postings to this list will resume on Tues., March 12
March 7
TEXAS:
Death Watch: Fifth Circuit Spanks CCA, Prosecutors; Appeals court reverses
death penalty
On Feb. 27, the notoriously hard-line 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rebuked
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, overturning the conviction and death
sentence of a Tarrant County man on the row for a 2001 robbery-murder.
A 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that the conviction and death
sentence handed to Nelson Gongora in 2003 should be vacated, and the case
handed back to the district to retry or to dismiss. The court concluded that
Tarrant County prosecutors made impermissible comments to the jury about
Gongora's failure to take the stand in his own defense, a clear violation of
his Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled as a witness. "We find that the
extraordinarily extensive comments on Gongora's failure to testify resulted in
actual prejudice," the panel ruled.
Gongora was among a handful of men indicted for the 2001 robbery and murder of
Delfino Sierra. He was indicted for capital murder, though at trial prosecutors
argued that he was either guilty of the robbery and shooting, or that he was a
participant in the robbery during which Sierra was shot by one of Gongora's
cohorts. The result was confusion: "The jury heard sharply conflicting evidence
regarding Gongora's role in the offense, including evidence that the shooter
may have been someone other than ... Gongora," reads the court's opinion. One
witness testified that she didn't see who did the shooting, while others
wavered before selecting Gongora - including a witness who was indicted for the
crime, but given a plea deal for 23 years and a promise that he would not be
prosecuted for a second shooting.
Over ongoing defense objections, prosecutors repeatedly pointed out that
Gongora failed to take the witness stand. The trial judge declined to grant a
mistrial and later rejected Gongora's direct appeal. The CCA also rejected
Gongora's argument that the constant comments violated his Fifth Amendment
protections, saying the comments were "not so blatant" that they would have
prejudiced the jury. The Fifth Circuit seemed none too amused.
Not only was the CCA wrong, the Fifth Circuit ruled, but to "conclude otherwise
empties all meaning of this cornerstone of rights upon which our criminal
justice system rests. Its very centrality renders it a primer rule - etched in
the minds of all players in a criminal case. ... Repeated and direct violations
are both inexplicable and inexcusable." Not only was the evidence against
Gongora fairly weak, the panel noted, but based on notes from the jury during
their deliberations, it appears they focused on who and who had not testified -
just as prosecutors had suggested they should.
Gongora will be released from prison within 6 months unless he is retried or
pleads guilty, the court wrote.
(source: Austin Chronicle)
*******************
Bill Would Limit Execution of Intellectually Disabled
Before Texas executed Marvin Wilson last year for the 1992 murder of Jerry
Robert Williams in Beaumont, his case generated headlines, reminding the nation
of a rather unique corner of death penalty law here.
The standards used to determine whether a Texan convicted of murder is mentally
fit to be executed are based in part on the fictional character Lennie from
John Steinbeck's classic novel Of Mice and Men, a fact that enraged the
author's son.
"I find the whole premise to be insulting, outrageous, ridiculous and
profoundly tragic," Thomas Steinbeck said, calling for a halt to Wilson's
execution. "I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would
be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way."
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said Wilson's execution and other cases
left him feeling embarrassed for his home state. "It's junk science. Its not a
credible way of making a decision," he said.
So Ellis filed Senate Bill 750, which would establish new -- and, he argues,
more scientific -- standards to determine when a convicted Texan is too
intellectually disabled to face the death penalty. The bill revives a
decade-old fight with prosecutors, who argue that the current standards are
adequate and that Ellis' proposal would make it too easy for defendants to make
a case that they are mentally retarded and exempt from the death penalty.
"Sen. Ellis' proposal creates two or three additional bites at the apple for a
defendant to show he is mentally retarded, and it skews the process," said
Shannon Edmonds, spokesman for the Texas District and County Attorneys
Association.
In 2001, Texas lawmakers approved a bill by then-state Rep. Juan "Chuy"
Hinojosa, D-McAllen, now a state senator, that would have implemented new
requirements for courts to have independent experts evaluate defendants to
determine whether they were mentally retarded. Gov.Rick Perry vetoed the bill.
In a proclamation with his veto, he argued that existing safeguards were
effective in preventing the execution of the mentally disabled.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that states could
not execute the mentally disabled because it violates the constitutional ban on
cruel and unusual punishment. But it allowed states to develop their own
criteria for mental disabilities.
