March 29 USA: Justices Consider Rights of Foreigners The Supreme Court seemed divided over how best to handle a dispute over the role of international law in U.S. death penalty cases yesterday, as the justices heard oral arguments in the case of a Mexican who says Texas violated his rights under a U.S.-ratified treaty when it sentenced him to death more than a decade ago. The court took up Medellin v. Dretke, No. 04-5928, which centers on a ruling last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The international court ruled that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to tell 51 Mexicans charged with capital murder that they had a right under the convention to meet with diplomats from their home country. One of the Mexicans, Jose Ernesto Medellin, and his supporters had urged the court to rule that the ICJ ruling is binding in U.S. courts -- an argument that, if endorsed by the Supreme Court, would have laid an important precedent in favor of the authority of international law generally. But Texas, citing Supreme Court rulings, countered that the ICJ could not override state procedural rules under which Medellin had forfeited his right to invoke the Vienna Convention by not asserting it until 1998, rather than at his trial in 1994. A month ago, however, President Bush intervened in this looming clash between global law and Texas law, issuing a determination that he alone, as the country's chief diplomat, has the power to decide how the country should react to the international court's rulings. Noting that the United States had agreed to accept ICJ rulings on cases involving the Vienna Convention, he instructed the state courts to give Medellin and the other Mexicans new hearings, as the ICJ had proposed, and told the Supreme Court it should bow out. Then he withdrew the United States from international court jurisdiction under the convention, to avoid future cases. Medellin's lawyer, Donald F. Donovan, asked the court to suspend its proceedings until he has a chance to seek a new hearing in state court, as provided for in the president's determination. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said "it would be more likely we would dismiss" the case. "This is a very unusual request," she added. And Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that "granting a stay could be seen as validating the position of the government without an opinion" from the court. Rehnquist, suffering from thyroid cancer, appeared active and engaged in his 2nd week back on the bench. He frequently asked questions and spoke clearly, albeit with the aid of a device he wears on his throat because of a tracheotomy. But, in a reminder that his condition remains fragile, the chief justice experienced problems with his tracheotomy tube on Sunday and was taken by ambulance to the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, where he was treated as an outpatient, court spokesman Ed Turner said yesterday. Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz asked the court to avoid "the many interesting international law questions that swirl around the case" and rule in favor of Texas now. Even if Medellin's rights under the treaty had been violated, Cruz argued, that could not entitle him to a new hearing. That is because a federal law enacted in 1996 -- the treaty went into effect in 1969 -- says that death row inmates can seek a fresh hearing only on new claims that their constitutional rights were violated. But Justice David H. Souter said the court "wouldn't even have to venture into [that], if we accept the president's determination." Cruz replied that Texas sees "significant constitutional problems with any unilateral [presidential] decision" that tells state courts what to do. But that constitutional issue, he acknowledged, would inevitably reach the Supreme Court, after Texas courts have dealt with Medellin's effort to enforce the president's determination there. "Why doesn't the ICJ judgment get the same recognition as any judgment by any other court?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Cruz. Cruz replied that international law contemplates the Vienna Convention will be enforced through U.N. Security Council action. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, urging the court to let Bush's proposal for new state court hearings run its course, told the court that "if this court treats the ICJ as a free-standing source of law . . . it would rob the president of freedom of action in international affairs." (source: Washington Post) **************************** Girls' killer had his day in court, state says----Appeal claims U.S. did not follow rules of '63 treaty The conviction of a Mexican national for the infamous killing of 2 Houston girls should be upheld even though he was not advised of his right to help from his country's consulate, a lawyer for the state of Texas told the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. In the dispute over the domestic application of international law, Texas contends the case of Jose Medellin, who was sentenced to death in 1994, should not be reconsidered because he failed to raise the consular advice issue during his state court trials. "It is time for the Supreme Court to rule that Mr. Medellin has had his day in court," said R. Ted Cruz, solicitor general for the Texas Attorney General's office. Medellin "had no constitutional claims," he added. Medellin's attorneys have seized on the International Court of Justice's ruling that U.S. courts must review Medellin's sentence and that of 50 other foreign