Oct. 27
TEXAS----execution
Convicted Cop Killer Executed in Huntsville
Former San Antonio street gang member Frank Garcia has been put to death for
fatally shooting a veteran police officer who was trying to resolve a domestic
dispute.
Garcia was condemned for killing 48-year-old Officer Hector Garza, a father of
5 who had 25 years on the San Antonio police force when he was gunned down
March 29, 2001. Garcia's wife also was killed in the gunfire.
The 39-year-old Garcia shouted "Thank you, Yahweh," over and over until he lost
consciousness. He was pronounced dead at 7:02 p.m. CDT Thursday.
A half-hour before, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the punishment.
Garcia's lawyers argued in appeals he was mentally impaired and ineligible for
the death penalty under high court rulings.
Garcia becomes the 12th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in Texas,
and the 476th overall since the state resumed capital punishment on December
17, 1982. Garcia becomes the 237th condemned inmate to be put to death in Texas
since Rick Perry became governor in 2001.
Garcia becomes the 39th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the
USA and the 1273rd overall since the nation resumed executions on January 17,
1977.
(sources: Assoicated Press & Rick Halperin)
**********
Man convicted of killing cop, wife put to death in Texas
A Texas man convicted of murdering a San Antonio police officer before turning
his gun on his wife was put to death Thursday evening, soon after the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected his last-minute appeal.
The time of death for Frank Martinez Garcia was 7:02 p.m. CT (8:02 p.m. ET),
said Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Becky Blanton.
Garcia was 28 on March 29, 2001, when San Antonio police officer Hector Garza
responded to a call about a domestic disturbance at the home Garcia shared with
his parents, his wife, Jessica, and their children.
Garza, 49, died first after being shot 3 times by Garcia, the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice said on its website. Garcia's wife died after he shot her 6
times.
He also fired several shots at others outside the home, wounding his wife's
uncle, according to authorities. The couple's 5-year-old daughter witnessed the
murders, according to the Department of Criminal Justice.
The office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stated, on its website, that
Garcia -- who had been arrested with gang members in 1992 -- also fired his
weapon at the vice principal of a nearby elementary school, hitting the front
door of the school.
Garcia eventually surrendered to police, later admitting in a formal written
statement that he had intentionally killed both the police officer and his
wife, according to the attorney general.
A Bexar County grand jury indicted him in September 2001 for capital murder.
During his trial, jurors saw photos from inside Garcia's home showing him and
his wife brandishing weapons. Prosecutors also noted that his wife Jessica
sought help from a battered women's shelter in 1994, after alleging physical
and emotional abuse, while her co-workers had seen marks and bruises on her.
In February 2002, Garcia was convicted and sentenced to death.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction 2 years later. And
in 2007, the same court denied his application for habeas corpus relief -- in
other words, claiming the state didn't have a right to hold him -- according to
the attorney general.
A U.S. district court turned down a similar petition in 2009, and a U.S.
Circuit of Appeals court rejected his appeal the following year. In March 2011,
the U.S. Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari review, a legal term
related to a higher court reviewing a lower court's decision.
(source: CNN)
**************
Rival hits Perry on death penalty----Dark horse Johnson contends innocent may
have been executed
Former New Mexico governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Gary E.
Johnson said he saw the dangers of the death penalty up close during his 2
terms in office - and says he is convinced Texas has executed innocent people.
In a wide-ranging interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times
this week, Mr. Johnson, who is mounting a long-shot bid for GOP nomination,
said his current opposition to the death penalty stems from having once pushed
a bill to curtail appeals that he modeled on Texas law, but which, he now says,
would have led in at least one case to the execution of innocent persons in a
gang-murder case.
“If my legislation would have passed, they would have been put to death, and
they would have been innocent. And I believe Texas has done the same,” he said,
pointing to the neighboring state run by Gov. Rick Perry, who is also running
for the presidential nomination.
He said he does not know for certain Texas has executed innocent people, but is
convinced it has happened “just because of how many people have been put to
death.”
Mr. Perry’s campaign referred calls to his official governor’s office, which
said he is confident in the systems and safeguards the state has in place.