Texas lawmakers, though, were unable to agree on criteria. Prosecutors wanted a
standard in which jurors would decide during the penalty phase of a capital
murder trial whether a defendant was too intellectually disabled to face
execution, allowing them to consider the person's past crimes in the
decision-making. Defense lawyers supported creating a process that allowed a
judge to evaluate the defendant's mental fitness.
"A legislative fix is always preferable to a judicial fix when the parties can
come together and agree on a solution," Edmonds said. "The problem is that
prosecutors and anti-death penalty advocates have never been able to agree on
how to address this legislatively."
In 2004, when Jose Garcia Briseo's case came before the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, the nine judges were without legislative guidance and developed their
own standards. Lawyers for Briseo, who is still on death row, argued that he
was mentally retarded and should not face execution for the 1991 murder of a
Dimmit County sheriff's deputy. The court rejected those arguments and in the
process developed the so-called Briseo factors that are used now to determine
whether Texas defendants are eligible for the death penalty.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals invoked, in part, an evaluation of Lennie
from Steinbeck's book, writing that "most Texas citizens would agree that
Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and
adaptive skills, be exempt from execution. But does a consensus of Texas
citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance
under the social services definition of mental retardation be exempt from an
otherwise constitutional penalty?"
The court's 3-part definition requires the convicted inmate to have below
average intellectual function, to lack adaptive behavior skills and to have had
those problems prior to age 18.
Lawyers for at least 90 Texas death row inmates have brought so-called Atkins
claims before the courts, arguing that their clients' limited cognitive
functioning exempted them from execution. Of those, 14 have been deemed
mentally retarded and their sentences commuted to life in prison.
Prosecutors stopped asking legislators to approve standards after the court
adopted the Briseo standards, Edmonds said, because they wearied of the fight
with defense lawyers and because they were mostly satisfied with court's
solution.
"I think Texas can continue under the current standard and remain in compliance
with Supreme Court case law," Edmonds said.
But defense lawyers say that Texas still puts mentally retarded defendants to
death, flouting the Supreme Court's prohibition. They argue that Ellis' bill is
a critical step to ensure that the courts rely on scientific evaluations of
mental capacity and that the state doesn't violate the constitutional ban on
cruel and unusual punishment.
"Reliance on the Briseo factors is frankly something that has made the state
the butt of much scientific criticism," said Kathryn Kase, director of the
Texas Defender Service, which represents death row inmates.
Ellis' bill would use the definition developed by the American Association on
Intellectual Developmental Disabilities to determine whether a defendant is
eligible for the death penalty. A key part of the standard set out in the
proposal is that the defendant must have an IQ of 75 or below to be exempt from
execution. Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Nebraska, North
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington use similar standards, but
require an IQ of 70 or below for exemption.
"The most appropriate thing for state statute is to be parallel to existing
definitions that are existing professionally within the field," said Ed
Polloway, dean of graduate studies at Virginia's Lynchburg College and a member
of the AAIDD's death penalty task force. The task force is developing a guide
for states to use to evaluate defendants for intellectual disabilities.
"Our attempt is to stay as close to the science as possible," Polloway said.
The AAIDD's definition of intellectual disability, he said, is used to
determine state and federal aid for programs like Medicaid and special
education placement in schools. The existing Texas death penalty standard,
Polloway said, would allow for the execution of individuals who are considered
intellectually disabled for the purposes of government programs.
Ellis said basing decisions about who is fit for execution on established
scientific research would save Texas money it would otherwise spend fighting
inmates' appeals.
"It will protect the rule of law and the integrity of our judicial system," he
said.
(source: myhighplains.com)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Did post-traumatic stress disorder impair man's memory?
Did post-traumatic stress disorder prevent Matthew Scott Becker from recalling
how he fatally shot his pregnant girlfriend?
Becker's defense attorney suggested it did Wednesday, the third day of Becker's
homicide trial for the death of Allison Walsh and her unborn daughter.
Jurors on Tuesday heard an audio recording of statements Becker made to police.
He said he could not remember exactly what happened before the gun fired inside
his Mastersonville home on Aug. 12, 2011.
Becker, 23, has maintained that the shooting was accidental, but he has made
different statements to police regarding how the gun fired.
