April 21 TENNESSEE: Selmer residents weigh in on Winkler verdict The preacher's wife, Mary Winkler, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the death of her husband Matthew. The preacher murder thrust the small town of Selmer into the national spotlight and now that the verdict is in people in the small town have a lot to say. The folks in Selmer have spent the last year trying the Mary Winkler case in the court of public opinion. Now that a real jury has made its decision, many have the same reaction. A lot of people say Winkler's time on the stand and details of spousal abuse may have saved her time in prison by winning sympathy. "Until you've been in a situation like that or helped someone in a situation like that I don't think you have any idea how traumatizing that can be," says Selmer resident Jackie Prather. Angie Willard watched much of the trial and feels bad for Mary Winkler and Matthew Winkler's family. "For his family's sake and stuff it's probably good she had to serve some time. But I'm glad she's not getting the 1st degree murder," adds Willard. Brian Doles says the verdict would have been tougher had Winkler been a man, "he'd probably got life or the death penalty." That sentiment was heard a lot and started a lot of arguments. "I own a business and some of the employees went this way, some went that way and had pretty heated discussions," says Jack Davis. An employee at one hotel says she got in such a heated argument with a co-worker she had to leave work. Then there was the mother and daughter who fought just hours after the verdict because of their varying opinions. The discussion won't end anytime soon and is sure to heat up when Winkler is sentenced. Winkler is staying with a friend in McMinnville, Tennessee awaiting her May 18th sentencing. She's also named in a $2 million wrongful death lawsuit filed by Matthew's parents on behalf of the couple's 3 daughters. And Mary Winkler is waiting for a Judge in Jackson, Tennessee, to decide whether she can see her girls. (source: WMC-TV) NEVADA: Mack asked for death penalty "I will ask for the death penalty," Darren Mack told Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick, in an e-mail Mack wrote from Mexico one week after his estranged wife was stabbed to death and their divorce judge was shot in his chambers. "And (I) want it agreed on prior to surrender," Mack said in his list of conditions that Gammick read aloud during one of five conversations that Gammick recorded from June 19 to 22 -- the week after the June 12 crimes. The transcript of the phone calls was released for the first time on Thursday in a motion filed by Mack's lawyers, Scott Freeman and David Chesnoff. The motion asked the court to throw out those recordings and transcripts because, they say, Gammick recorded the phone calls illegally. Gammick denies that, saying he had a federal court order to record the calls. The recordings are the 1st glimpse of Mack's state of mind after the stabbing and shooting he is accused of committing, and reveals the negotiations that began while Mack was hiding somewhere near Mazatlan, Mexico and ended 11-days later with his surrender in Puerto Vallarta and return to Reno. Mack was charged with the murder of Charla Mack and the attempted murder of Washoe District Family Court Judge Chuck Weller. He pleaded not guilty and filed a motion Thursday adding "not guilty by reason of insanity" to his plea. His trial is set for Oct. 1. Soon after Mack returned to Reno, Gammick recused himself and the Washoe County District Attorney's office from the case because of his long friendship with Mack and his involvement in his surrender. Clark County Assistant District Christopher Lalli and Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Daskas took over last July, and about a week later, announced that they would not seek the death penalty. It's unclear when Mack began communicating Gammick, but the first recorded call occurred at 2:30 p.m. on June 19 -- a Monday -- and followed an e-mail that Mack had sent to Gammick laying out the conditions of his surrender. "Did you get the e-mail?" Mack asked Gammick. "Yes," he replied, and began reading each item Mack listed. "Number one, I will surrender only to Richard Gammick and who he wants to bring," Gammick read. "I trust him, I am unarmed and will go peacefully." Another condition: Mack wanted his friend and Reno attorney Mike Laub to join Gammick at the surrender. And then Gammick read Mack's request to be executed. "That one I cannot answer for you at this time," Gammick told Mack in response. "We've got laws that have to be met. I can not promise you we're going to get you the death penalty." "That's fine," Mack replied. "I just want it to be on record that, uh, I'm not going to fight that." Mack's note said that he was defending himself from "yet another attack from Charla," and said he was sure that people would want "someone to really pay for this." Since he was going along with the death penalty, Mack said in the e-mail, he wanted it to happen in one year. "You mean within a year?" Gammick asked Mack. "You want at least a year? What do you want to do?" As a condition of his surrender, Mack replied, he wanted a computer and access to the Internet so he could communicate with the media, "and really get this, what's happening to people, out in the open." He told Gammick that he wanted to expose the problems "in this thing called a family court industry" and said it's "destroying people." Mack said he figured it would take a while to "go through all the legal stuff and then go get it done at the end of the year." "I just don't want it to be 10 years," Mack said, and added: "I don't want this thing to turn into a big thing all about me and fighting for my, you know, coming up with some crazy defense." "I did what I did," Mack told Gammick. "I'll tell you what it is, and if I need to die for it, I will. That's it." (source: Reno Gazette-Journal) ILLINOIS: Newly appointed attorneys for a Peoria man accused of