Oct. 14
TEXAS----impending execution
Sometimes, sadly, the death penalty is the only justice left
Let the record show that I was against the death penalty before I was for it.
OK, the uncomfortable truth is that my feelings about capital punishment are
complicated, wrought with the sense that an eye-for-an-eye form of justice is
not only primitive but hopelessly ineffective.
We’ve executed more than 1,400 people in the United States over the past 40
years, and where has that gotten us? The South, which accounts for more than 80
% of executions, has some of the highest murder rates in the nation, according
to a 2013 FBI report.
Throw in some botched executions and a disturbing number of exonerations, and
you can easily argue that Texas and the 30 other death penalty states can come
across as barbaric to a civilized world that, for the most part, has moved away
from using death as punishment.
I tend to lean that way, too.
Until that is a case like Licho Escamilla’s comes along, shattering my fragile
and idealistic belief that there’s a better way to derive justice.
Escamilla brutally executed a Dallas police officer – Kevin James – nearly 14
years ago. The facts are bloodcurdling: First Escamilla shot James and another
officer who — incredibly — were trying to keep other men from attacking
Escamilla.
Then Escamilla, already wanted on a murder warrant for shooting a West Dallas
neighbor, shot James 3 more times in the head while the officer lay on the
ground.
His terror didn’t end there. He attempted but failed to carjack a woman and
exchanged gunfire with officers who chased him down.
A year later, it took a jury just 33 minutes to convict the 19-year-old of
capital murder. When the jurors sentenced him to death, he threw a pitcher of
water at them.
Bill Hill, the Dallas County district attorney at the time, called Escamilla
“evil” and said “we need to do everything we can to protect society from people
like that.”
Hill’s observations must give you pause: It makes you wonder why, if we as a
society still embrace the death penalty – and recent polls show roughly 6 in 10
Americans favor it for convicted murderers — it still takes so long to carry
out punishment in a case such as this?
The short answer, of course, is that the convoluted appeals process in death
penalty cases takes years and years to complete, typically at taxpayers’
expense.
That’s understandable to a point: When you’re doling out the ultimate,
irrevocable form of justice, we must make sure we get it right. There can be no
room for error.
Fine, I get that.
But Escamilla’s situation points up how readily the current system is
manipulated to drag these death penalty cases out.
He and his appellate attorneys – who I don’t fault for doing their job — used
every trick in the book to get him off the hook for brutally murdering the
officer. We can appreciate that he was indigent and represented at trial
ill-prepared attorneys, who asked jurors to convict Escamilla of murder rather
than capital murder on the technicality that the officer was working an
off-duty security job.
His latest attorneys pointed to that flawed strategy as one of many reasons
Escamilla shouldn’t be executed and deserved a new trial.
They’ve brought up Escamilla’s abusive upbringing. They’ve suggested that our
state’s lethal injection protocols violate the Eighth Amendment.
And yet, his relentless petitions for relief have been rejected at every turn,
at the state and federal levels, including a failed motion for a new trial in
2012.
Back in February, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse the
decision on his execution. And on Monday, the Supreme Court denied his final
petition for relief.
That means that later today, Escamilla stands to be the 12th Texan executed
this year, and the 530th Texan put to death since 1976.
I don’t like those numbers. They are certainly nothing for our state or our
nation to be proud of.
But when you learn the particulars of Escamilla’s crime and see the damage he’s
inflicted on society, it can quickly make that anti-death penalty pendulum
swing the other way in your head, if not in your heart.
The only question I’m wrestling with now is this: What took so long?
(source: James Ragland, Dallas Morning News blog
**********
RGV gang member on death row loses appeal in massacre that left 6 dead
The state's highest criminal court has turned down an appeal from a former Rio
Grande Valley gang member sent to death row for
participating in a robbery where nearly a dozen men posed as police and killed
6 people during a raid at an Edinburg drug stash house.
Juan Raul Navarro-Ramirez was the 1st of 3 Tri-City Bombers members condemned
for the January 2003 massacre of rival gang members. A 4th man involved in the
staged raid was given the death penalty in another case.