Instead of providing exact details, Becker told troopers his mind was a "blur"
and he "blacked out" when the shot was fired.
Defense attorney Dennis Charles suggested those lapses in memory are due to the
trauma Becker sustained while watching Walsh die.
Is it possible Becker didn't remember "because he had just witnessed his
girlfriend get shot in the head?" Charles asked one trooper who interviewed
Becker.
"Well, he shot her," Trooper Chad Roberts replied. "If you shoot somebody,
you're a witness to it."
Charles pressed the trooper further on his expertise concerning a traumatic
event's effect on one's memory.
"I don't have psychological training in that area, no," Roberts replied.
Police and prosecutors contend that Becker was abusive to Walsh, 21, and
intentionally shot her. They are seeking a 1st-degree murder conviction and the
death penalty.
Charles said in an opening statement that the shooting was, at most,
involuntary manslaughter.
Also Wednesday, a doctor discussed the autopsy he performed on Walsh and her
daughter, who lived 7 minutes after an emergency Caesarean section.
Dr. Wayne Ross said the shooter was to Walsh's left, at least 3 1/2 feet away.
She was shot while she was she lying on a bed.
The bullet entered her brain at an upward angle, Ross said, indicating the gun
was lower than she was when it fired.
The single 22-caliber round caused massive damage, Ross said.
"It destroyed the brain," Ross said. "It would be instantly fatal."
The jurors all paid close attention and jotted notes during Ross' testimony.
Several of Walsh's relatives, who had attended the entire trial, sat outside
during Ross' turn on the stand.
When questioned by Assistant District Attorney Mark Fetterman, Ross couldn't
provide an exact distance the bullet traveled before striking Walsh.
"I can't be more specific than that," he said, noting the shooter wasn't closer
than 3 1/2 feet.
Later Wednesday afternoon, a state police trooper and trained expert in
firearms and gun safety took the stand.
Trooper Todd Neumyer explained there are seven safety features on the pistol
used in the shooting that are designed to prevent accidents.
On cross-examination, Neumyer conceded the features could be disregarded while
noting that the mechanical features are secondary to common sense.
Charles has suggested that Becker wasn't knowledgeable about guns even though
he collected them.
Neumyer said a golden rule is to never load a gun unless you are prepared to
use it.
"That has been applied throughout my entire life and I've yet to have an
accident, even though I handle firearms every single day," he said.
Fetterman followed up by asking, "So what is a gun's best safety feature?"
(source: Lancaster New Era)
OHIO:
Steven Cepec asks jury to spare his life
In 2010, Steven Cepec told sheriff's deputies he deserved to die for beating
and strangling a 73-year-old man to death in his Chatham Township home.
On Wednesday, Cepec pleaded with a Medina County common pleas jury to spare his
life.
The same jury found Cepec guilty last month of aggravated murder, aggravated
burglary and aggravated robbery in the slaying of Frank Munz, of 5394 Richman
Road.
In the penalty phase of the trial, which began Monday, the jury will compare
mitigating factors, such as Cepec's childhood and mental disorders, and
aggravated circumstances of the killing.
Police said Cepec, 43, beat Munz with the claw end of a hammer and strangled
him with a lamp cord during a home invasion on June 3, 2010 - 6 days after the
Ohio Parole Board released him from prison.
The jury, which began deliberating Wednesday, can recommend Cepec be sentenced
to death, life in prison without parole or with parole eligibility at 25 or 30
years.
The ultimate decision will be up to Common Pleas Judge James L. Kimbler, but
the judge may not impose a more severe penalty than the one the jury
recommends.
Cepec was the last witness. Ohio law allows defendants in death-penalty cases
to address the jury directly, without being sworn in or cross-examined.
On the stand, Cepec admitted he killed Munz, but said he was sorry and asked
the jury to show mercy.
"It haunts me, over and over," Cepec said. "I get nightmares of this when I
sleep. I see his face."
During the trial last month, sheriff's deputies told the jury that Cepec
confessed to killing Munz at least 4 times and said he deserved the death
penalty for his actions.
Before deliberations began, the judge instructed the jury not to consider that
Cepec said he deserved to die.
"I've been in suicide cells for 2 years. I wanted to die, but I was a coward,"
Cepec testified. "I am so sorry. I just hope that I remain with my life."