nationals in nine states on death row. The ruling was based on the 1963 Vienna Convention, signed by the United States, which requires consular access for people detained in a foreign country. Donald Donovan, Medellin's attorney, told the justices that an international treaty signed by the president and ratified by Congress is legally binding on the courts. Bush seeks 51 reviews Medellin's case was bolstered by a directive from President Bush, who has asked that state courts review the 51 death penalty cases, he said. After agreeing to comply with the international body's decision, the White House notified the United Nations that it was dropping out of the provision of the treaty that allows the court to referee disputes. White House heard from The Bush administration also weighed in separately in the Medellin case, with the Justice Department asking the Supreme Court to let the Texas courts decide how to handle the matter. Michael Dreeben, U.S. deputy solicitor general, told the court that a ruling favoring Medellin could hamstring the president if he wanted to reject a finding by the international court. Medellin was 1 of 5 boys and men involved in the 1993 rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pea, 16, who were attacked while on their way home. The justices appeared divided Monday on whether they should rule now or wait until the state courts to decide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that it seemed "topsy-turvy " that the legitimacy of an international treaty should be decided in a state court rather than the Supreme Court. But Justice John Paul Stevens said that by deferring to the state courts, the high court could sidestep some thorny issues. "Isn't it true that the Texas proceedings could make this moot?" Stevens asked. Donovan argued that if the Supreme Court dismisses the case, state courts might take that as a sign that they do not need to act. Sandra Babcock, counsel for Mexico, said the case's outcome is important for Americans who may find themselves unfairly arrested by local authorities in foreign countries and need the help of U.S. officials. Challenge also filed here Medellin's attorneys have also filed a challenge with the state district court in Houston. Cruz said the state will fight Bush's order to reconsider the case of Medellin and 14 other foreign nationals on death row in Texas. The president overstepped his authority by ordering the courts to automatically review all of the sentences without considering the merits of each case, he said. Pea's father, Adolph, who traveled from Houston, was present for Monday's Supreme Court proceedings with his wife, Melissa, and 17-year-old daughter, Rachel. With all the legal wrangling, the crime against his daughter was being overlooked, Adolph Pea said. "Those scumbags have been in there (prison) long enough," he said. "It is time for them to be executed." Pea's father angry Pea also expressed anger at Bush for intervening in the case, saying the president was acting for political reasons. The issue of Mexican nationals on death row in the United States has been a source of friction between the White House and the Mexican government. The high court agreed to take up the case after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Medellin was not entitled to federal court relief because he had not objected during his trial to the fact that the Mexican consulate was not notified. (source: Houston Chronicle) ****************** Rights of foreigners in US death penalty cases before high court Foreign murder suspects have no rights in US federal courts to challenge their convictions on the grounds they were improperly denied legal help from their consulates, the Supreme Court was told yesterday in a case testing the effect of international law in death penalty cases. Justices heard arguments in the case of Jose Medellin, who says his rights under a US treaty were violated when a Texas court sentenced him to death in 1994 without giving consular access. Several of the justices showed little interest in deciding for now the impact of that treaty on domestic cases, particularly after President Bush last month ordered new state court hearings for Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row. "Isn't it true that the Texas proceeding could make this moot?" asked Justice John Paul Stevens. Holding off on the case "could avoid the necessity of deciding a lot of difficult questions" and "useless" decision-making, he said. R. Ted Cruz, Texas' solicitor general, responded that justices should rule that Medellin has no rights in federal courts -- as opposed to state courts -- because he failed to raise his claims at trial. "There is no constitutional claim," he said. The case, which has attracted worldwide attention, is called a test of how much weight the Supreme Court will give in domestic death penalty cases to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which has ruled that the 51 convictions violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. In 1969, the Senate ratified the Vienna Convention, which requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States. The Constitution states that US treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land," but does not make clear who interprets them. The case also pits the authority of state courts against the Bush administration, which in a surprise move ordered states to comply with the International Court's ruling and hold new hearings. At the same time, the administration said it was withdrawing from a section of the treaty so that the