[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, LA., USA, GA.

[Rick Halperin]

July 14



TEXAS:

Former drug dealer on death row claims self-defense in 1994 shooting
deaths


Back in the early nineties, when drug- and gang-related violence plagued
the streets of San Antonio, Frank Moore was a hustler at the top of the
game.

Moore, who went by the name Frank Mackie Jr., dealt primarily in crack
cocaine and weapons in San Antonio's housing projects, the source of the
street-crime epidemic responsible for the majority of homicides in the
early 1990s.

Those who knew Moore say he maintained a low profile by keeping out of the
public eye, relying on a close circle of associates and never getting high
off his own supply.

As he sits on Texas' death row for fatally shooting 2 young men outside a
local bar, Moore admits to committing numerous crimes in his 30 years on
the streets.

But he firmly denies responsibility for the murders he was tried and
convicted of, in not one, but 2 trials.

Moore, 48, has long maintained that he acted in self-defense on Jan. 21,
1994, the night he shot Samuel Boyd, 23, and Patrick Clark, 15, outside
Wheels of Joy, a bar located a few blocks from the San Antonio housing
projects where Moore ran his game.

But it was not until last year that a private investigator, who once
worked against Moore and his gangland cohorts, came forward with
information to corroborate his self-defense claims.

In the wake of the information provided by Warren Huel, a retired Navy
Seal who was in charge of the private security firm that oversaw the San
Antonio projects, Moore's appellate attorneys say they have uncovered more
evidence, which was either overlooked or suppressed by authorities,
supporting a self-defense claim.

As Huel states in an affidavit, there was evidence at the crime scene to
support Moore's claims that the victims shot at him first, but that San
Antonio police officers simply told Huel to "forget everything you have
seen tonight."

Before an execution date is set for Moore, the Texas Criminal Court of
Appeals must decide whether Moore's claims merit a new trial.

According to Huel, who now owns a private security firm in San Antonio,
the issue before the court boils down to a finer point: Should a notorious
drug dealer be put to death for a crime he may not have committed?

"Does he deserve the death penalty? Probably. But not for this," Huel told
CourtTVnews.com in an interview. "He was a bad guy, but if you're going to
catch them, catch them right."

Not long after Moore moved to San Antonio with his mother and sister from
Arkansas in the late 1970s, he says he became addicted to the fast cash
and the identity that life on the streets afforded him.

After more than 10 years on death row, he smiles as he recalls the days of
"easy money and fast living" that consumed his formative years as a "gang
banger," committing petty crimes on the street level and then later, as a
hustler, controlling his own operation.

As a juvenile and an adult, the middle school dropout divided his time
between the streets and prison, where he did stints for selling and
possessing drugs and for the attempted murder of a reputed gang member.

Moore took his street name, Frank Mackie Jr., from his mentor, Frank
Mackie Sr., a man with whom his mother became involved shortly after she
moved to San Antonio.

"He gave me game and how to survive," Moore said in an interview on death
row in Livingston. "You got to be the strong individual. If you ain't
driven to be best at what you're doing, if you're weak, you get ate by the
bigger fish. You got to be the shark."

By his late 20s, he left behind gang-banging - "standing on street corners
talking s---" - in favor of more money and respect as a captain of
industry in San Antonio's active street crime scene.

In the climate of extreme violence that consumed the San Antonio projects,
where Huel says a homicide occurred roughly every 20 hours, often in broad
daylight, the investigator remembers Moore as a "quiet" and "thoughtful"
gangster who carried himself with an air of professionalism.

"You would have thought he was doing something else for a living," says
Huel. "He was not a braggart. He had a reputation for being a serious man
of the streets."

But it was at times a violent life, and being at the top meant that others
wanted him dead.

"If you kill the strong, then you become the strong," Moore says. "You go
to war and you make your name, and once you make your name, that's who you
is."

Moore says an attempt on his life occurred in the daylight hours of Jan
20, 1994, when a group of young men opened fire on him from a car near the
Wheatley Court Housing Projects.