Attorneys for the 31-year-old Navarro-Ramirez raised 19 allegations challenging
his 2004 conviction and sentence.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday agreed with the trial court in
Hidalgo County that the appeal be denied.
Navarro-Ramirez does not yet have an execution date.
(source: Associated Press)
FLORIDA:
Jacksonville man sentenced to death for second time Wednesday
Randall Deviney was guilty of the 1st-degree murder of 65-year-old neighbor
Delores Futrell during a retrial on July 15 to 17, according to the State
Attorney's Office.
It was a new day but the same result for Randall Deviney Wednesday when he was
sentenced to Florida’s Death Row for the 1st-degree murder of Delores Futrell.
Deviney, 25, showed little emotion as Circuit Judge Mallory Cooper sentenced
him to death, beyond occasionally glancing over at defense attorney Jim
Hernandez. This is the 2nd time Cooper has sentenced Deviney to death. The
Florida Supreme Court threw out a previous conviction because Jacksonville
police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to remain
silent.
In the 2nd trial prosecutors got another conviction, and the jury recommended
Deviney be executed by an 8-4 vote. The jury also made additional findings that
the murder was premeditated and occurred during a burglary and an attempted
sexual battery.
Cooper said the brutality of the crime — Deviney slashed Futrell’s throat ear
to ear with a fish-fillet knife in the backyard of her house — justified death.
“You have not only forfeited your right to live among us,” Cooper said. “You
have forfeited your right to live at all.”
During the trial Deviney admitted to killing Futrell in 2008 on Bennington
Drive, saying he snapped after she urged him to tell authorities he suffered
childhood sexual abuse by his mother and his mother’s drug dealer. He told
jurors he felt awful about killing the 65-year-old Futrell, his neighbor who
suffered from multiple sclerosis.
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda argued that any past abuse Deviney
suffered didn’t justify killing Futrell. Hernandez and fellow defense attorney
Kelli Bynum argued that Deviney had been physically and sexually abused
throughout his childhood and had parents who both served jail time in the death
of another toddler son. He was mentally and emotionally disturbed at the time
of the crime, his attorneys said.
In her written ruling, Cooper said there was significant evidence proving
Deviney had experienced and witnessed abuse as a child, but it wasn’t enough to
justify a sentence of life in prison instead of death.
Deviney “testified he knew he made a mistake after he cut Ms. Futrell’s
throat,” Cooper said in her ruling. “However, he proceeded to stab her multiple
times.”
Deviney then posed the body hoping police would think someone else was the
killer and methodically went about disposing of the weapon and clothes he was
wearing that night.
Those are not the actions of a man who’s mentally disturbed or unaware of the
difference between right and wrong, Cooper said.
Deviney will get an automatic appeal with the Florida Supreme Court. But his
best chance of getting off death row may rest with another Florida
death-penalty case that is now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under Florida law, jurors recommend life or death, but the judges make the
final decision. U.S. Supreme Court justices are reviewing whether Florida’s
death-penalty sentencing procedures are unconstitutional because judges are
allowed to impose death without a jury unanimously calling for it. Florida is
one of only a few states that does not require a jury recommend death
unanimously before a judge can impose the sentence.
If the Supreme Court finds that Florida’s sentencing procedures violate the
U.S. Constitution, Deviney is likely to get off death row since his jury was
not unanimous.
(soruce: jacksonville.com)
LOUISIANA:
LaLeshia Walker Alford on the death penalty, gun prosecutions
Throughout the day, The Times will publish short Q&As and mini-biographies of
Caddo district attorney candidates in an effort to focus on issues in the race.
Candidates were asked to complete questionnaires containing basic biographical
information as well as answer 5 questions.
The questions are as follows:
1. Why are you seeking this position?
2. What is your position on the use of the death penalty?
3. If you plan to seek the death penalty on cases your office prosecutes under
what circumstances would you seek it?
4. Would you fully pursue all prosecutions available under current "3 strikes"
laws?