International Court could no longer hear US disputes. Texas argues that Medellin is barred under the Constitution from federal relief because he didn't raise his claims at his state trial. As a result, it says, the state court judgment should stand regardless of the orders from Bush and the International Court. The administration, arguing that it is a president's decision to determine whether the United States should comply with international law, said that new state hearings were appropriate. Medellin was 1 of 5 gang members sentenced to death for raping and murdering Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993. Justices were told that Medellin's court-appointed lawyer was suspended from practicing law for ethics violations during the case, and he failed to call any witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial. Lawyers for Mexico say the country would have made sure Medellin had a competent lawyer had it known about the 1994 trial. Medellin is supported in his appeal by dozens of countries and others. (source: Associated Press) ALABAMA: Woman takes steps to stop poverty, death penalty An Alabama woman hopes to attract greater attention to her efforts to combat hunger, poverty and capital punishment by delivering her message far and wide -- and on foot. She plans to walk nearly 1,000 miles to make her case. Lisa Thomas is walking to the nation's capital, and she'll take with her a letter she hopes to hand deliver to President Bush. The 52-year-old Brewton resident met with Gov. Bob Riley on Monday to discuss the poor in Alabama, those going hungry and those awaiting execution. Thomas estimates her walk to Washington will take 45 days. "I hope this walk will educate the people it needs to educate," Thomas said as she prepared for the next leg of her trip. According to census figures, there were 680,000 Alabamians living below the poverty level in 2002. That same year, there were 4,800 people living below the federally defined poverty level in Autauga County, and 8,500 in Elmore County. There were 37,000 people in Montgomery County living below the poverty level. (The poverty threshold for a family of four, two adults and two children, was income of $18,244 a year.) Thomas held back tears as she spoke against the death penalty Monday. She would like to see the state issue a moratorium. Currently, there are about 193 Alabama inmates on death row. 3 of them are women, according to the Alabama Department of Corrections. "If you are hungry, I can feed you 100 times over, but if you are on death row, then there's nothing I can do," she said. "The state is going to have to do something to make sure people have a fair trial." Esther Brown, of Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty, joined Thomas in her meeting with the governor Monday. "I don't think he (Riley) thinks a moratorium is right around the corner, but he listened to my concern about fairness," Brown said. She applauded Thomas' efforts. Thomas stands Monday beside a van that sports a banner bearing her message. "There are many people who talk, but there are very few people who walk the walk," Brown said. Thomas runs a program that helps feed the poor, delivering about 25 hot meals each day. She walked to the state Capitol from her home in Brewton. She tried to deliver a letter to Riley last year, but the governor was unable to meet with her at the time and she had not requested an appointment. This time, though, she did. "I called ahead, and they were very happy to make an appointment," Thomas said. She began her trek Tuesday of last week and endured harsh storms and hail. At times, she had to duck into a van where she sleeps. She estimates it will take her 45 more days to get to Washington. On Monday, she spent about a half-hour talking with the governor. "He was really personable," she said afterward. "We talked about tax reform, the poor people in Alabama and the death penalty. Something needs to be done." The state's chief executive made no promises to end the death penalty in the state. "Gov. Riley supports the death penalty because he think it's a deterrent," said Jeff Emerson, Riley's communications director. As for the state's current tax structure, Emerson said: "Obviously, Gov. Riley supports tax reform because he believes the system we have now overtaxes the poor." Under current Alabama law, a family of four must begin paying income taxes when it earns $4,600 a year. The governor pushed a tax and accountability plan that would have increased that threshold, but voters turned down Amendment One on Sept. 9, 2003. "Under Amendment One, that threshold would have been $20,000," Emerson said. "Under that plan, 68 percent of Alabamians would have paid less taxes." Thomas hopes her trek will bring more attention to tax reform in Alabama. Her ginger-colored hair pulled back into a small ponytail, Thomas looked toward the sky to see a sliver of sunlight emerging from the clouds. She flashed her tan walking shoes and looked at the road ahead. Montgomery resident Zack Carter and about a dozen other supporters of Thomas sang the words "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around" over and over in a cheerful sendoff Monday on the front steps of the Capitol. "She's an amazing person," Carter said. "She's an ordinary person doing extraordinary things." (source: Montgomery Advertiser) COLORADO: Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible In a sharply divided ruling, Colorado's highest court on Monday upheld a lower court's decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority." "The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," the majority said in a 3-to-2 decision by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court. "Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts." The ruling involved the conviction of Robert Harlan, who was found guilty in 1995 of raping and murdering a cocktail waitress near Denver. After Mr. Harlan's conviction, the judge in the case - as Colorado law requires - sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law. Each juror, the judge told the panel, must make an "individual moral assessment," in deciding whether Mr. Harlan should live. The jurors voted unanimously for death. The State Supreme Court's decision changes that sentence to life in prison without parole. In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case. The jurors consulted Bibles, the minority said, not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations, but for wisdom. "The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote. Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution. "In Colorado it's a more distinct instruction," said Bob Grant, who was the prosecutor in the Harlan case. Mr. Grant said no decision had been made yet on whether to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Legal scholars say the connection between hard legal logic and the softer, deeper world of values is always present in jury rooms, whether acknowledged or not. "The court says we're asking you to be moral men and women, to make a moral judgment of the right thing to do," said Thane Rosenbaum, a professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, and author of the book "The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What's Right" (HarperCollins, 2004). "But then we say the juror cheated because he brought in a book that forms the basis of his moral universe," Professor Rosenbaum said. "The thing is, he would have done it anyway, in his head." Other legal experts say the Colorado decision touches on an issue that courts do not like to talk about: that jurors, under traditions dating to the days of English common law, can consider higher authority all they want, and can convict or acquit using whatever internal thoughts and discussions they consider appropriate. In this instance, lawyers said, there was simply a clearer trail of evidence, with admissions by the jurors during Mr. Harlan's appeal that Bibles had been used in their discussion. One juror testified she studied Romans and Leviticus, including Leviticus 24, which includes the famous articulation of Old Testament justice: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Professor Howard J. Vogel, who teaches ethics at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and has a master's degree in theology as well as a law degree, said, "I don't think it's a religious text that's the problem here, but rather whether something is being used that trumps the law of the state." The Bible is hardly monolithic about what constitutes justice. Some legal experts say the jurors might just as easily have found guidance that led them to vote to spare Mr. Harlan's life. Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham." The lawyers also made several references to Mr. Harlan's soul and his habit of reading the Bible with his father, the court said. Kathleen Lord, a lawyer for Mr. Harlan, did not return repeated calls. Mr. Harlan was convicted of kidnapping a waitress, Rhonda Maloney, and raping her. She escaped and flagged down a motorist, Jaquie Creazzo. Mr. Harlan caught up with the 2 women, shot Ms. Creazzo, leaving her paralyzed, then beat and killed Ms. Maloney. (source: New York Times) FLORIDA: Woman may avoid death row----A jury will decide the fate of Virginia Larzelere, convicted of hiring a man to kill her husband. A woman convicted of 1st-degree murder more than a decade ago for hiring a man to kill her husband may not die for her crime. A recent court ruling overturned Virginia Larzelere's 1993 death sentence, bouncing the case back to the penalty phase for a new jury to decide her fate. In a case that garnered national attention, including interviews by Geraldo Rivera, Larzelere -- now a middle-aged woman with a shady past -- was convicted of masterminding the death of her husband, 39-year-old dentist Norman Larzelere in 1991. Prosecutors argued that she hired Jason Larzelere, her son from a previous marriage, to gun down her husband in his office while a patient sat in the waiting room. They said she stood to gain millions in insurance money from her husband's death. Jason Larzelere, who was 18 at the time of the murder, was acquitted. He accepted a $75,000 civil settlement in 1994 and gave up his rights to any more of his adopted father's insurance money. Virginia Larzelere maintained her innocence, saying before her arrest that she and her husband had a good relationship, including "some hanky-panky going on when there were not patients in the office." The couple had 2 children together, and Norman Larzelere had adopted Jason and his sister Jessica. Volusia County Circuit Judge John Watson, who presided over Larzelere's 1992 trial, signed an order last week that was released Monday saying Larzelere's lawyers did not present important evidence during the original penalty phase. That included information about her sexual abuse as a child and mental-health factors. The order also said the attorneys did not spend enough time preparing for the penalty phase. In 1992, Larzelere waived the right to have experts testify about her state of mind on the day her