In an affidavit provided to the court, Huel corroborates Moore's claim
that among the gunmen were Samuel Boyd and Patrick Clark, both of whom
Moore would encounter that night at the Wheels of Joy nightclub.

According to witnesses who testified at his trial, Moore became involved
in an altercation in the club with Boyd, Clark and a man named Ernest
Bedford, who allegedly took part in the drive-by earlier that day and had
bragged to others that he was going to kill Moore.

The argument spilled over to the parking lot outside the bar, where Boyd
and Clark entered their car and drove toward Moore while Bedford
threatened him from the lot with a gun.

In his affidavit, Huel says witnesses told him that the men fired at Moore
first from inside the car.

In an instant, a friend of Moore's handed him a gun, which he used to open
fire on the car, shooting Boyd in the chest and Clark in the head. The 2
men died at the scene.

"They came with intentions to kill me. That's what they tried to do; they
already tried to gun me down earlier that day," Moore told
CourtTVnews.com. "It was a do-or-die situation."

But the juries in Moore's 2 trials never heard about the alleged attempt
on his life earlier that day or that the victims supposedly initiated the
violence at Wheels of Joy. According to Moore's attorney, those 2 facts
would have been sufficient to establish that he acted out of a reasonable
fear for his life, a key element of justifiable self-defense.

Huel was among the first peace officers on the scene. He claims witnesses
told him not only about the attempted hit, but that the victims' guns had
later been removed from the car.

Huel says he learned that Moore was unarmed when the confrontation began
in the bar, which, if true, could weaken the prosecution's theory that the
killing was premeditated.

It was not until the confrontation moved outside that a friend threw Moore
the weapon. That person, Ivory Sheffield, became a key witness against
Moore.

When Huel attempted to convey the information he had gathered to the San
Antonio police, when squads arrived approximately 45 minutes later, Huel
says the officers told him to forget everything he had seen and learned.

"I was told that did not matter, as they already had Frank Moore, the
murder weapon and an eyewitness," Huel states in his affidavit. "I was
told Moore was a dope dealer and had to go to jail."

Moore's 1st conviction and death sentence was set aside after the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals found error in the trial court's refusal to give
the jury the option of convicting Moore of a lesser offense. Even so,
Moore was convicted and sentenced to death at his second trial in 1999.

Moore's appellate attorneys did not find out about Huel until nearly a
decade after the incident, during an investigation into his self-defense
claims.

Moore's lawyer, David Sergi, filed a petition in 2006 claiming that Moore
should be afforded a new trial based on Huel's information.

More was to come. Sergi recalls the "wonderful moment" when Huel woke him
in the middle of the night with a phone call to say he had found a witness
who claimed to have seen a victim's relative removing their guns from the
car.

"Warren Huel wound up telling us a few things that contradicted the police
report and now he had evidence to corroborate his claims," Sergi said in
an interview in his office in San Marcos, Texas. "We had overzealous cops
who didn't like Frank Moore, wanted to get Frank Moore, and so they got
Frank Moore."

Sergi says Huel's information directly addresses the elements of justified
self-defense, namely, that Moore had a "reasonable basis" to suspect that
death was imminent if he did not act first - not only because the victims
pointed weapons at him, but because of the attempted hit earlier that day.

"He had every reason to defend himself. What would you do if someone shot
at you?" Sergi said. "What's missing is the rest of the story."

A spokesman with the Texas State Attorney's Office who is handling Moore's
habeas claims would not comment, but directed CourtTVnews.com to its
response to Moore's petition.

In the response, filed in January, Baxter Morgan from the state attorney's
office wrote that Moore's claims should be dismissed because his lawyers
pursued the evidentiary claims when they were supposed to be preparing a
case to show that he was mentally retarded.

Moore was originally granted a stay to investigate the retardation claims,
but his lawyer says that it was during those investigations that Moore's
defense team came across Huel.

Morgan also claims that the evidence has always been available and
therefore does not constitute "newly discovered" evidence as defined by
law. To pursue old evidence before exhausting all other avenues of appeal
would be a violation of procedure. If the court agrees with Morgan,
Moore's petition fails.

