Nov. 10
TEXAS----impending execution
Houston killer, lawyer at odds on defense strategy as execution date nears
A lawyer-client wrangle over defense strategy Friday threw a kink into an
effort to save Houston double-killer Preston Hughes III from execution on Nov.
15 by challenging the state's switch to a 1-drug "lethal cocktail."
Patrick McCann, appointed to handle Hughes' case in criminal courts, faced 2
hurdles when he appeared in state District Judge R.K. Sandill's civil court.
First, Hughes has not authorized McCann to represent him in civil court.
Second, Sandill is worried that a decision to block use of a 1-drug injection
also may stay Hughes' execution. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
prohibited the judge from taking that action.
Hughes, 46, is to be put to death for the September 1988 stabbing murders of La
Shandra Rena Charles, 15, and her 3-year-old cousin, Marcell Lee Taylor. At the
time of the killings, Hughes was on probation for sexually assaulting and
shooting at a 13-year-old girl.
In a recent death row interview, Hughes said he was innocent of all the crimes.
'Afraid, irrational'
McCann told Sandill he filed the motion to block the 1-drug injection - and
paid the filing fees - without Hughes' approval. "He has disagreed on pursuing
this avenue," McCann told the judge, adding that Hughes, perhaps confused after
spending more than 20 years on death row, insisted on defense strategies not
legally possible.
McCann and Sandill discussed the logistics of having Hughes appear in court,
either in person or through a video hookup at his Livingston prison. After the
judge was handed a letter in which the killer asked that McCann be dropped as
his lawyer, though, Sandill ordered McCann to obtain an affidavit from Hughes
authorizing his representation by next Friday.
McCann, who described his client as "afraid, irrational," said Hughes unlikely
to sign such a document. "Mr. Hughes has made it abundantly clear that he does
not love me," McCann said. "I don't need to be loved. All I need to do is
proceed with the work that's supposed to be done."
In the prison interview with the Houston Chronicle, Hughes expressed
dissatisfaction with the representation that McCann and earlier lawyers
provided. All, he contended, have failed to act on his assertion that Houston
police illegally searched his apartment and planted evidence linking him to the
crime.
Court forbids stay
McCann said illegal search issues would be raised in a clemency petition to be
filed with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
McCann's petition before Sandill stems from changes to Texas' three-drug
execution protocol. In March 2011, Texas switched the first drug administered,
an anesthetic, after supplies no longer could be obtained. Injections of drugs
to stop breathing and the heart traditionally would follow.
In July, Texas adopted an anesthetic-only procedure. Six killers have been
executed by that method.
McCann said he filed the case with Sandill's civil court because such courts
have jurisdiction over how the prison system treats inmates. Lawyers for the
state responded that, since the case involved a capital murder, jurisdiction
should remain with the criminal courts.
In ruling in the matter, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals prohibited Sandill
from issuing a stay. Technically, McCann is asking that the one-drug procedure
not be used, but state lawyers say no other option exists.
'Outside the box'
South Texas College of Law professor Ken Williams described McCann's turn to a
civil court to block the one-drug protocol as "thinking outside the box."
"Usually you would to go a criminal court to argue the injection was cruel and
unusual punishment," he said.
At least 1 other killer has challenged the state's drug changes.
In April 2011, Harris County killer Cleve Foster was granted a stay by the U.S.
Supreme Court after his lawyers argued that prison officials switched the 1st
of the 3 drugs administered without consulting medical experts.
Foster's stay later was dissolved, and he was put to death Sept. 25 for the
2002 rape and murder of a 30-year-old woman.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
CONNECTICUT:
Are Death Row Inmates Sacrificial Lambs?
On Nov. 6, California narrowly missed becoming the 18th state to abolish the
death penalty. But an equally compelling story is evolving in Connecticut,
which successfully abolished its death penalty last spring but left in place
the death sentences of its 11 death row prisoners. These 11 men join 2 others
in New Mexico who remain on death row following that state's "prospective-only"
repeal.
The seeming injustice of prospective-only repeal was not lost on Connecticut's
General Assembly. Indeed, it was part of the deal that secured the repeal's
passage. On July 23, 2007, a brutal home invasion and triple murder took place
in the town of Cheshire. Many called for retribution, and the state obliged.
The two perpetrators of that crime are among the 11 on Connecticut's death row.
Several senators, persuaded in no small part by Dr. William Petit Jr., the lone
survivor of the Cheshire attacks, refused to vote for repeal unless it assured
that those men stayed on death row.
On the floor of the legislature, death penalty supporters and a few of its
opponents asked how it could possibly be right to abolish the death penalty for
some but not for all. "Pure politics," they chided. "Not morality."
These purist positions are attractive in their simplicity, but they miss the
point. The legislature's decision to abolish the death penalty for all except
the 11 on death row was surely political. But it was also moral. It was a
sacrifice that had to be made to get rid of Connecticut's death penalty.