husband was killed. "I wish her the best," attorney John R. Howes, one of the lawyers who represented Larzelere in the early '90s, said Monday. "Any time someone gets a death sentence overturned, God bless them. I don't want her executed. God bless her." In the next 2 months, attorneys will discuss when a new jury will hear arguments for a new sentence. When Larzelere was sentenced to die, the jury vote was 7-5. The recent court ruling said it was impossible to tell whether at least one juror would have been swayed if Larzelere's attorneys had presented other mitigating evidence. Gabriel Jack Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona, said it is very common to see death sentences overturned because of ineffective counsel, new evidence or bad jury instruction. He said death-penalty cases can be tricky and they don't necessarily pay well. Mistakes are likely to occur. Also, many defense attorneys focus their energy on the trial and don't put enough time and thought into the penalty phase, he said. Chin said a new penalty phase often is good news for a defendant. "It frequently favors the defendant, because you know what didn't work before and so you can run a different strategy," he said. "You can run Plan B, and you know what the other side has to say. Now if you're really dealing with a monstrous repeat offender, it may not make any difference." Larzelere lost an appeal in the Florida Supreme Court in 1996. Police reports showed Larzelere had been plagued by trouble for years before the murder case: - Polk County deputies dropped the investigation of a murder attempt against her first husband, shot 4 times by a stranger in 1975, when neither he nor Larzelere would cooperate. - Larzelere's second husband, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, divorced her after Polk County deputies urged him to read the shooting report about her 1st husband. - In 1985, the owner of a Daytona Beach construction company filed suit alleging Larzelere bilked him of more than $30,000 while working as his bookkeeper. Larzelere paid the firm $34,000 in an out-of-court settlement and embezzlement charges were dropped. Larzelere's attorneys and family members could not be reached for comment Monday. (source: Orlando Sentinel) OHIO: Execution can be set for Spirko in slaying of Elgin postmaster The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear an appeal from John G. Spirko, Jr., paving the way for the scheduling of his execution for the 1982 kidnapping murder of Elgin, Ohio, postmaster Betty Jane Mottinger. Spirko, 58, living in Swanton at the time of his arrest, has exhausted all state and federal appeals. In 1984 a Van Wert County jury found he had conspired with a former cellmate, Delaney Gibson, to commit the brutal crime that shocked the tiny town 90 miles southwest of Toledo. The high court was apparently unimpressed by the revelation that the county prosecutor had dismissed the two-decade-old complaint pending against Gibson on the same day last year that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Spirko's conviction. Gibson has never been tried for the murder. "I'm glad it is coming to an end, but the main fact is that, even if [Spirko] is put to death as he should be, it's not going to bring my mother back," said the victim's son, Douglas Mottinger of Coldwater, Mich. His father, Clarence, who died in 2003, once said he moved to Indiana so that his tax dollars would not be used to clothe and feed the man who stabbed his wife 15 times in the chest and stomach. Kim Norris, spokesman for Attorney General Jim Petro, said the office will join the county in asking the Ohio Supreme Court to set an execution date swiftly. Spirko could seek clemency from Gov. Bob Taft via a hearing before the Ohio Parole Board. He may also return to Ohio's courts to make the argument that the recent dismissal of the Gibson indictment is an indication of the prosecution's lack of faith in its original conspiracy theory. Spirko learned of the high court's decision early yesterday afternoon in a telephone conversation with one of his attorneys, Alvin Dunn. They plan to meet today at Mansfield Correctional Institution to discuss the next step. "Certainly we believe this is a compelling case for clemency based on the record before the courts and this new information," said Mr. Dunn. "It will ultimately be the governor's decision, assuming a court does not grant a new trial in the meantime." Spirko, born in Toledo, was paroled in Kentucky in 1982 for a separate murder. He returned to Swanton to live with his sister. He was soon jailed there on an unrelated assault charge, a parole violation. Spirko's attorneys argued he is sitting on death row because he lied to investigators about having information about the unsolved Mottinger murder. Spirko has maintained he wanted to trade false information for leniency for himself on the assault charge as well as for his girlfriend, who had been charged with helping him to attempt a prison escape. Although investigators dismissed much of what he told them, they latched onto Spirko's connection with Gibson and several details they said could come only from the killer. A key aspect of Spirko's federal appeals has been the revelation, 12 years after his conviction, that the prosecution possessed at the time of his trial numerous photos that appeared to back Gibson's alibi that he was in North Carolina when the murder occurred. He had a full beard in photos taken the day before and after the murder. An eyewitness, working from an old photo of a clean-shaven Gibson, had