the Attorney General's Office agreed to retest Williams and Thomas Whitaker's doses shortly before their executions. Williams received his execution warrant in Jan. 2016. In early July, the state said that it did not have time to test Williams' pentobarbital dose in the 6 months following issuance of the warrant. Attorneys for the 5 inmates argued that the precedent set by Whitaker and Williams means that their clients have a constitutional right to the same testing, a charge Hughes disagreed with late last week. Hughes' decision was sent to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 19, where some kind of action will need to be taken before Ruiz's execution date comes up. "All we ask for is for the state to retest the drug before the executions," said Michael Biles, 1 of the 3 attorneys working the case. "It's a 1-day test to make sure the drug still has the same potency and is not contaminated. No stay of executions, just a retest. The state refused. The court refused to grant us that release. We had a very small ask, and it's frustrating that we weren't successful [in federal court]." (source: The Austin Chronicle) PENNSYLVANIA: Roger King, 72, 'larger than life' retired Philly homicide prosecutor Roger King, 72, a towering figure in Philadelphia law enforcement during a decades-long career as a top homicide prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office, died Wednesday morning, Aug. 24, in hospice care in Wyndmoor. The cause of death was metastatic kidney cancer, said his wife, Sharon Wainright. He had battled the disease for 2 years. "Roger had a heart of gold," Wainright said. "He was very proud of the work that he had done." Mr. King spent 3 d