When we talk about sacrifice, we often think of those who willingly offer
themselves up for a higher good like God or country. This is the stuff of
heroes and martyrs and, for many, it is to be celebrated.
Being sacrificed, on the other hand, has a very different connotation. It's not
about those who choose their fate, but those whose fate is chosen for them.
They are lambs, plucked from the field and thrown onto the altar for some
higher good. This bothers us - and it should. Who among us has the right to
decide the fate of innocent others for some purported good? This is the stuff
of genocide and is to be avoided at all costs.
Maybe, then, it is never moral to sacrifice others. Or perhaps it is moral in
the very narrow circumstance playing out in Connecticut. The 11 men on death
row are no martyrs, nor are they innocents plucked from the field. In these 11
men, Connecticut's legislature saw an opportunity to do something good. The
legislature has, in effect, taken these 11 men from the death chamber and
walked them to the altar. It has transformed their punishment into an act of
sacrifice. From wolves, lambs. Yes, these 11 men remain on death row, but now
they die for something; they die so that others will not be put to death.
This is the uneasy morality of gradual abolition. Dying, these men destroy our
death penalty.
Tuesday, Connecticut's Public Defender Division intends to file a brief in
State v. Santiago, a case involving one of the 11 men on death row. The
division will argue that Connecticut's repeal should apply retroactively to
Eduardo Santiago. If the Connecticut Supreme Court applies Connecticut's death
penalty repeal retroactively, it will be reason to rejoice. It means that the
court has defied its own precedent and the precedent of other federal and state
courts, and has discovered a ram in the thicket of death penalty jurisprudence,
a better angel to avert the sacrifice.
But if the Connecticut Supreme Court upholds the death penalty in this case, we
should not lament. Instead, it is time for the gradualists to move. Bottle
prospective repeal and sell it to every state with the death penalty. And as we
use prospective repeal to win states to the abolitionist cause, let us use
every tactic we can to delay the executions of those who remain on death row.
Delay them long enough to win over that magic number of states that will lead
the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for good.
(source: opinion; Kevin Barry is a law professor at Quinnipiac University
School of Law and co-director of the school's Civil Justice Clinic--Hartford
Courant)
OHIO:
Ohio killer asks high court to stop execution
A condemned Ohio killer scheduled to die Tuesday for stabbing an Akron woman to
death in 1997 has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to delay his execution.
Brett Hartman said in a court filing Friday that he needs time to renew
arguments that he received improper legal representation.
Attorneys for the 38-year-old Hartman argue that lower courts have improperly
stopped him from raising claims that his attorneys didn't do a good job
explaining to jurors why he should be spared.
Hartman is scheduled to die Tuesday for the Sept. 9, 1997, slaying of
46-year-old Winda Snipes of Akron.
Records show that Snipes was beaten, strangled with a cord, stabbed 138 times,
had her throat slit and her hands cut off.
Gov. John Kasich denied Hartman clemency Thursday.
(source: Associated Press)
USA:
Amnesty International Presents a Groundbreaking Film Event That Takes the
Audience to the Front Row of an Execution--Regal Cinemas opens its doors in
eight major cities across America for this first-of-a-kind motion picture less
than 1 week after California's attempt to repeal the death penalty fails.
"I want to put the audience on the front row and let them decide for themselves
if executing a human being is right or wrong?" says director Steven Scaffidi
During a 2 week coast-to-coast tour, select theaters across America will become
execution chambers as the audience is invited to enter the witness room and sit
front and center for the final days of a man's life on death row and ultimately
his execution in the electric chair. Producers say that "Execution: Right or
Wrong? You Decide." is an important film event that will make a great impact in
the ongoing debate over the death penalty in America by allowing the audience
to spend the final days of a man's life on death row and ultimately witness his
execution.
Considering the fact that California voters have decided against repealing the
death penalty the hope is that this unique film plays an even bigger role in
the death penalty issue by creating serious debate between both sides. The
film's director Steven Scaffidi, who claims to be on the fence about the issue,
says, "I want to put the audience on the front row and let them decide for
themselves if executing a human being is right or wrong?" He wants his film to
make a difference and points to a statement that Sister Helen Prejean, author
of "Dead Man Walking", made to him at a death penalty gathering in Louisiana:
"The best way to stop executions is for people to witness one."
What makes this film so unique is that "Execution" is the only film ever made
that stars a real condemned man, a real warden and a real priest. William Neal
Moore, The condemned man, spent 16 years on death row and was only 7 hours from
the electric chair. He is the only self-confessed murderer under today's law to
be released from death row and is now an unconditional free man due in part to
the forgiveness of the victim???s family and the intervention of Mother
Theresa. Mr. Moore will accompany Scaffidi to each screening and the 2 will
hold a Q and A session following the film which has previously drawn large
audiences by invitation of several select universities across America and in
the United Kingdom. When asked if the execution in his film is real or not
Scaffidi responds, "You decide."
"Execution" has made an impact everywhere it's been screened. Dr. Loraine
Gelsthorpe, Director of Postgraduate Programmes at the University of Cambridge,
raved about the screening saying, "The film prompted enormous interest and
debate and there is still a buzz about it. Fantastic! Provocative.
