May 14 NEW YORK: State senate approves death penalty for cop killers With police-union and association groups looking on, the Senate on Monday passed a death-penalty bill for cop-killers, even as the head of the Assembly said his house won't even take up the measure. "Today we're asking colleagues to vote for those that have died, those families that have lost loved ones and to tell them we're going to do what's right for officers and their families...," said bill sponsor Sen. Martin Golden, R-Brooklyn, during the debate over the bill, which passed 37-24 on a largely party-line vote. "We need to stop this open season on troopers and police officers." Golden was referring to a recent spate of killings of police officers. Nine have died in the line of duty since November 2005, according to a state Senate count. The state's death-penalty statute, renewed in 1995, was invalidated by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in 2004, because it found part of the sentencing provision could be coercive to juries. No one has been executed in the state since 1963. Despite the Senate vote, it is not likely to come up for consideration in the Assembly, Speaker Sheldon Silver said Monday. "I don't believe it's the sense of our conference that we want to do it," Spitzer said, referring to the 108-member Democrat majority in the 150-member house. Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, Oneida County, who has sponsored the death-penalty bill in the Assembly, said she is still working to increase support for the measure. "I continue to work with police agencies and others to try to build grass-roots support for the bill," she said. Four police officers from Utica and 2 from New Hartford stood with senators before the vote to urge the passage of the measure. "We're here to show our support for the death penalty for cop killers," said Utica police Lt. James Watson. Utica police Officer Thomas Lindsey was shot and killed while on duty on April 19, and New Hartford police officer Joseph Corr was killed while pursuing a burglary suspect on Feb. 27, 2006. "The men and women who serve us are in danger as never before," said Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, Oneida County. "These 2 men were in the prime of their lives. They did nothing wrong other than try to serve their community." Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, quoted the court testimony of Brian Adams, an accessory of a Andrew Horton, who was convicted of shooting and killing Trooper Andrew Sperr in Big Flats, Chemung County, on March 1, 2006, after they had robbed a jewelry store. Adams, said Horton told him "that New York don't have the death penalty, so they can just give him life in prison" just before he shot the trooper. "The death penalty may have acted as a deterrent to prevent the trooper's death," Winner said. "If we had the death penalty he might not have done it." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was at the Capitol to lobby on other issues, said he is against the death penalty. "I've always been opposed to the death penalty, not because of moral grounds, but because I do not believe society can avoid making a mistake," he said, referring to the use of DNA evidence that has cleared some wrongfully convicted men. (source: Press & Sun-Bulletin) GEORGIA: Supreme Court lets stand death sentence for Georgia inmate The Supreme Court today let stand a death sentence for a Georgia death row inmate who was convicted of killing his wife and 2 stepdaughters. John W- Hightower, who is black, has claimed that prosecutors improperly struck blacks from the jury. 2 years ago, the court sent Hightower's case back to the Atlanta-based Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals after the justices ruled in another case that prosecutors had unfairly stacked a black defendant's jury with whites. The appeals court, however, again affirmed Hightower's conviction and sentence. Hightower, of Milledgeville, was convicted in 1988. (source: Associated Press) MASSACHUSETTS: Appeals court unseals ruling upholding Sampson's death sentence A federal appeals court unsealed its ruling today upholding the death sentence of convicted killer Gary Lee Sampson. A federal jury gave Sampson the death penalty in 2003 after hearing weeks of testimony about his week-long crime rampage in 2001. Sampson confessed to carjacking 19-year-old Jonathan Rizzo of Kingston, and 69-year-old Philip McCloskey of Taunton, then slitting their throats. He also confessed to killing of 58-year-old Robert Whitney of Meredith, New Hampshire. Last week, the 1st U-S Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Sampson's appeal, but sealed its written ruling for one week to give lawyers a chance to object to the release of any material they feel shouldn't be made public. Today, the three-judge panel released its 81-page decision. The court rejected Sampson's claim he should have been granted a new trial because jurors could see and hear victims' family members showing emotion during some of the evidence. The court said the judge took pains to move family members so they were not in spot in the courtroom where they could be seen prominently by jurors. (source: Associated Press) ILLINOIS----new death sentence Jury sentences convicted killer to death A Fulton County jury today sentenced an Iowa man to death for a Western Illinois shooting spree a decade ago that prosecutors say was triggered by a failed teenage romance. It will be Daniel Ramsey's 2nd trip to death row in the 1996 shootings that killed 2 young girls and wounded his former girlfriend and 2 toddlers. The 29-year-old Ramsey was convicted for murder and sentenced to death a year after the murders. But in 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial after ruling he used an insanity defense that was unconstitutional. He pleaded guilty last month to the murder charges. The jury deliberated nearly 5 hours after hearing more than 7 days of testimony in the death penalty hearing. Ramsey's attorney had urged the jury to sentence him to life in prison. (source: Associated Press) ************************* Jury deliberating on whether Brown's crime eligible for death penalty A jury has begun deliberating whether Juan Luna's involvement in the Brown's Chicken murders meets the legal requirements for the death penalty. The process, referred to as the eligibility phase, often is dismissed as a technicality. The defense, however, told the panel it couldn't qualify the crime for capital punishment because prosecutors don't know exactly what happened inside the restaurant 14 years ago. "At the end of the day," defense attorney Stephen Richards said, "each one of you holds Juan Luna's life in each of your hands." Jurors began deliberating eligibility shortly before 1 p.m. After 90 minutes of discussion, they asked for a transcript of Eileen Bakalla's testimony. Bakalla is a former friend who testified that Luna and his high school pal Jim Degorski described their crime in detail to her within hours of the killings. She told the panel that, with only a few exceptions, she couldn't remember which man provided which details. Last week, the jury convicted Luna, 33, of killing seven people inside the restaurant, including the establishment's two owners and 5 employees. Luna, who used to work at Browns, now faces the possibility of the death penalty. Prosecutors allege he and his high school pal Jim Degorski fatally shot their victims in an attempt to do something big. Degorski, who will be tried separately, also has pleaded not guilty crime. To qualify for the death penalty, the defendant's crime must meet at least one of 20 so-called aggravating factors, including multiple deaths, premeditation or having been performed during the commission of another felony. Prosecutors presented no new evidence during the eligibility hearing, telling the jurors they already know the facts of the case. Luna and Degorski, dressed in old clothes and shoes, filled their pockets with bullets and grabbed rubber gloves before heading to the restaurant on that cold Friday night. Every step the men took, the prosecutors said, was done so the crime wouldn't be traced back to them. When Luna entered the restaurant, they said, he knew the owners would recognize him and he didn't care because Lynn and Richard Ehlenfeldt wouldn't live long enough to identify him to police. "The defendants planned for everything," assistant state's attorney Linas Kelecius said. "He forgets something to cover his face. Ask yourself why." In a videotaped statement to police, Luna describes himself as a somewhat surprised accomplice. He suggests he and Degorski only intended to rob the restaurant, but things spiraled out of control. In order to be eligible for the death penalty under the multiple-victims provision, the prosecution must prove that Juan Luna actually killed or intended to kill someone. Though Luna admits on the tape that he slit co-owner Lynn Ehlenfeldt's throat, medical examiners have said she died of a gunshot wound to the head with the knife wound as a contributing factor. The prosecution has not linked Luna to a specific victim's death. However, a former friend testified the men told her that Luna shot someone, but didn't kill him so Degorski had to finish the job. "Look very carefully at what they prove and what they don't prove," Richards said. "If they're off by an inch on any of the facts, they're off." Prosecutors argued that, if nothing else, the crime qualifies for the death penalty because it was cold and calculated. According to testimony during the 14-day trial, 5 of the victims were herded into a walk-in freezer and shot execution style. "If you shoot into a metal box filled with human beings, then you have intent to kill," Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine told the jury. What's new: Jury is deliberating whether Juan Luna is eligible for the death penalty. What's next: If they find him eligible, they will hear evidence as to whether his life should be spared. If they find him ineligible, the judge will sentence Luna. (source: Daily Herald) CALIFORNIA: ALAMEDA CO.: PROSECUTOR SAYS RHOADES IS 'POSTER BOY' FOR DEATH PENALTY A prosecutor told jurors today that a former San Lorenzo man who was convicted last month of raping and murdering an 18-year-old girl in 1984 should be executed because "he is the poster boy for the death penalty." In her closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial of Robert Rhoades, who's now 54, prosecutor Angela Backers said Rhoades is "the worst of the worst" because he's been convicted of killing two vulnerable young people and attempted to kill a third victim who managed to survive and testify against him. Backers said Rhoades "chose isolated locations where no one could hear their (his victims') screams and chose not to let them live, even if they were screaming for their lives." At the end of Rhoades' penalty phase on April 10, jurors deliberated for only an hour before convicting him of rape and murder for the April 1984 death of Julie Connell of San Leandro, who was a straight "A" student at Arroyo High School in San Lorenzo. Jurors also convicted him of the special circumstance of murder during the course of rape, a finding that makes him eligible for the death penalty in the case. Rhoades' attorneys will give their closing arguments later today. After the closing arguments have concluded, jurors will decide between recommending the death penalty or life in prison without parole. Rhoades also has been convicted of sexually assaulting a woman at knifepoint in Marysville in Yuba County in 1985, 15 months after Connell was killed, and of kidnapping, torturing and murdering 8-year-old Michael Lyons of Yuba City in May 1996. Rhoades already is on death row for murdering Lyons. The Marysville woman testified during Rhoades' current trial, both in the guilt phase about his pattern of abducting and assaulting women and in the penalty phase about the impact the crime had on her. Connell was last seen alive on the afternoon of April 20, 1984, which was Good Friday and only five days after her 18th birthday. She was reading and studying in