5. Would you fully pursue all prosecution and sentencing enhancements available
under applicable firearms/weapons/gun laws?
Questionnaires will be published throughout the day in alphabetical order.
Candidate: Lee Harville
Party: No Party
Place of Birth: Caddo Parish, currently resides in Caddo Parish
Law school: Columbia University School of Law (1997)
Marital status: Married
Children: Liam, 3
Military experience: No
Are you now an employee or consultant with the Caddo District Attorney’s
Office? No
Why are you seeking this position?
To restore accountability, integrity and transparency to the district
attorney’s office.
What is your position on the use of the death penalty?
I oppose it as it is enforced now. As the district attorney, I will seek the
death penalty in a manner that is meaningful, open, and protects law
enforcement and the most vulnerable among us.
If you plan to seek the death penalty on cases your office prosecutes under
what circumstances would you seek it?
I would establish a Death Penalty Screening Unit to ensure that the death
penalty is used in a fiscally responsible and transparent manner that protects
law enforcement and the most vulnerable among us.
Would you fully pursue all prosecutions available under the current “3 strikes”
law? No. I would prioritize prosecutions to ensure that there is enough jail
space for violent criminals.
Would you fully pursue all prosecutions and sentencing enhancements available
under applicable firearms/weapons/gun law?
No. I would prioritize prosecutions to ensure that there is enough space for
violent criminals. I would seek just sentences based on facts of each case.
Is there any other information you wish to provide?
Harville provided a copy of his platform which includes establishing a
complaint process for the public; providing feedback for charging, dismissal
and plea policies; instituting an Open File Discovery/ Brady policy; and
establishing a Conviction Integrity Unit to review claims of “actual
innocence.” Harville has selected criminal defense attorney Alan Golden as his
first assistant district attorney.
LaLeshia Walker Alford
Party affiliation: Democrat
Place of Birth: Caddo Parish, current resident of Southern Hills
Law school: Tulane University Law School (1988)
Marital status: Divorced
Children: 1 son, age 18
Military experience: No
Are you now an employee or consultant with the Caddo District Attorney’s
Office? No
Why are you seeking this position?
I am concerned about the Caddo Parish taxpayer spending $30,000.00 or more for
incarceration of non-violent offenders who could be working and pulling their
load. Because I am a survivor of child sexual assault and of brutal domestic
violence perpetrated on my mother by my stepfather, I have both compassion and
commitment to all victims. Unlike the prior administration, I would test all
rape kits.
What is your position on the use of the death penalty?
The death penalty is the law and I will follow the law. I believe it should be
reserved for the worst crimes and that it should be fairly imposed.
If you plan to seek the death penalty on cases your office prosecute under what
circumstances would you seek it?
It should only be used for the most heinous, violent crimes, and should be
administered ethically and fairly.
Would you fully pursue all prosecutions available under current “3 strikes”
laws?
No, because I would use my discretion to make certain the prior offenses were
crimes of violence in most cases. The law as currently imposed does not serve
as a deterrent nor does it result in a decrease in violent crimes. The law
clogs the court system because offenders push to go to trial rather than plead.
Most of these defendants are represented by already overburdened public
defenders, which the tax payers pay for. Because the law often involves
previous drug crimes, there is a disproportionate effect on minorities.
Would you fully pursue all prosecutions and sentencing enhancements available
under applicable firearm/weapons/gun laws?
Every case is different. I would have to consider the facts of the case and
then make an appropriate charging decision.
Is there any other information you wish to provide?
My undergraduate studies include North Texas State University where I was a
Piano Pedagogy major, and Texas Woman’s University where I received a Bachelor
of Science in Music Therapy, graduating Magna Cum Laude. I worked as a Music
Therapist in the Caddo Parish Public School System and Pineville State School,
serving special needs children until matriculating to Tulane Law School.
(source: Shreveport Times)
ARKANSAS:
Baptist judge blocks Arkansas executions
Judge Wendell Griffen issued a temporary restraining order slowing down efforts
by the governor to reinstitute capital punishment after a decade without an
execution.