“Like the vast majority of Texans, Gov. Perry supports the death penalty as a
fitting and constitutional punishment for the most heinous crimes,” said
spokeswoman Lucy Nashed. “We are confident that Texas’ criminal justice system
has the appropriate due process, thorough appeals and necessary protections to
ensure that only those who are guilty receive the ultimate punishment.”
During one GOP presidential debate, the audience applauded Mr. Perry’s record
of overseeing executions - something Mr. Johnson told The Times caused him to
recoil.
“I’m thinking, ‘Oh, gosh, I bet there were a few of them that were innocent,’ ”
he said.
Mr. Johnson, a 58-year-old former businessman who calls himself the “No. 9
candidate” in what most press accounts portray as an eight-candidate field, is
fighting to win a regular place on the debate stages and higher visibility in
opinion polls.
What’s unclear, however, is why he wants to be seen as part of the Republican
field, with which he routinely disagrees on everything from immigration policy
to marijuana to abortion.
He shook his head as he recalled some in the audience at another GOP debate
booing a video of an openly gay soldier.
“Holy cow,” he said. “I wanted to just say, ‘Wait a minute, I’m not a part of
these people. I’m not a part of what they’re booing about here. This isn’t the
Republican Party I’m a member of.’"
Mr. Johnson said he’s seeking to be the voice for the rest of the party: the
non-activist, non-social conservatives he suspects are out there.
“I think the majority of Republicans would describe themselves the same way,”
he said. “If you take me as No. 9 candidate, which I think that’s a safe place
to put me, the 8 that are ahead of me are all social conservatives. They’re
not, in my opinion, necessarily representative of a majority of Republicans.”
A key part of his claim is that a majority of Republicans share his pro-choice
views, despite polling data to the contrary. A Gallup analysis in June of polls
over the last few years found that 68 % of self-identified Republicans are
pro-life.
In the interview with The TimesMr. Johnson also:
--Touted his more than 750 vetoes as governor, and said he secretly hopes
another candidate challenges his claim that that total is more than the vetoes
of all other governors at the time combined.
--Vowed to submit a balanced budget his first year in the White House, a budget
he said would amount to a 43 % spending cut.
--Voiced opposition to new tariffs on China, saying the free market should be
left to control trade.
--Expressed surprise that his stance on legalizing marijuana hadn’t produced
more support from the pro-pot movements that have won ballot initiatives across
the country. “How does it not work that 100 million Americans who smoke
marijuana haven’t donated $10 to my campaign? Or $1 million for that matter? Or
$100,000 for that matter? They haven’t, and it’s surprising.”
--Opposed a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing that legalizing
marijuana would reduce smuggling and a better immigration system would ease the
flow of illegal immigrants.
--Couldn’t name a Supreme Court justice he would use as a model as president in
his picks for the high court, but recounted his litmus test for judges in New
Mexico, which involved a hypothetical law mandating the death penalty for
graffiti artists.
“There were some - many - who said, ‘yes,’ they would. There were many who said
they wouldn’t, and then there were a handful who said, ‘Based on what you’re
saying, I would have to implement the death penalty, but because that is just
wrong, I would resign,’” Mr. Johnson said. He said he rejected the candidates
who wouldn’t have carried out the execution, but was most intrigued by those
who said they would resign.
(source: Washington Times)
******************
Perry asked to grant DNA testing to death row inmate
With convicted killer Henry Skinner's execution less than 2 weeks away, a group
of legislators and former prosecutors and judges on Thursday called on Gov.
Rick Perry for prompt DNA testing of items that could help clear the one-time
paralegal of the triple murder that sent him to death row.
Skinner, 49, consistently has contended he was too impaired by alcohol and
codeine to have fatally bludgeoned his girlfriend and fatally stabbed her 2
adult sons in a 1993 New Year's Eve rampage at the couple's Pampa home.
Execution set Nov. 9
Skinner, who came within an hour of execution in March 2010, before the U.S.
Supreme Court granted a stay, has petitions to obtain the DNA testing before
state and federal courts. He is scheduled to be executed on Nov. 9.