Kennedy Park in Hayward while her mother and sister attended a movie at a theater across the street. Her body was found five days later in an animal corral in Palomares Canyon near Castro Valley. According to Backers, Connell had been tied with green twine, her wrist cut and her neck slashed 3 times. Connell's slaying remained unsolved for 14 years, but the Lyons case paved the way for cracking the case, as scientists were able to match Rhoades' DNA from the Lyons case to genetic material in Connell's killing. A DNA match was made in 1998 and Rhoades was indicted by an Alameda County grand jury in January of 2000. Backers told jurors today that she thinks Rhoades deserves the death penalty because "he has caused nothing but death and suffering." She said his attorneys haven't offered any evidence that mitigates the severity of the crimes Rhoades has committed. She said Rhoades came from a loving Christian family, is highly intelligent and doesn't suffer from any mental illnesses and there isn't any evidence that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he raped and killed Connell. Referring to defense testimony that he hasn't caused any problems in jail, Backers said, "The best they can say is that he's not violent when he's locked in a cage when he's with people his own size." (source: Bay City News) **************** Assemblymember Spitzer Criticizes Attempts to Halt Death Penalty Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Prison Construction and Operation was told about construction during tour of San Quentin in March. Assemblymember Todd Spitzer (R-Orange) issued the following statement last week in reaction to a hearing conducted Tuesday, at which groups criticized the Administration for construction of a new death chamber: "An overwhelmingly 71 % of California voters supported the death penalty when it came before them as an initiative in 1978. In February 2006, this support was reaffirmed when a Field Poll found that 67 % of voters favor the death penalty. But here in Sacramento, the Legislature, and one person in particular, is attempting to subvert the will of the people in another attempt to stop the death penalty in California. I assure you, those of us who value public safety and justice will not be deterred. I was deeply saddened to hear of the liberals intentions to halt the timely construction of a new death chamber, which is clearly an attempt to prevent the reinstatement of the death penalty. It is the ultimate insult to victims and family members who are forced to work with a system that gives more rights to murderers than the victims of these violent criminals. In order to bring attention to the states prison crisis, I toured 8 prisons. On March 14th, while touring San Quentin, I was informed of the construction of the new death chamber. Had any of the liberal legislators taken the same interested in seeing first-hand the status quo in our prisons, they too would have known about the new construction plans. This construction was not some clandestine or covert operation conducted by the Administration. This is no different than any other contract issue the state handles. Liberals should not use a change order as a ruse to halt the death penalty. On December 15th, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel found that the state's lethal injection protocol was unconstitutional. As part of that decision, Fogel identified severe deficiencies with the lethal injection chamber; specifically that it was poorly lit, cramped and poorly designed. In response, the Governor issued a five-point plan, which included recommendations on 'how to improve the death penalty facility at San Quentin Prison to ensure that there is adequate equipment, lighting and space for the execution team members to perform their functions.' Liberals have known since December that new construction was on the table. If they want to outlaw the death penalty, start gathering signatures. Do not use legislative hearings as bully pulpits to subvert the will of the people and circumvent state law. But, as usual, they are attempting to ignore the overwhelming majority of this state and impose their own pro-criminal agenda on the people of this state." (source: California Chronicle) NEW JERSEY: Put killers in jail and throw away the keys We are ready for this evolution of our law enforcement and penal systems. LET'S FACE IT there's really no such thing as closure for a family that loses a loved one to murder. But putting a killer behind bars for life in a maximum security facility can help a murder victim's family put the public part of their loss behind them. Personally, I've always opposed the death penalty. I don't believe it is a deterrent to murder, which is most often driven by uncontrolled rage, jealousy or serious mental illness. And in cases of international terrorism, it's been clear that intentional suicide is often an integral part of the package. The bill (S-171) I am co-sponsoring to replace the death penalty in New Jersey with life in prison without parole was approved Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits a floor vote in the Senate. I believe New Jersey, as a society committed to protecting our residents from dangerous individuals while still exacting rational retribution for horrific offenses, is ready for this evolution of our law enforcement and penal systems. Most people agree that the current system of endless appeals to murder convictions just doesn't work. Families are forced to revisit their tragic losses every time there's another review. It will be better to have a certain sentence imposed and then have the killer put away forever. Wrongful convictions My opposition to the death penalty has only been reinforced by the scientific advancement of DNA testing, which has proved conclusively that egregious mistakes have been made by the criminal justice system in convicting the wrong people for murder and a host of other offenses. The truly remarkable investigative tool of DNA linkage to crime scenes has expedited many reversals of the mistakes made by humans in