An Arkansas judge who also is pastor of a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship church
has halted the executions of 8 death row inmates challenging a new law allowing
the state to withhold information that could publicly identify the
manufacturers and sellers of lethal-injection drugs.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen issued a temporary restraining
order Oct. 9 barring the state from carrying out 8 executions scheduled
recently by Gov. Asa Hutchinson, the first 8 set for Oct. 21.
Griffen, pastor of New Millennium Church in Little Rock, Ark., said allowing
the executions would cause “immediate and irreparable injury” to the inmates,
who filed a lawsuit in June challenging both the Arkansas Act 1096 of 2015, the
state’s new lethal-injection law, and the particular lethal-injection protocol
adopted by the Arkansas Department of Corrections.
“Proceeding with plaintiffs’ executions as scheduled, without allowing parties
adequate time to conduct discovery, respond to all outstanding claims and
motions, and proceed to a trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ challenges to the
Method of Execution Statute and the ADC’s execution protocol, will rob
plaintiffs of an opportunity to litigate their rights under the Arkansas
Constitution,” Griffen said in the order.
With 34 men on death row and the last execution in November 2005, the Arkansas
General Assembly passed emergency legislation in April to allow the state to
carry out the death sentence amid shortages of drugs caused by pharmaceutical
companies worldwide that refuse to sell drugs to U.S. prisons for the purpose
of lethal injection.
The law requires confidentiality to protect drug providers from consumer
boycott and gives the state latitude to use either a barbiturate or a protocol
of three drugs including midazolam, a sedative associated in the past with
botched executions and which was narrowly upheld as legal by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme
Court decision in June.
Griffen denied the state’s Oct. 12 motion to dissolve the temporary restraining
order and scheduled a hearing on the case March 1-2. The judge ordered the
state to “identify or otherwise object to disclosure of the identity of the
manufacturer, seller, distributor and supplier of any lethal-injection drugs”
to be used in the eight executions.
The inmates claim the confidentiality clause is unconstitutional and that the
lethal-injection protocol chosen by the Department of Corrections will subject
them to cruel and unusual punishment.
They also accuse the state of breach of contract, citing settlement of an
earlier lawsuit in 2013 in which the state agreed to reveal to the inmates any
future source of execution drugs.
As a CBF pastor, Griffen has served in positions including the search committee
that recommended Suzii Paynter as executive coordinator in 2013. Griffen
preached at a commissioning service at the 2013 CBF General Assembly in
Greensboro, N.C. He was also a presenter at A [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality
and Covenant co-sponsored with the Mercer University Center for Theology and
Public Life in April 2012.
Unlike many Baptist denominational bodies, the CBF does not take a public
position on social issues like the death penalty. A number of current and
former CBF leaders, however, recently spoke out publicly against the recent
execution of Kelly Gissendaner, a graduate of a prison theology program offered
by a consortium of Atlanta-area schools including CBF partner McAfee School of
Theology at Mercer University and the 1st woman sentenced to death in Georgia
since 1945.
(source: baptistnews.com)
OKLAHOMA:
Oklahoma attorney general asks federal court for further secrecy in lethal
injection lawsuit
Oklahoma's attorney general is asking for permission to disclose information in
a lethal injection lawsuit to the judge but not to attorneys for death row
inmates.
Why the state is asking for the secrecy is a mystery.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt is representing the Oklahoma Corrections
Department in the legal challenge to Oklahoma's execution protocol, and is
investigating the agency over a drug mix-up on Sept. 30 that halted the
execution of Richard Glossip.
On Tuesday, an assistant attorney general asked an Oklahoma City federal judge
for permission to file in secret a request for relief on behalf of corrections
officials because of those circumstances.
A spokesman for Pruitt declined to explain the filing.
"I don't have any further comment beyond the pleading the office filed today,"
spokesman Aaron Cooper said Tuesday.
When asked why the state would not explain to the people it represents in court
what the filing means, Cooper said in this case revealing why the attorney
general's office needs to keep the information secret would defeat the purpose
of having undisclosed discussions with the judge.