Moore says he has no illusions about which way things could go for him,
nor does he fear death. If he were exonerated in a new trial, he says, he
would reunite with his wife - a Dutch woman who moved from Amsterdam to
the town of Livingston, near the facility where Moore is being held - and
find work as a mechanic, his other passion.

"I've had 2 trials already, so I don't get excited about anything," Moore
says. "I've been fighting for my life all my life, and one of the few
things I never done would be to die, so that would be something new."

(source: Court TV)

**********************

3 Men Arrested In 2004 McKinney Murder Case


There's been a major break in one of the most notorious murder cases in
North Texas history.

3 men have been arrested in connection to the 2004 quadruple murder in
McKinney, and CBS 11 News has exclusive video of the suspects.

Eddie Williams has been charged with 4 counts of capital murder. Javier
Cortez has been charged with a federal firearms charge. Cortez's brother,
Raul, was arrested on Friday in Florida. He is also charged with four
counts of capital murder.

Detectives believe that the 3 men arrested late Friday night went to the
home of Rosa Barbosa on March 12, 2004 because she worked at a check
cashing store, and the gunmen wanted access to money at the store. Police
say there was an unsuccessful burglary at the check cashing store after
the 4 victims were shot, execution style, in a chaotic massacre at the
Barbosa home. Rosa Barbosa, Mark Barbosa, Matthew Self and Austin York
were all killed.

One month after the murders, McKinney police believed they had solved the
case, but charges against those suspects were later dropped due to lack of
evidence. Of the 3 men initially arrested, only one, Jecory May, remains
in federal custody on an unrelated weapons charge.

Police in McKinney believe that still others may have been involved.

The families of the Barbosas, Matthew Self, and Austin York have been
notified about these arrests. According to police in McKinney, the motive
was money.

CBS 11 News asked Williams, "Did you kill Ms. Barbosa or Mark?"

"No, I didn't kill her," he replied.

"I have nothing to do with this," said Javier Cortez.

A task force of five McKinney police detectives has been working on this
case since January. McKinney police say that a witness led them to
Williams. An interview with Williams led investigators to forensic
evidence. The evidence then led investigators to the Cortez brothers.

In an elaborate surveillance investigation, McKinney police worked with
state and federal law enforcement and called Friday's arrest operation bad
luck... because all 3 men arrested were taken into custody on Friday the
13th.

(source: CBS News)

*********************************************

Death row inmate's defense claims conflict of interest


Defense attorneys for death row inmate Pedro Sosa will file an emergency
appeal to the state's highest court after a district judge refused to
decide if District Attorney Ren Pea should be disqualified from handling
their client's mental competency hearing.

Sosa's attorneys had sought to remove Pea from representing the state,
arguing there was a conflict of interest for the prosecutor because he
once helped prepare for Sosa's defense.

It's a claim that Pea has denied.

State District Judge Donna Rayes on Thursday told attorneys Cynthia Orr
and Gerry Goldstein she had no authority in removing Pea citing precedent
cases.

Sosa's attorneys disagree, saying those cases leave room for
interpretation.

Rayes issued her decision after a daylong hearing that also dealt with a
separate complaint from Sosa's attorneys who argued one of Pea's assistant
prosecutors inadvertently had gained access to privileged attorney-client
documents belonging to the defendant.

Rayes said removing the district attorney from the case for that reason
would be inappropriate and instead agreed with prosecutors that the
documents should be reviewed to determine if they can be admissible in
Sosa's upcoming mental competency hearing.

Sosa's execution has been postponed multiple times while his attorneys
appeal his 1984 murder conviction for the abduction and shooting death of
Wilson County Deputy Ollie Childress Jr.

Sosa's nephew, Leroy Jr., told authorities the men abducted the deputy the
same day they robbed the La Vernia State Bank of $51,038 on Nov. 4, 1983.

The nephew said his uncle shot the deputy twice, because he had seen his
uncle's face.

Leroy Sosa Jr. was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life in prison.

Initially, Pedro Sosa's attorneys were able to convince a court to delay
his execution while they argued whether Sosa was entitled to a new trial
because the FBI withheld hundreds of pages of information on other
potential suspects.