In closing arguments, county Assistant Prosecutor Matt Razavi argued Cepec was
not sincere in saying he was sorry he killed Munz.
"Mr. Cepec is an accomplished, manipulative storyteller," he said.
Razavi told the jurors they should look solely at the law.
"According to Ohio law, if the aggravated circumstances outweigh the mitigating
factors in the least, you must impose the death penalty," Razavi said.
Earlier in the penalty phase, Cepec's attorneys called family members to
testify about Cepec's traumatic childhood in a broken family. They said he was
raised primarily by his grandparents, who were abusive toward one another.
They also called psychologists, who testified that Cepec suffered from at least
5 mental health problems: antisocial and borderline personality disorders,
attention deficit disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive
disorder.
The psychologists said these disorders make Cepec unstable, impulsive,
manipulative and sociopathic.
During closing arguments, defense attorney Kerry O'Brien said Cepec doesn't
deserve the death penalty.
"He's not some worthless human being who should be executed and thrown away,"
O'Brien said. "Steve Cepec is a very, very imperfect human being, but he's
still a human being."
O'Brien pushed Cepec's contrition, saying the death penalty should be given
only to "the worst of the worst."
In his closing comments, county Prosecutor Dean Holman told jurors that Ohio
law doesn't reserve the death penalty only for the "worst of the worst."
"He knew what he was doing," Holman said. "He did not act impulsively."
The jury was expected to resume deliberations this morning.
(source: The Media-Gazette)
INDIANA:
Alleged gang member could face death penalty
Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty against an alleged gang member
accused of aiding in the homicides of 6 people.
Juan "Tito" Briseno, of Hammond, is among more than 20 alleged members of the
Almighty Imperial Gangsters charged with racketeering, murder and other crimes
involving drugs in East Chicago.
Briseno will face the death penalty if found guilty of murder in aid of
racketeering and firearm murder.
According to court documents, Briseno aided in the homicides of Luis Ortiz,
Michael Sessum, Miguel Mejias, Harris Brown, Miguel Colon and Latroy Howard.
All six were considered rivals of the gang.
He's accused of killing Howard outside an East Chicago liquor store in June
2010 to move up in rank within the gang, according to court records.
The notice stated one reason for why the death penalty is being sought is
because Briseno wanted to require other gang members to shoot on site,
according to records. The document also states he has a lack of remorse for
acts of violence and is likely to commit those acts again.
The U.S. attorney's office said in a November 2011 news conference that three
of the alleged gang members could face the death penalty.
(source: Northwest Indiana Times)
ARIZONA:
Jury questions could hint at Arias' fate
HLN is covering the Jodi Arias trial live gavel-to-gavel as it comes to its
dramatic conclusion, beginning at 1 p.m. ET each day court is in session. Arias
is accused of killing Travis Alexander, but she says she did it in self-defense
The next stage of the Jodi Arias trial may provide a glimpse into Arias' guilt
or innocence. Arizona is among a handful of states that allow jurors to
question defendants on trial -- and the panel has plenty of questions.
Arias is accused of shooting her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in the head,
stabbing him multiple times and slitting his throat from ear to ear. She says
she killed Alexander in self-defense after he attacked her. Arias is facing the
death penalty if convicted.
Now, Arias will have to answer questions directly from the jurors themselves.
On Tuesday, Judge Sherry Stephens announced the jurors had 100 questions for
Arias after defense attorney Kirk Nurmi finished his redirect examination of
her.
The jurors' questions could be a bellwether moment in the trial. That
questioning could indicate whether Arias will be convicted or acquitted of
killing Alexander.
The focus of their questions could give insight into the evidence, testimony
and issues they are struggling to reconcile or understand.
On Wednesday, attorneys will review the questions in court without the jury
present. They will object to questions when they feel necessary. If the
question survives all legal objections, it will eventually be read to Arias for
her to answer. If not, the question will be discarded. Once all the questions
have been vetted, Arias will take the stand and answer them. Some of the
jurors' questions could be moot if they have been answered during testimony. At
the end of the questioning, the attorneys will have an opportunity to do
follow-up questioning, based on the questions that were asked by the jurors.
After the jurors' questions are answered, the defense has a chance to rest its
case. However, they are expected to call a couple of expert witnesses, possibly
a psychologist and a domestic violence expert.