In the letter to Perry, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Gray County
District Attorney Lynn Switzer, the current and former officials expressed
"grave and growing concerns about the state's stubborn refusal to date to test
all the evidence in the Skinner case."
Among untested items are the female victim's fingernail clippings, swabs from a
rape kit, two knives, a blood-stained windbreaker and a bloody towel found at
the crime scene.
The letter says there is "simply no justifiable reason" for the state to resist
granting DNA testing.
No state response
"We believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain
crimes and we understand that the DNA testing might well show that Mr. Skinner
is deserving of that punishment," the authors write. "But we are also steadfast
in our belief that when it comes to the ultimate penalty, we must do everything
in our power to ensure certainty before taking the irreversible step of
carrying out an execution. ... We implore you to take the lead in the search
for the truth in this case."
Among those signing the letter were former Gov. Mark White; state Sens. Rodney
Ellis and Juan Hinojosa, Democrats from Houston and McAllen, respectively;
state Reps. Pete Gallego and Eddie Rodriguez, Democrats from Alpine and Austin;
former Harris County assistant district attorneys Wendell Odom Jr., Earl Musick
and Joanne Musick; and former Harris County state District Judge Norman
Lanford.
Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed referred requests for comment to Abbott and
Switzer, saying the governor would not comment on a case in the courts.
Abbott's office did not respond to inquiries.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
CONNECTICUT:
Death Penalty Foes To Speak at Stamford Church
A Stamford woman who sat through a capital murder trial in the killing of her
brother will share her story and push for the repeal of the state's death
penalty Sunday at Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church.
“My experience with the prosecution of my brother's killer and my observance of
our state's use of the death penalty has led me to the conclusion that
Connecticut's death penalty divides and harms surviving family members,”
Stamford resident Catherine Ednie said in a statement. “The death penalty here
divides victims by attempting to reserve it for the ‘most heinous’ crimes, but
every family who loses a loved one to murder sees their crime as the most
heinous.”
Ednie’s brother, David Froelich, and four of his friends were murdered in
Georgetown in 1995. She is one of 100 victim family members speaking out
against capital punishment in Connecticut, the statement said.
Joining Ednie will be Juan Roberto Melendez-Colon, who spent more than 17 years
on death row in Florida after being falsely convicted for the murder of Delbert
Baker in 1984. After Melendez-Colon had spent 16 years in prison, a transcript
of a confession to Baker’s murder was found, and it was learned that the
prosecutor had withheld the transcript as evidence, the statement said.
Melendez-Colon is one of 138 Death Row inmates who have been exonerated since
1973, the statement said.
“We must get rid of the death penalty because no matter how hard you try to fix
the law, it is a human law, it is made and administered by humans and humans
make mistakes,” the New York native said.
The program begins at 1 p.m. in Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church, 29
Grove St., Stamford.
(source: The Daily Stamford)
GEORGIA:
Why Innocence Didn't Matter for Troy Davis----There are a number of procedural
obstacles which essentially prevented Davis's possible innocence from mattering
when it came to saving his life.
"Innocence matters" is one of the slogans used by activists opposing the U.S.
state of Georgia's execution of Troy Davis, up until the day the sentence was
carried out by lethal injection on Sep. 21.
It seems like stating the obvious that innocence matters in the criminal
justice system, especially when someone's life is on the line in a death
penalty case. At least, innocence should always matter. But does it in
practice?
Davis was convicted of killing police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989. Yet
following his conviction, 7 of 9 witnesses against him recanted their
testimony, 2 witnesses implicated another person as the killer, and two of the
original jurors who found Davis guilty came forward to oppose the execution.
No forensic evidence presented at trial indicated that Davis was the shooter.
Martina Correia, Davis's sister, explained the significance of the phrase in a
2008 video interview with Black Agenda Report.
"The court system is telling us that recanted testimony is not as important as
trial testimony. And what's happening is my brother, Troy, is being denied
access to the courts because they're saying that innocence - if you got a fair
trial in the beginning - it doesn't matter whether or not you're innocent or
guilty, they don't have to hear new evidence.