In a response filed Tuesday afternoon, federal public defenders for the inmates
said they were unable to determine what exactly the state is asking the court
to do and asked the judge to require Pruitt's office to explain the request.
Oklahoma law protects the identities of state and private employees who
participate in executions. The names of everyone from the physician and
officers in the execution chamber to the provider of the lethal drugs is a
state secret.
The law came under scrutiny in state court last year, when Clayton Lockett and
Charles Warner sued the state over its ability to keep the identities a secret.
The inmates claimed that by allowing the drug provider to remain anonymous,
their public defenders could not properly vet the qualifications and track
record of the pharmacy. The attorneys argued any incompetency in the
manufacturing of the drugs could violate the inmates' protection against cruel
and unusual punishment.
In March of 2014, about a month before Lockett's execution, Oklahoma County
District Judge Patricia Parrish ruled the state's execution secrecy law was
unconstitutional, finding the law was so restrictive it prohibited even her
from knowing the source of the state's lethal drugs. Parrish questioned how she
was supposed to make a ruling either way without full knowledge of the facts.
“I do not think this is even a close call,” Parrish said from the bench in
March.
“What good is (the inmates') access to the courts if you can't tell me the
information?"
Parrish's ruling was eventually overturned by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The
state has kept its source for lethal drugs, as well as members of its execution
team, secret ever since.
In a more than 42,000 page release of records related to Lockett's execution,
including emails and memos, released last week, Gov. Mary Fallin's office
redacted the name and email address of one of its own staff members. The
anonymous staffer was reportedly on the other end of the phone the night of
Lockett's problematic execution and was the person who gave the final go-ahead
to proceed with the lethal injection.
Fallin was not part of the final phone calls. That night, she was in attendance
as the Oklahoma City Thunder took on the Memphis Grizzlies in the first round
of the NBA playoffs. In an interview later that year with investigators from
the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Fallin said she told her general
counsel, Steve Mullins, that night to "do what you've got to do."
Lockett's execution ended up lasting 43 minutes, the majority of which was
shielded from the press. After Lockett began to writhe and mumble, the blinds
were closed 16 minutes into the procedure, and reporters were escorted out of
the death chamber. The state Public Safety Department investigation later
concluded it was an improperly placed IV in Lockett's femoral artery that
caused problems that night.
Warner was eventually executed in January, but it wasn't until this month it
was revealed the state had used potassium acetate to kill Warner instead of the
legally allowed drug potassium chloride.
The day following Glossip's most recent stay, state Corrections Department
Director Robert Patton told reporters the mix-up was with the provider of the
lethal drugs, who failed to tell them about the change.
“The provider believed it was an acceptable substitution," Patton said. “From
my understanding, in that industry, it is an acceptable alternative for that
particular drug.”
Citing state law, the state Corrections Department has declined to reveal the
name of the drug provider.
(source: The Oklahoman)
***************
Enid lawyer supports OKC editor’s call for death penalty moratorium
To the Editor:
As a Conservative, I have opposed the death penalty due to my religious beliefs
for over 20 years. I took that position because I believe it is important to be
consistently Pro-Life.
Love to me is the idea that there is no greater gift than to lay down your life
and give all that we are for others and for the idea that protecting human life
– all human life – is important.
This is why I oppose abortion, radical Islam, capital punishment, and all other
political ideas that undermine the value of human life.
As a Christian, I can take a life in protecting my life, my family, and the
innocent lives of others who are in jeopardy due to bad religion, bad politics,
mental illness, and those who allow their emotions to spin them into a state of
not valuing human life. That discipline is not one to be considered lightly.
I now join Pat McGuigan in his call for a moratorium on executions in Oklahoma
(“Commentary: Moratorium Now! It’s time to put a hold on executions in
Oklahoma,” October 12, 2015)
I have long believed that it is an act of cowardice to take the life of another
whose hands are in chains whether restricted by cuffs or by spikes in wood.