testified at Spirko's trial that Gibson was the stranger she saw outside the post office that morning. "Spirko has never been able to demonstrate in court that he is innocent, not for a lack of facts but rather for lack of a forum," said Sister Alice Gerdeman, president of Ohioans to Stop Executions. "Simply put, though there have been years of appeals and many courts that have shuffled the paperwork, no one has ever granted this man the review that he deserves." (source: Toledo Blade) CONNECTICUT: Death Penalty Lacks Controls, Church Group Says----Legal challenge could have bearing on the Ross case No one in Connecticut, not even serial killer Michael Ross, should be executed until the state Board of Pardons and Paroles establishes specific regulations for commutation hearings for individuals about to be put to death, an attorney argued Monday in Hartford Superior Court. Attorney James Wade made that argument on behalf of the Missionary Society of Connecticut. The group is asking the court to force the state agency to put regulations in place before it goes ahead with the state's 1st execution in 45 years. Wade said the regulations currently do not address possible commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. Wade argued that the state agency claims that it has policies in place for such a hearing, but that in reality it has no regulations to guide it in such matters. "You can't have policies without having regulations," said Wade. "If you're going to kill a citizen you ought to have a set of rules." The Missionary Society of Connecticut is the corporate arm of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ. The conference comprises 253 churches with 97,000 members. The society contacted the Board of Pardons and Paroles on Feb. 7 and asked them to adopt regulations and submitted its own regulations for the agency's consideration. Then on Feb. 17, the society made a follow-up request. Initially, the board responded that it was not required to adopt regulations. On March 9, the board responded again and formally denied the society's request. It said that if Attorney General Richard Blumenthal determined regulations were required it would initiate the regulation-making process. Wade said that the agency should have taken a vote on the suggested regulations that the society submitted and then should have forwarded them to the legislature for review. He said the agency is purposely circumventing the legal process. Blumenthal said at the hearing Monday that no legislative action is necessary and that the parole board already has rules and policies in place for commutation hearings. The person aggrieved, or his or her legal representative, may ask for a hearing, Blumenthal said. The attorney general further argued that the Missionary Society of Connecticut does not have any legal standing to make a request for regulations and asked that its case be dismissed. Wade is seeking to disqualify the Attorney General's Office from representing the Board of Pardons and Paroles on the grounds that there is a conflict of interest. Wade argued that the attorney general should not be allowed to advocate on behalf of a board that is awaiting his opinion on the matter. Judge Robert E. Beach Jr. did not issue any rulings Monday and it is not certain when he will. When Ross was scheduled to die by lethal injection in January the Missionary Society of Connecticut asked for a stay of Ross' execution until the regulations were in place. Both the Hartford Superior Court and state Supreme Court said that the society did not have any legal standing to make a request to stop the execution on Ross' behalf . The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to hear the society's case. As Ross' scheduled May 11 execution draws nearer, more lawsuits are expected to be filed to challenge it. On April 7 a hearing on Ross' competency will be held. Ross has said he wants to forgo all appeals and be executed. The court must determine if he is mentally competent to make that decision. Attorney Thomas Groark Jr. was appointed Feb. 10 to explore whether the conditions at death row made Ross so depressed and emotionally confused that he felt he had no choice but to waive his right to appeal and voluntarily proceed to his execution. The lower court appointed Groark after Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding Jr. halted Ross' execution when a federal judge threatened to take his law license if he did not explore the conditions at death row. Paulding had been supporting Ross in his efforts to force the executive to go forward. Groark hired Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Eric Goldsmith to examine Ross. The doctors are experts on "death row syndrome," which claims that inmates prefer death rather than living in the harsh conditions of death row. The doctors have already met with Ross. Dr. Michael Norko, a state appointed psychiatrist, has visited Ross as well as Dr. Suzanne Gentile, a psychiatrist that Paulding hired to evaluate Ross. Paulding said Monday that Ross still remains committed to proceeding with his execution and believes that a judge will find him competent. Ross was sentenced to death for the kidnapping and murders of Leslie Shelley and April Brunais, both 14, Robin Stavinsky, 19, and Wendy Baribeault, 17. 3 of them were raped. He was given 2 life sentences for the rapes and murders of 2 other young women in Windham County. He also confessed to killing 2 young women in New York in the early 1980s, one of them a fellow student at Cornell University. (source: The Day)