strangling a 72-year-old woman in January waived his rights to a speedy trial Friday and instead asked for, and received, a May 25 hearing. A trial date for Shane Heuck, who faces the death penalty, has not yet been set. Attorneys Jay Elmore and Jeff Page, both of Springfield, were appointed to Heuck's case by Circuit Judge Stuart Borden during a hearing that lasted only a few minutes in Peoria County Circuit Court. Borden also granted a motion allowing Page and Elmore to ask for experts or investigators outside the presence of prosecutors. Peoria County State's Attorney Kevin Lyons didn't object to the motion. Such a request is typically done when a defendant, such as Heuck, is relying on public funds to hire such experts. Defense attorneys are allowed such leeway so they don't tip their hand as to what type of defense they may be considering. Heuck remains jailed on $2 million bond and faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of residential burglary. One of the murder charges alleges "felony murder," or that Heuck was committing residential burglary when he killed West Bluff resident Virginia Mallow, a factor that is death-penalty eligible. (source: Peoria Journal Star) ******************************* Auroran gets 64 years in one murder, prepares for 2nd trial An Aurora man was sentenced this week to 64 years in prison for a 2002 murder, even as he prepares to face a 2nd murder case next month. Matthew Quigley, 21, of the 1100 block of Superior Street, will have to serve 100 % of his sentence because he used a gun in the commission of a murder. On Nov. 17, 2002, Quigley walked up behind 15-year-old Erbel Valdez and shot him five times in the back, prosecutors said. Quigley, allegedly acting on the orders of Fernando Delatorre, believed Valdez was a gang member, although prosecutors found no gang connections, prosecutors said. Quigley confessed to the crime, but his attorney argued that the confession also was ordered by Delatorre. A jury took just 2 hours to convict Quigley. He will receive credit for more than four years he already has spent in custody. Now Quigley faces a 2nd trial for a similar murder. On Oct. 16, 2002, police say, Quigley walked up to David Diego Morales-Garcia, 24, and shot him in the back multiple times on Delatorre's orders. Quigley also confessed to that murder, and his statements will be used at the trial, which could begin May 21. Morales was not believed to be a gang member, but Quigley thought he was, police said. "He (Quigley) is a very dangerous kid," said Kane County Assistant State's Attorney Jody Gleason. Delatorre was charged in Kane County for his alleged involvement, but those cases were dropped when he was charged in a federal conspiracy case. Delatorre could face the death penalty in that case. (source: Aurora Beacon News) ******************************** Selection of Ramsey jury slow going After 3 weeks of work, only 8 jurors have been seated in the retrial of man accused of killing 2 Hancock County girls in 1996. 3 weeks of jury selection neared an end Friday with only 8 jurors picked for the Daniel Ramsey murder trial. 4 more jurors and four alternates must be picked before testimony begins in Ramsey's death penalty case. Judge Steven Bordner is seating the jury in groups of 4, with jurors being individually questioned by the judge and attorneys. Besides the eight jurors already selected, 3 jurors passed the initial questioning phase, but could still be excused for cause or by pre-emptory challenge. Ramsey is on trial for the 1996 murders of 2 Hancock County girls. A 1997 conviction and death penalty sentence were overturned in 2000, leading to his new trial. The trial started April 2. More than 90 jurors have gone through the selection process, with several absent and several others excused without having to appear at the Fulton County Courthouse. Each side has 14 pre-emptory challenges, or the right to excuse jurors without question. Friday afternoon, defense attorneys had only 1 challenge left, while prosecutors had 2 left. Bordner turned down a motion Friday morning by defense attorney Jim Dennis to allow 20 pre-emptory challenges. Mike Atterberry and Bill Elward of the Illinois attorney general's office in Springfield and Hancock County State's Attorney Jim Drozdz are trying the case. Ramsey's court-appointed attorneys are Jake Carter and Dennis. Ramsey was convicted of shooting and killing Laura Marson, 16, of Basco, and Lonna Sloop, 12, of Burnside, in July 1996. Injured were Ramsey's former girlfriend and Lonna's sister, Rachel Sloop, then 17, and 3-year-old Cody Hamelton and 2-year-old Courtney Hamelton of Carthage. His conviction and sentence were overturned in August 2000 by the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled Ramsey should be given a new trial using a broader definition of the insanity defense. Bordner said the trial will last between 4 and 6 weeks. Some jurors have been excused because they said they could not be fair to Ramsey since the case involved young children. Others were not selected because of their death penalty opinions. A potential juror questioned Friday morning said serving 4 to 6 weeks on the jury would be a financial hardship and hard on the potential juror's employer. Another person said the fact young children were involved would make jurors biased against Ramsey. When a juror is picked, Bordner said he or she will be required to sign an affidavit and promise not to discuss the case. (source: Quincy Herald Whig) USA: OPINION----How My Position On the Death Penalty Wavered After graduating from college in 1991 I worked as a newspaper reporter in Southern California. Often the newspaper's sole reporter I covered a variety of beats. Looking back on the work, though, the stories I remember the best are the ones I covered as a police reporter. On that beat you see the best and worst of people - well, more often the latter - and are left with memories, some good and some bad. It has been said that a liberal is a conservative