Once the defense rests, Martinez will have a chance to call rebuttal witnesses.
Alexander's friend Dave Hall is expected to testify that Alexander did not own
a gun, contradicting Arias' testimony about how the slaying took place.
After the prosecution wraps its rebuttal case, attorneys will give their
closing arguments. The jury will then deliberate on Arias' guilt or innocence.
(source: HLN TV News)
NEVADA:
Lawmaker seeks to clamp down on death row appeals in Nevada
Nevada's last execution was in April 2006 and there are now 82 inmates in death
row.
Some of their convictions date back to the 1980s as their cases are mired in
the courts.
Sen. Don Gustavson, R-Sparks, has introduced a bill to limit the petitions,
which often are based on technicalities, including whether the attorney was
competent in representing the accused at trial.
Death sentences are automatically appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. If
unsuccessful, the convict can file a writ of habeas corpus, challenging a
conviction on other grounds.
Senate Bill 214 says a prisoner may not file a 2nd or successive petition
unless he gets approval of the court. The state Attorney General's Office or
the District Attorney's Office would have the opportunity to file an answer to
reject the request of the prisoner.
In asking for permission to bring second and successive writ, the prisoner must
demonstrate "by clear and convincing evidence" that he or she is innocent of
the crime or that he or she is ineligible for the death penalty.
Gustavson's bill also eliminates the requirements that the courts are required
to appoint a lawyer on the 1st petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It would
be up to the court's discretion whether to select a lawyer for the inmate on
the petitions for a such a writ.
This would save money in the judicial system, Gustavson said.
The bill also says the courts will not be required to stay the executions on
the subsequent petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.
(source: Las Vegas Sun)
***********************
Woman to face death penalty in Las Vegas girl's slaying
Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty in the case of a former
blackjack dealer charged in the stabbing death of her ex-boyfriend's daughter
and a face-slashing attack on a co-worker at a Las Vegas Strip casino.
An aide said Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson and prosecutors made
the decision Wednesday in the case against Brenda Stokes Wilson.
Earlier, Stokes Wilson pleaded not guilty to killing 10-year-old Jade Morris on
Dec. 21 and attacking former friend and co-worker Joyce Rhone with razors at
the Bellagio casino.
A Clark County District Court judge scheduled trial in July. But the date will
likely be delayed while Stokes Wilson is appointed lawyers from the Clark
County special public defenders' office.
Stokes Wilson's current attorney, Tony Liker, told the judge he plans to
withdraw from the case.
(source: KTNV News)
IDAHO:
Boise man accused of torture in woman's beating death
A 55-year-old Boise man has been charged with 1st-degree murder by torture in
the violent killing of a woman found dead at the Cabana Inn motel Tuesday.
The woman has been identified as 46-year-old Mamokete Folkes. Her address is
unknown. The Ada County coroner is still trying to locate her next of kin.
Thomas Lee Herman, 55, appeared before Ada County Magistrate Judge Kevin Swain
on Wednesday. He was arraigned on the murder charge.
Prosecutors allege Herman beat Folkes to death, saying he tortured her by using
a combination of violent blows from his hands and feet.
According to court documents, Folkes suffered a lacerated liver and traumatic
brain injury during the beating.
Herman is a self-described transient. He also has a criminal history of
violence dating back nearly 40 years in Idaho, Ohio, and Utah.
His most recent charge came on Dec. 27, 2012, when he was arrested for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He pleaded down to misdemeanor
disturbing the peace. He served only 20 days in jail.
Herman's next court date is set for March 20, where the 55-year-old will face a
preliminary hearing. He's currently being held in the Ada County Jail without
bond.
1st-degree murder by torture is punishable by the death penalty.
Ada County Prosecutor Greg Bower said, alternatively, Herman could be charged
with premeditated murder if the torture charge is amended.
(source: KTVB News)
CALIFORNIA:
Judge in Collins' conflict of interest case wants a trial date this year;
Defense attorney a no-show
Apparently grounded by bad weather in the Midwest, the high-profile attorney of
former county water board member Steve Collins failed to show up for his 1st
court hearing in the case on Wednesday.
But a Superior Court judge made it clear the case will remain on schedule.