"So that's why our campaign about innocence matters means that innocence always
matters, not just at trial, but at any time when someone comes to recant
testimony, that proves that someone is innocent, you should not be killing
them," Correia said.
Davis's case gained international attention, attracting high-profile supporters
like Pope Benedict XVI, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond
Tutu, and former FBI director William Sessions.
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an extraordinary hearing in the trial
court as to whether Davis could prove his innocence claims. But the trial court
ruled against Davis, setting him back on a path where a new execution date was
only a matter of time.
As it turns out, there are a number of procedural obstacles which essentially
prevented Davis's possible innocence from mattering when it came to saving his
life.
Many of these obstacles are the direct result of legislation passed by the U.S.
Congress in 1996 called the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA). AEDPA presented major obstacles to Davis.
Hank Johnson, a Democratic member of Congress from Georgia who advocated on
Davis's behalf, introduced legislation in 2009 to address some of these
obstacles, including reversing parts of AEDPA.
"Congress should allow federal courts to grant habeas petitions for death row
inmates who present new evidence of innocence. As it stands, inmates in the
same situation as Troy Davis can find themselves stranded with no procedural
options, even when there is new evidence that casts serious doubt on the
conviction," Johnson said in a statement to IPS.
Johnson's 2009 "Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act" would have ensured that
death row inmates can present new evidence of innocence in federal court.
Earlier in 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals relied heavily on AEDPA in ruling
against an appeal by Davis, with some judges dissenting. The court also
referred to statements made by U.S. senators at the time of its passage.
At that time, in 1996, many in Congress, including Democrats, were interested
in appearing to be tough on crime. AEDPA was designed to limit the number of
appeals and set a higher standard for new appeals, and was intended to prevent
what some perceived to be a problem with endless appeals by convicted
criminals, costing taxpayers thousands and even millions of dollars.
But by erring on the side of risk instead of caution, in the name of efficiency
and saving money, critics say the Congress appears to have taken it too far.
Then-senator Joe Biden of Delaware, now vice president, said in 1995 that, "The
vast majority of us... want to and have been trying for years to change the old
system to limit the time in which a petition can be filed and to limit the
number of petitions that can be filed. So essentially you get one bite out of
the apple."
Unfortunately, Davis needed another bite at the so-called apple.
Enacted in 1996, AEDPA, among other things, placed limits on the grounds upon
which someone on death row could request a new federal hearing.
AEDPA "tightened these limits by requiring successive petitioners to show both
cause, or diligence, as well as a fundamental miscarriage of justice, or actual
innocence," the U.S. Court of Appeals had noted.
In terms of due diligence, the court asks that the defendant explain why they
were not able to bring these claims in their first federal appeal.
In Davis's case, his attorneys did introduce evidence of the witness
recantations, but according to the court, they did so in the context of a due
process claim and not an innocence claim. So the attorneys failed to say the
magic words "innocence claim" at the appropriate time.
Davis's 2 attorneys at the time were doing the best they could, representing 80
indigent convicts simultaneously with little funding, according to Laura Moye,
Death Penalty Abolition Campaign coordinator for Amnesty International USA.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Davis should have presented his innocence
claims first, and that if he lost, he could have then appealed on procedural
grounds. However, they argued he could not have done the reverse.
Following the 2009 Court of Appeals ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted
Davis an opportunity to appear again before the trial court to make his
innocence claims; however, the standard for someone proving that they are
innocent is much higher than the standard for proving that there are doubts to
their guilt.
"It's like proving a negative," Moye said.
Therefore, Davis's new innocence trial was not successful, and that was the
beginning of the end for Davis. The Supreme Court refused to intervene again,
as did the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal,
President Barack Obama, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Rep. Johnson's Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act, introduced in 2009, gained
17 co-sponsors and was referred to a House subcommittee, but never received a
hearing.
The new Congress began working at the beginning of this year, but Johnson has
not reintroduced the legislation. One source familiar with the matter said it
is due to concern about how the proposal might be amended by the current
Republican majority in the U.S. House.