misidentifying people when they are traumatized by horrific events like witnessing murders. The good news about DNA testing is that a steady line of wrongfully convicted people has walked out from behind bars after years of incarceration because irrefutable proof of their innocence has been extracted from old evidence bins. Likewise, people who have escaped prosecution for years have been plucked from the streets after the emergence of DNA evidence. The bad news is that we'll still never know for sure how many innocent people from the past faced their final moments, looking up at a gallows or sitting in an electric chair, knowing they were about to die for something they did not do. The state's Death Penalty Study Commission recently produced a report that concluded that it made sense to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole. While the commission heard testimony from individuals demanding justice for lost loved ones through use of the death penalty, it also heard from those families who preferred knowing killers would be locked up for life once and for all. I understand the zeal of people who speak with commitment about justice delayed being justice denied. In fact, I agree with them. That's why moving this legislation is the right thing to do. It will provide certainty in sentencing and terminate the endless process of costly appeals. Retribution As for the need for retribution, this was answered by the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee of former Trenton State Prison Warden Gary Hilton, who described the daily drudgery of the conditions in a maximum security facility as a truly punitive and isolated "death by incarceration." The eruption of calls to maintain the death penalty for terrorists in light of the alleged plot to murder soldiers at Fort Dix should be kept in perspective. It could be argued without irony that terrorists' mission to reach paradise through murderous mayhem and self-destruction might be unbearably detoured by a life sentence at Trenton State Prison. But I will continue to rely on my belief that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder and that our limited resources can be better applied to helping crime victims and protecting people from violence. (source: Editorial, Loretta Weinberg is a Democratic state senator representing District 37; The Record) USA: Feingold Versus the Law So Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, a foe of the federal death penalty, is stalling the elevation of the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Roslynn Mauskopf, to the federal bench. The senator from the Badger State, our Joseph Goldstein reports, has been badgering the Brooklyn prosecutor about how often she requested the death penalty. Mr. Goldstein reports that she brought death penalty charges in 12 cases out of more than 100 in which the law provided that she had the option to do so. Mr. Feingold has plenty of ways to pursue his campaign against the death penalty. He could have chosen to run for president on an anti-death-penalty platform. His party, the Democrats, control Congress. They could try to repeal the federal death penalty or to reduce the list of crimes for which a person may be doomed. They could pass a Constitutional amendment declaring that the death penalty meets the definition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment, thus triggering, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, not only a ban on federal death penalty cases but also on the imposition of the death penalty by the states. The political support exists for none of those steps. Back in 2005 Mr. Feingold did introduce a bill to abolish the death penalty under federal law. It attracted exactly zero co-sponsors and went nowhere. In 2003 he introduced a bill "to place a moratorium on executions by the federal government and urge the states to do the same, while a national commission on the death penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition of the death penalty." That bill attracted, of the 99 senators other than Mr. Feingold, exactly four co-sponsors. It went nowhere. A Gallup poll last year found that when asked "In your opinion, is the death penalty imposed: too often, about the right amount, or not often enough?" 51% of Americans said not often enough and 25% said about right. The one successful Democratic candidate for president in the past generation, President Clinton, made a point, while campaigning in 1992, to fly back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, who had murdered a police officer. New York's two senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, both Democrats, support the death penalty, as does its governor, Eliot Spitzer, also a Democrat. The only case in which Ms. Mauskopf successfully got a death sentence resulted from the prosecution of the murder of 2 New York City Police detectives. When Ronell Wilson was arrested, our police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, who was director of the customs service in the Clinton administration and Mayor Dinkins's police commissioner, said, "if anyone ever needed a justification for the death penalty, this case is it." Reasonable people may disagree on the death penalty. We respect those who oppose it for religious reasons or because they feel the chance of an irreversible error is too great, or because, on libertarian grounds, they are skeptical of such a forceful use of power by the state. But no matter what one's view on the death penalty, it seems incredible that Mr. Feingold would fault a prosecutor or a judicial candidate for imposing a law that is on the books and that is widely supported in the Congress in which Mr. Feingold serves and in the state in which the sentence has been handed down. His real quarrel is not with Ms. Mauskopf she's just an easier target but with the law. (source: Editorial, New York Sun)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.Y., GA., MASS., ILL., CALIF., N.J., USA
Rick Halperin Mon, 14 May 2007 20:12:33 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