Now the issue is whether Sosa should be spared from lethal injection
because of his limited mental capacity.

No date has been set on when a mental competency hearing would be.

Sosa attorneys filed the motion to disqualify Pea from the case last
month, arguing he helped prepare for Sosa's defense back in 1983.

Pea acknowledges he was a volunteer with the Southwest Voters Education
Project back then, but denies having provided any assistance to Sosa's
previous defense attorneys.

************************

Death row inmate fails in bid to disqualify DA


Defense attorneys for death row inmate Pedro Sosa failed to convince a
judge Thursday to disqualify District Attorney Ren Pea from handling their
client's mental competency hearing, despite claims Pea once helped prepare
for Sosa's defense.

State District Judge Donna Rayes denied the motion after a daylong hearing
that also dealt with a separate complaint from Sosa's attorneys who argued
one of Pea's assistant prosecutors had inadvertently gain ed access to
privileged attorney-client documents belonging to the defendant.

Rayes said removing the district attorney from the case for that would be
inappropriate and instead agreed with prosecutors that the documents
should be reviewed to determine if they can be admissible in Sosa's
upcoming mental competency hearing.

Sosa's execution has been postponed multiple times while his attorneys
appeal his 1984 murder conviction for the abduction and shooting death of
Wilson County Deputy Ollie Childress Jr.

Sosa's nephew, Leroy Jr., told authorities the men abducted the deputy the
same day they robbed the La Vernia State Bank of $51,038 on Nov. 4, 1983.

The nephew said his uncle shot the deputy twice, because he had seen his
uncle's face.

Leroy Sosa Jr. was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life in prison.

Initially, Pedro Sosa's attorneys were able to convince a court to delay
his execution while they argued whether Sosa was entitled to a new trial
because the FBI withheld hundreds of pages of information on other
potential suspects.

Now the issue is whether Sosa should be spared from lethal injection
because of his limited mental capacity.

No date has been set on when a mental competency hearing would be.

Sosa attorney Cynthia Orr filed the motion to disqualify Pea from the case
last month, arguing he helped prepare for Sosa's defense back in 1983.

Pea acknowledges he was a volunteer with the Southwest Voters Education
Project back then, but denies having provided any assistance to Sosa's
defense attorneys.

Testimony in Thursday's hearing failed to convince Rayes that Pea, who was
then a law student, had helped Sosa's case, as his attorneys now allege.

Both Orr and attorney Gerry Goldstein said they were considering an
emergency appeal on Raye's ruling, but hadn't yet decided how to proceed.

(source for both: San Antonio Express-News)






LOUISIANA:

MEMORIES OF A DEAD MAN WALKING


There she was during the filming of Dead Man Walking, Susan Sarandon being
me, going into the womens room in the death house, putting her head
against the tile wall, grabbing the crucifix around her neck, praying,
"Please God, don't let him fall apart." It's something to watch a film of
yourself happening in front of your eyes, kind of funny to hear somebody
saying that she's you, but I don't stay long with this mirro stuff. What
happens is that I'm sucked back into the original scene, the white-hot
fire of what actually happened.

There in the Louisiana death house on April 4, 1984, I was scared out of
my mind. I had never watched anybody be killed. I was supposed to be the
condemned mans spiritual advisor. I was in over my head. All I had agree
to in the beginning was to be a pen pal to Patrick Sonnier. Sure, I said,
I could writer letters. But the man was all alone. He had no one to visit
him, and it was like a current in a river: I got sucked in and the next
thing I was saying was, Okay, sure, Ill come to visit you, and when I
filled out the prison application form to be approved as his visitor, he
suggested spiritual advisor, and I said, Sure. He was a Catholic, and I'm
a Catholic nun, and it seemed right, but I didn't know that at the end, on
the evening of the execution, everybody ahs to leave the death house at
5:45 p.m. Everybody but the spiritual advisor. They spiritual advisor
stays to the end. The spiritual advisor witnesses execution.