Christ does not call us to be defenseless or to ignore violence, but there is a
line for how we can respond. I believe we cross that line when we take life –
outside of cases involving public safety, where there is a direct threat or in
warfare against religions and political cults that devalue and wrongfully
destroy human life.
If we could not safely house our current death row, there might be a reason to
allow the death penalty in some cases. I do not see that reason present now.
It takes courage for a Conservative to be consistently Pro-life. I admire Pat
McGuigan for taking this stand.
Sincerely,
Tim Gungoll
Enid, Oklahoma
(source: Letter to the Editor, The City Sentinel)
WYOMING:
Wyoming Supreme Court justices hear arguments on whether Cheyenne man received
speedy trial
The state of Wyoming clearly violated a Cheyenne man's constitutional right to
a speedy trial by allowing over 900 days to pass between his 2011 arrest on
murder charges and his trial early last year, his lawyer told the state supreme
court on Tuesday.
Nathaniel Castellanos, 36, was convicted last year of 2 counts of murder and
one count of attempted murder in the August 2011 shootings of 3 people at his
Cheyenne home. Police found Corey Walker, 21, and Megan McIntosh, 25, dead at
the scene. Another woman, Amber McGuire, survived gunshot wounds and testified
against Castellanos at trial.
Castellanos' jury rejected prosecutors' request for the death penalty. And he's
now appealing his 3 life sentences.
Cheyenne lawyer Elizabeth Lance, who represents Castellanos in his appeal, told
the Wyoming Supreme Court in arguments on Tuesday that the Wyoming Public
Defender's Office effectively delayed action on his case because it lacked
enough death-penalty qualified lawyers to bring him to trial faster. The court
will issue a written decision on Castellanos' appeal later.
While his case was awaiting trial, Castellanos himself objected repeatedly to
the delays and said he refused to give up his right to a speedy trial, Lance
said.
The American Bar Association sets standards for lawyers in death penalty cases,
including training and levels of experience. Lance said the state's handling of
Castellanos' case shows a systematic breakdown of the state's justice system in
regard to handling death penalty cases.
"If we're going to be a state that has capital punishment, then we must provide
attorneys who are qualified to handle a death penalty case," Lance said.
District Judge Peter Arnold, the 1st judge to handle the case, expressed
concern as early as October 2011 whether Castellanos' legal team was qualified
to represent him in a death penalty case, Lance said. She added that Arnold
summoned State Public Defender Diane Lozano to speak about the case and said
she told Arnold that her office only had 2 death-penalty qualified attorneys.
Lance told Supreme Court justices that it's not enough for the state to have
only 2 death-penalty qualified lawyers on staff. She described the 1st lawyers
Castellanos received as "almost as a placeholder."
While Castellanos' case was pending in district court, Lozano urged lawmakers
to appropriate more money to her agency to help cover the costs of capital
cases. She told lawmakers in early 2014 that her office worked on 7 potential
death penalty cases between July 1, 2012, and Oct. 31, 2013, compared with only
1 capital case in the previous 2 budget cycles.
Castellanos received a 2nd set of lawyers from the Public Defender's Office in
early 2012. Those lawyers filed requests to have Castellanos' mental competency
evaluated at the state hospital in Evanston even as Castellanos himself
continued to press to go to trial.
In January 2013, the final pair of lawyers from the Public Defender's Office
entered the case and represented him through a trial before District Judge
Thomas Campbell more than a year later.
Assistant Attorney General Josh Eames told justices that there was no
systematic breakdown in Castellanos' case. He stressed that Castellanos was
represented by 2 lawyers at all times and didn't ultimately receive the death
penalty. "Every delay in this case was caused by Mr. Castellanos or his
attorneys," Eames said.
Concern over the Wyoming Public Defender's Office's representation of
defendants in death penalty cases has become a common issue in the federal
courts. Wyoming last executed an inmate in 1992, when it put convicted murderer
Mark Hopkinson to death.
Wyoming currently has no one on death row. The last 2 men on Wyoming death row
saw their death sentences overturned by federal judges who ruled their
constitutional rights were violated when they received inadequate defense from
the Wyoming Public Defender's Office.
(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
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