(source: IPS News)
MARYLAND:
Jury finds Maryland killer eligible for possible death sentence
A jury on Thursday decided that a Maryland man convicted of a murder-for-hire
was eligible to be sentenced to death, making the case the first test of the
state's new death penalty statute.
The statute is considered among the most restrictive in the nation.
Walter Bishop Jr., 29, was convicted Wednesday of fatally shooting William
Porter last year at a gas station Porter owned, a crime Bishop is accused of
committing at the behest of Porter's wife, Karla.
Bishop shot Porter in the head and then stood over his body and shot him again,
prosecutors said.
On Thursday, the same jury that convicted Bishop began the penalty phase of the
trial, expected to end next week when the panel decides his sentence.
Bishop could become Maryland's 6th death row inmate and first since the state
revised its statute two years ago, according to the Baltimore County State's
Attorney's Office.
To be eligible for the death penalty, there must be DNA or video evidence
linking the defendant to a murder or video of a voluntary interrogation and
confession.
The jury ruled Bishop fulfilled the last requirement, despite pleas from his
attorneys that a video confession he gave police March 6, 2010, was not
voluntary.
Police did not tell Bishop he was being videotaped, read his Miranda rights
without mentioning the new death penalty statute, and pushed for a confession
despite "a mountain of evidence" and two co-defendants identifying Bishop as
the shooter, Harun Shabazz, Bishop's public defender, told jurors.
Prosecutors argued police acted properly and the law does not obligate them to
tell suspects anything about a suspect's potential sentencing.
FOLLOWING THE LAW?
"Police have the responsibility to follow the law," said John Cox, an Assistant
State's Attorney of Baltimore County. "It's not their job to stop people from
talking to them."
Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Mickey Norman rejected several attempts to
strike the death penalty in the case.
Beginning Friday, both sides will argue whether Bishop should be sentenced to
death. If he is not, he will face life in prison, or life in prison with
possibility of parole.
The key piece of evidence for jurors was the video of Bishop's interrogation
and confession, played several times in court.
In the video, police tell Bishop, who has five children, that he would be a
better example to his young family if he divulged what he did.
"Even if I tell the whole truth, everything," Bishop responded, crying, "I'm
still going to jail."
Shabazz argued police were persistent because they were hoping for a death
penalty case.
"The police were playing a game with him," Shabazz said. "The game was to not
let Mr. Bishop know how important the situation was."
The death penalty is legal in 34 states, although rules for imposing it differ.
Five people have been executed in Maryland since the death penalty was
reinstated in the United States in 1976, according to the Death Penalty
Information Center, based in Washington, D.C.
Maryland's new statue, instituted in 2009 after a failed attempt to abolish the
death penalty by Governor Martin O'Malley, is arguably the most restrictive in
the country, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty
Information Center.
Illinois had one of the more restrictive laws before it was abolished earlier
this year, and in 2005, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney failed in attempts
to pass a law requiring guilt beyond any doubt in death penalty cases, Dieter
said.
Even if sentenced to death, Bishop could avoid execution, Dieter said, due to
the law's susceptibility for a lengthy appeal process.
"I think someone will get the death sentence but I think it's very unlikely
anyone will get executed under this statute," he said.
(source: Reuters)
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Both Sides Of Case Discuss Death Sentence
There are now 4 people sitting on death row in South Dakota.
Sioux Falls Judge Brad Zell sentenced 49-year-old Eric Robert to death by
lethal injection Thursday not because the inmate wanted it, but because he
deserved it.
Robert pleaded guilty last month to killing South Dakota correctional officer
Ron Johnson during a foiled prison escape last April. State law says the death
penalty is warranted when someone kills a law enforcement officer, and Zell
stated that factor as the one that influenced his decision.
While Thursday's sentence will be automatically appealed to the South Dakota
Supreme Court in the next ten days, Robert has indicated he won't appeal his
execution any further. Attorney General Marty Jackley says under the law,
Robert is getting the punishment he deserves.
An emotional embrace was waiting for the widow of Johnson after Zell handed
down the sentence the family had asked for.
"It is my position that justice has been served in this case to protect not
only the public from future escapes and harm, as well as, the penitentiary
community from the further actions of Eric Robert," Jackley said.