who got mugged. I thought about that saying after covering a murder trial and sentencing for a serial killer. I'd read arguments on both sides of the capital punishment argument and I knew where I stood. I was a good liberal - I'd quote Mahatma Gandhi at the drop of a conservative speaker's hat. I did speeches on the issues and probably annoyed my parents with my rantings on the matter. But after seeing the death penalty actually being considred, as I covered murder trials for the Hemet News, that I began to question things... a process I'm still continuing to this day. There was a man in Riverside County named William Suff. He was accused of murdering 13 prostitutes. It took the county 18 months to figure out who the serial killer was. It turned out he was a county employee. There was a lovely picture of him on a county newsletter, praising him for carpooling. I grew up fascinated by mysterials. And legal thrillers. With a copy of my latest Robert Parker or Scott Turow I'd sometimes go by the courthouse on the way to work. Who wants to cover a city council meeting when a crime hearing that is somehow related to that town is going on? After some pleading, my editor said I could cover portions of the Suff trial. After all, one of the victims was from the area. But I also had to cover my usual government beat. I thought that by seeing people like Suff, people doing deeds that seemed like pure evil, I could better understand people. But if there are people of pure evil, then where did that leave ideas like rehabilitation? And what about people I'd later cover like Dora Buenrostro, who would stab to death her three children, blame the crimes on her husband and then scream in the middle of a courtroom that there were snakes coming right at her? The court said she was mentally competent to stand trial.The prosecutor said the crimes came about because of passion and jealousy. Is this the best way to understand human weaknesses? I wondered. I'm not sure now. I just know I had some sleepless nites then. The 1st and the last days were the worst, both to watch and to describe in print. On the 1st day of the Suff trial they began showing photos of the victims. I guess they wanted to shock the jury with his callousness of his actions. I was sitting between 2 elderly couples. figured they were families of the victims but I didn't ask them. I was even more shy then I am now and I figured if anyone wanted to speak to a reporter they knew where to find me, as I had my tell-tale sign, my scarlet letter of sorts, of a reporter's notepad. Why should I add to their pain at this time? It was, I decided, a time to be a human first and a reporter 2nd. Victim by victim the prosecutor explained what Suff allegedly did. And he showed a Suff ritual - slicing off the breasts of the women. Sitting next to a couple as they not only dealt with the realization, many were in denial, that their daughters were prostitutes but to see a photo of their nude butchered daughter shown to the whole room. .. while Suff watched impassively... I won't try to describe that. Later in the trial Suff's wife testified. I think in my story for that day I described her rocking back and forth on the witness stand as she explained that she had no idea what her husband was doing. Or that the used shirts he would sometimes give her might have come from other women. Or that the mysterious deaths occuring to not only her daughter or, unknown to her, a baby from his former wife 20 years earlier... were not the accidents they appeared to be. But when I think back to the vivid days of that six week trial what stands out the most is the sentencing. On the day the jury convicted him, Suff had no reaction. The family members sounded understandably angry and vindictive. A month later the judge was ready to pronounce his sentence. The family members spoke first. They would take turns filing to the front of the courtroom and then making a speech. A few spoke of their personal loss. Then things grew more heated. "You are pure evil. I hope they kill you!" said one sweet-looking grandmother. "Die! Die! I hope they make you die!" said another. Things grew more surreal when it was Suff's turn to speak. "I'm not the person the media makes me out to be. I'm just a friendly misunderstood hopeless romantic," he said. This was not the right crowd for him to make a "I'm a lover, not a fighter" speech. This man who killed and exuded evil thoughts was instead speaking of love? And how was this received? With hatred. "Die, you bastard!" screamed a couple sitting next to me. Others also shouted threats. It seemed a bit strange to me that those who were the victim of his hatred were now speaking of violence themselves and sounding so hateful that I wanted to move away from them. At the same time, though, it made complete sense. I realized that on issues like the death penalty, as with torture, it's one thing to debate the issue in the kind of cold hypothetical terms of a classroom and quite another to discuss it in, say, a courtroom. In thinking and writing about war crimes and torture today the way I put it is this: "We should not use extreme circumstances, real or imaginary, to make policy decisions or take ultimate stands on a complicated issues. Better to make those decisions in unemotional circumstances." I still think that makes sense. But who would I tell these relatives, who seem to be almost blood-thirsty in their quest for revenge, that they should wait until calmer times to stake out a position on the issue? I can't. Can you? If I had to try to sum up what I learned it is this - taking absolute positions is easy, provided you don't have to actually test those positions in sticky emotional situations like this one. (source: Opinion, Blogcritics.org; Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. )
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TENN., NEV., ILL., USA
Rick Halperin Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:17:26 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