San Francisco attorney Michael Burt and his associate who did appear, attorney
Muhammad Hamoudi, drew an admonition from Judge Pamela Butler that Burt should
make sure to show up at the next court hearing on April 19 and be prepared for
a trial date to be set in the already lengthy case.
Butler told Hamoudi and Collins, who appeared in court, that the case would not
stretch on for "2 or 3 years," adding, "We are going to get a trial date in
2013."
The judge's comments came after Hamoudi indicated the defense would file a
motion to dismiss charges against Collins on the basis of insufficient evidence
presented during the preliminary hearing. Hamoudi told the court the defense
had just received 11 boxes of evidence connected to the case from Public
Defender Jim Egar's office on Friday, and would need time to go through the
records, including the transcript of the preliminary hearing, before deciding
how to proceed.
The attorney said the defense had to go ahead and file the motion to dismiss to
preserve the right to argue it and seek additional review from a higher court,
if needed.
Such a motion must be filed within 60 days of Collins' arraignment, which
occurred Jan. 11.
The motion to dismiss will be heard by a different judge than Butler, who
ordered defense briefs on the motion by April 5. Collins has pleaded not guilty
to 41 charges, including felony conflict of interest allegations that he had a
financial interest in key agreements at the core of the failed regional
desalination project. He is accused of accepting $160,000 in payments from
private consultant RMC Water and Environment for work he did on the project in
2010 while he was a public official.
The bulk of charges against Collins involve allegations that he accepted
payments from Castroville artichoke grower Ocean Mist Farms for several years
for public meetings he never attended or never occurred.
Collins' defense has argued he was recruited to work on the desal project by
county officials and assured his work for RMC was not a conflict of interest.
His defense argued his Ocean Mist invoices were never intended to be accurate
representations of his actual work and simply a pro forma method to justify
regular consulting payments.
Collins was represented by the well-known local attorney team of Mike Lawrence
and Juliet Peck until his arraignment, when he told the court he could no
longer pay for private representation.
He was assigned to the public defender's office, which declared a conflict, and
Burt was assigned to the case through the Alternate Defender's Office.
Burt, an expert in death penalty cases, is one of four attorneys who serve as
federal death penalty resource counsel. He had appeared in federal court in the
Midwest on Monday before finding himself stranded there late Tuesday.
(source: Santa Cruz Sentinel)
WASHINGTON:
Bill to abolish death penalty gets hearing; The Washington state House heard
Rep. Reuven Carlyle's bill revoking capital punishment in the Judiciary
Committee on Wednesday, a rare feat given that death-penalty bills usually go
nowhere.
Every year for the past 5 years, Rep. Reuven Carlyle has sponsored a bill that
would eliminate Washington's death penalty. And every year the bill went
nowhere.
But this year, the Seattle Democrat's bill managed to get a public hearing in
the House Judiciary Committee. On Wednesday, lobbyists from several
organizations - including the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of
Women Voters and the Faith Action Network - testified in favor of the bill,
along with several individuals whose family members had been murdered. No one
testified against the bill.
Although capital punishment has been briefly banned from time to time through
legislative action and court rulings, it has been legal for most of
Washington's statehood. The Legislature most recently passed a law legalizing
the death penalty in 1981, and since then 32 people have been placed on death
row. 5 have been executed. The last time capital punishment was used in
Washington was the 2010 execution of Cal Coburn Brown, convicted of the 1991
murder of a Seattle woman.
House Bill 1504 has 21 supporters in the House, including Rep. Maureen Walsh,
R-Walla Walla, the only Republican who signed on to the bill. But the bill is
unlikely to move forward, Carlyle said.
Still, he called the hearing a victory, because it allowed Washington citizens
to take part in a global conversation about the morality of capital punishment.
17 states have banned the death penalty, and Maryland could become No. 18. On
Wednesday morning, that state's Senate voted to make it illegal. The measure
has yet to be approved by the Maryland House and governor.
"There is something honorable and noble about putting this issue on the table
to acknowledge that there is a national and international movement afoot to
move away from the death penalty," Carlyle said.
Carlyle said his aversion to capital punishment is two pronged: He is opposed
to it from a policy standpoint because of the high cost of death-penalty trials
and appeals, and he is opposed morally because of the possibility that someone
could be wrongfully put to death.