Thought-provoking.??? According to the film's website
http://www.executionfilm.com, the Tulane University screening drew close to
1,000 people, many who stood in the rain, to see the film at McAllister
Auditorium. Brian Evans, interim Director of the Death Penalty Abolition
Campaign for Amnesty International USA says, "This is a refreshing departure
from the way capital punishment is usually portrayed in films, with an emphasis
on the profound effects executions have on those most intimately involved". He
goes on to say, "Amnesty International USA encourages individuals to see this
film which reflects upon one of the major human rights concerns in the USA: the
use of the death penalty."
The "Execution" screening event "Right or Wrong? You Decide." will take place
in 8 major cities across America beginning in Washington DC on Sunday, November
11, 2012 in Regal Cinemas' Gallery Place Stadium 14. Doors open at 7pm and the
screenings begin at 7:30pm in each theater except in Los Angeles where the film
screens at 8pm. The screening schedule is as follows:
Sunday, November 11th : Regal Gallery Place Stadium14, 701 Seventh Street
Northwest, Washington DC
Monday, November 12th: Regal E-Walk Stadium 13, 247 W. 42nd St., New York, NY
Tuesday, November 13th: REGAL FENWAY STADIUM 13, Landmark Center, Boston, MA
Wednesday, November 14th: Regal City North Stadium 14, 2600 N. Western Avenue,
Chicago, IL
Thursday, November 15th: Regal Tara 4, 2345 Cheshire Bridge Rd, Atlanta, GA
No Screenings on November 16th And 17th
Sunday, November 18th: Regal Metropolitan Stadium 14, 901 Little Texas Lane,
Austin, TX
Monday, November 19th: UA Stones Town Twin, 501 Buckingham Way, San Francisco,
CA
Tuesday, November 20th: Regal LA Live Stadium 14, 1000 W. Olympic Blvd., Los
Angeles, CA
Each screening will be limited to 250 seats so the public is advised to get
their tickets early. Advance tickets can be purchased online at
http://www.ghostriderpictures.com/executionevent.html, http://www.fandango.com
or at the Regal Cinemas box office in each city.
(source: PR Web)
**********************
The death penalty is not Christian
I lament the defeat of Proposition 34, the initiative that would have replaced
the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. As a
pastor, Jesus' death is never far from my mind. State-sanctioned execution was
wrong when Rome executed Jesus as a rebel, and it is wrong today! The cross, a
cruel form of killing, is a constant reminder to Christians that we must
struggle for peace, love and compassion, even when it is most difficult.
In his life, Jesus boldly defied an antiquated worldview: "You have heard it
said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ... but I tell you turn the
other cheek" (Matthew 5:38), thereby replacing an outdated form of punishment
with a compassionate response. As Christians, our faith obligates us to end
this immoral tradition of killing the killer. Jesus replaced it 2,000 years
ago. Why is it taking us so long?
What's worse is that the death penalty risks executing innocent people! I wept
for days last year grieving Georgia's execution of potentially innocent Troy
Davis. I thank God that Frankie Carrillo was found innocent and taken off death
row, but imagine the blood on our hands had California killed him! I cannot
live with this, can you?
It breaks my heart to imagine Jesus on the cross even at his own execution
advocating for compassion. While Proposition 34 was defeated, I take hope in
God's gift of a new day and a new opportunity to seek justice, love kindness
and walk humbly in this world. I pledge to work for a society where this
outdated practice will be yesterday's shame, without the threat of ever
executing an innocent person, and where compassion is stronger than fear and
hatred.
Rev. Dr. Sarah Halverson, Costa Mesa----Fairview Community Church
(source: Letter to the Editor, Daily Pilot)
*********************
Is Solitary Confinement Torture? Exonerated Death Row Inmate Opens Up About
"Animal" Prison Treatment
"It was hell. It was torture every day," said Anthony Graves, an exonerated
death row inmate and activist, of the almost 1o years he spent in solitary
confinement. Graves opened up about the personal horror he faced in solitary
during an interview with host Alyona Minkovski on HuffPost Live.
"You're caged in like an animal. You're in a little 8-by-12 foot cage, and
you're just existing. You're existing behind some inhumane conditions. So it
was hell every day."
Researchers from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate that there
are 80,000 prisoners currently being held in restrictive housing in the United
States. Many activists and experts believe that by human rights standards,
solitary confinement is tantamount to torture.
"It breaks your will to live. It breaks your spirit," Graves said. "I don't
think you can get anything positive out of that."
Joining Graves and Minkovski to discuss whether solitary confinement is a form
of torture were Andy Stepanian, a publicist at the Sparrow Project and HuffPost
blogger, Azadeh Zohrabia, a Soros Justice fellow whose brother is currently in
solitary confinement, Bonnie Kerness, the founder of American Friends Service
Committee, and Shane Bauer, an investigative journalist.
(source: Huffington Post)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