Jackley spoke after court with Johnson's family by his side. He says this
sentence shows that in South Dakota, the murder of law enforcement officers
will not be tolerated.
"We will take these type of events seriously and we will hold people
accountable for their conduct," Jackley said.
And while Jackley believe justice was served, Robert also believes the same
thing. His attorney, Mark Kadi, spoke on his behalf after court.
"Eric Robert wanted me to convey to the Johnson family that they will get their
justice when that week is set for his execution. He is not planning on taking
any steps to delay that," Kadi said.
Even though both the Johnson family and Robert got the sentence they were
looking for, Kadi may have summed up the emotions of the execution decision
best.
"It was different than any other case I've ever had. It's a situation where
everyone gets what they want, and everyone is still miserable about something,"
Kadi said.
Even though Robert has admitted to the crime and been given the ultimate
punishment, this isn't the end of the case for the Johnsons. Inmates Rodney
Berget and Michael Nordman are also facing murder charges for their roles in
the escape attempt and Johnson's death. Berget faces a trial in January where
the Johnson family may be called to testify.
Robert will be executed 6 to 8 months after the Supreme Court reviews the case
and confirms that he received the right sentence.
(source: Keloland TV)
NEVADA:
Death penalty upheld in killing of Reno officer
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the death penalty Thursday for the third time
against a man who pleaded guilty to the 1979 killing of James D. Hoff, an
undercover Reno police officer for whom a memorial to fallen officers is named.
In a 6-0 ruling, justices also clarified a previous ruling involving
"aggravating circumstances" used in assessing the justification of death
sentences.
Edward Thomas Wilson pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder for killing Hoff
during an undercover drug sting in June 1979 and was sentenced to death by a
3-judge panel. Now 52, he is the longest serving inmate on Nevada's death row.
Hoff was posing as a drug dealer when he met with Wilson on June 24, 1979, and
discussed buying 10 ounces of cocaine from Wilson. They agreed to meet later
that night to complete the deal.
Unbeknownst to Hoff, Wilson and John Olausen were plotting to kill the drug
dealer, and they enlisted the help of two others, David Lani and Fred Stites.
All were teenagers or in their early 20s at the time.
Shortly after Hoff met Wilson, the listening devices on Hoff's car
malfunctioned, preventing his backup from hearing what was happening, and other
officers lost sight of him on several occasions.
Hoff was ambushed by the 4 near Idlewild Park in Reno. He was stabbed numerous
times, his body found a few hours later buried under a pile of rocks in a
drainage ditch.
In his latest appeal, Wilson argued other felonies committed during the crime
couldn't be used as aggravators to justify the death sentence, under a previous
state Supreme Court ruling involving the "felony murder" rule.
Under Nevada's "felony murder statute," prosecutors don't have to prove intent
to kill, only that a murder occurred while another felony crime was being
committed to charge 1st-degree murder.
But in those cases, the high court in 2004 held that a defendant can't be
convicted of first-degree murder using a particular circumstance, such as a
killing that occurred during a robbery, and then have robbery used again as an
aggravating circumstance in the penalty phase of a trial.
Wilson maintained that he pleaded guilty solely to felony murder, and therefore
prosecutors could not use robbery and kidnapping to justify seeking the death
penalty.
The justices disagreed.
"Wilson pleaded guilty to the charge of 1st-degree murder, which included
allegations that the killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated and that
it was committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony,"
Justice James Hardesty wrote for the court.
Justices also said Wilson was instructed during his plea that he was pleading
guilty to premeditated as well as felony murder.
The court concluded, "We therefore hold that the use of a felony aggravator is
not precluded where the defendant has pleaded guilty to first-degree murder
based on premeditation and deliberation and felony murder."
Olausen's death sentence was earlier overturned by the high court and he was
sentenced to life in prison without parole. Stites and Lani also got life terms
in the case.
The James D. Hoff Peace Officer Memorial was dedicated in Reno's Idlewild Park
on Oct. 22, 1988, and now bears the names of 115 Nevada officers killed in the
line of duty.
(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