"There is no way to operate perfectly in applying the death penalty," Carlyle
explained. "The system is flawed and inherently subjective."
Mark Larranaga, a Seattle lawyer and former Washington Death Penalty Assistance
Center director, told lawmakers that trying death-penalty cases is
significantly and unavoidably more expensive than trying other cases.
"The cost associated with capital punishment is inherent in the process,"
Larranaga said. "It is extremely expensive."
A 2006 Washington State Bar Association study showed that the court operation
costs for a capital-punishment case were $50,000 to $70,000 higher than for a
noncapital case.
High costs are the result of longer trials and enhanced jury screening, among
other factors. Attorney fees for the prosecution and defense combined averaged
about $470,000 higher than for a noncapital case.
State law mandates that defendants in capital-punishment cases be granted an
appeal, which can cost between $47,000 and $135,000 in additional defense
attorney fees, the study said.
Rep. Jay Rodne, R-North Bend, said he believes the death penalty is necessary
in certain cases - such as the appalling 2009 murders of 4 Lakewood police
officers.
"I think that there's absolutely a valid place in our criminal justice system
for capital punishment," Rodne said.
(source: Seattle Times)
***************************************
Judge limits billable hours for Stenson's co-defense
2 of Darold Stenson's 3 attorneys will bill Clallam County taxpayers for no
more than 300 hours beginning next month, a Superior Court judge has ruled.
Stenson, 60, is a former death row inmate from Sequim who is charged with
killing his wife and business partner in 1993.
The state Supreme Court dismissed his 1994 conviction last May and remanded the
case to Clallam County Superior Court for a new trial.
Judge S. Brooke Taylor placed "reasonable limits" on Stenson's 3-lawyer defense
team in a Tuesday ruling.
"Mr. [Roger] Hunko will remain lead counsel, and it will be his responsibility
to assign work to his co-counsel, with the understanding that the county will
not be obligated to compensate the 2 additional counsel for services after
March 31, 2013, which exceed a total of 300 hours between the 2 additional
assigned counsel," Taylor wrote.
The limit will apply throughout the 3-week trial, which is scheduled to begin
July 8.
Hunko, a death penalty-certified lawyer from Port Orchard, was appointed
Stenson???s lead attorney last July.
Seattle attorney Sherilyn Peterson, who represented Stenson in a 2008 challenge
to the lethal injection method of execution, and Blake Kremer of University
Place were appointed co-counsel in August.
The death penalty was still on the table when the 3 lawyers were appointed.
They each receive $125 per hour plus expenses and travel costs.
Retired Superior Court Judge Ken Williams questioned whether Stenson needed all
3 lawyers after Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly announced in December that she
would not seek the death penalty.
"I've given it a great deal of thought," Taylor told Hunko and Kremer in a
40-minute status hearing Wednesday.
"I'm not interested in hearing more argument on the issue."
Assigning the Clallam Public Defender was not an option because the same office
defended Stenson in 1994.
Cost of attorneys
Superior Court Administrator Lindy Clevenger told the Peninsula Daily News last
month that Stenson's lawyers had collected a combined $156,730 in attorneys
fees and charged $18,577 for expert services as of Feb. 15.
Taylor noted that he made his decision before Clallam County Sheriff Bill
Benedict told the PDN and KONP radio last month that the triple-lawyer defense
team was an unnecessary expense to county taxpayers.
"Those comments by the sheriff were not a factor in the analysis of this issue
but will have to be considered in analyzing the pending motion for a change of
venue," Taylor concluded in his ruling.
Change of venue
Peterson filed a motion for a change of venue Jan. 22 and supplemental motions
Feb. 6 and 22.
The 1st supplemental motion to move the trial to King County focused on a 2010
KOMO-TV interview with the widow of Frank Hoerner, 1 of Stenson's alleged
victims.
The 2nd motion focused on Benedict's comments to local media.
"It has been sort of a dynamic situation, and recent developments have caused
the defense to supplement their initial memorandum with two supplemental
memoranda," Taylor said.
Taylor said he would allow Kelly to respond to the supplemental motions by the
end of this week and issue a ruling early next week.
The judge set a May 17 filing deadline for pretrial motions and a May 31
deadline for responses.
Another status hearing was scheduled for June 12.
Stenson is being held without bail in the Clallam County jail.
(source: Peninsula News Daily)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