People ask me all the time, What's a nun doing getting involved with these
murderers? You know how people have these stereotypical images of nunsnuns
teach, nuns nurse the sick. I tell people: Look at who Jesus hung out
withlepers, prostitutes, thieves, the throwaways of his day. People dont
get it. There's a lot of "biblical quarterbacking" in death penalty
debates, with people tossing in quotes from the Bible to back up what
they've already decided on, people wanting to practice vengeance and have
God agree with them. The same thing happened in this country in the
slavery debates and in the debates over women's suffrage. Quote that
Bible. God said torture. God said get revenge. Religion is tricky
business.

But here's the real reason I got involved with death row inmates: I got
involved with poor people. And everybody who lives on this planet and has
at least one eye open knows that only poor people get selected for death
row. On June 1, 1981, I drove a little brown truck into St. Thomas, a
black, inner-city housing project in New Orleans, and began to live there
with 4 other Sisters (with my scared Catholic mama kneeling on crushed
glass and saying her rosary, praying that her daughter wouldnt be shot.)
("Kneeling on crushed glass" is just an expression. Read fervently.)

Growing up a Southern white girl in Baton Rouge, right on the cusp of the
upper class, I had only known black people as my servants. I went to an
all-white high schoolthis was in the Fiftiesand black people had to sit in
the back of the bus and up in the balcony of the Paramount and Hart
theaters.

I got a whole other kind of education in the St. Thomas Projects. I still
go there every Monday to keep close to friends I made there and to keep
close to the struggle. Living there, it didn't take long to see that there
was a greased track to prison and death row. As one Mama put it: "Our boys
leave here in the police car or a hearse."

When I began visiting Pat Sonnier in 1982, I couldn't have been more nave
about prisons. The only other experience with prisoners I'd had was in the
Sixties when Sister Cletus and Idecked in full head-to-toe habitswent to
Orleans Parish Prison one time to play our guitars and sing with the
prisoners. This was the era of singing nuns, the "Dominica-nica-nica" era,
and the guards brought us all into this big room with over one hundred
prisoners and I said, "Let's do 'If I Had a Hammer,'" and the song took
off like a shot. The men really got into it and started making up their
own verses: If I had a switchblade" laughing and singing aloud and the
guards were rolling their eyes. Sister Cletus and I weren't invited back
to sing there again. And the movie got this scene right, at least the
telling of it. Sister Helen/Susan tells this story to the chaplain who has
asked her if shes had any experience in prisons. He's not amused.

I wrote Patrick Sonnier about life in St. Thomas, and he wrote me about
life in the 6-by-8 foot cell. He and 40 other men were confined 23 out of
24 hours a day in cells of this size, and he'd say how glad he was when
summer was over because there was no fresh air in their unventilated
cells, and hed sometimes wet the sheet form his bunk and put it on the
cement floor to try to cool off, or hed clean out his toilet bowl and
stand in it and use a small plastic container to get water from his
lavatory and pour it over his body. Patrick was on death row 4 years
before they killed him.

I made a bad mistake. When I found out about Patrick Sonnier's crimehe and
his brother were convicted of killing 2 teenage kidsI didnt go to see the
victims' families. I stayed away because I wasn't true how to deal with
such raw pain. The movie's got this part down pat. I t really takes you
over to the victims' families and helps you see their pain and my awful
tension with them. In real life, I was a coward. I stayed away and only
met the victims' families at Patricks pardon board hearing. They were
there to demand the execution. I was there to ask the board to show mercy.
It was not a good time to meet.

Here were two sets of parents whose children had been ripped form them,
condemned in their pain and loss to kind of death row of their own. I felt
terrible. I was powerless to assuage their grief. It would take me a long
time to learn how to help victims' families, a long time before I would
sit at their support group meetings and hear their unspeakable stories of
loss and grief and rage and guilt. I would learn that the divorce rate for
couples who lose a child is over 70 %a new twist to "until death do us
part." I would learn that often after a murder friends stay away because
they don't know how to respond to the pain. I would learn that black
families or Hispanic families or poor families who have a loved on
murdered not only don't expect the district attorneys office to pursue the
death penalty but are surprised when the case is prosecuted at all. In
Louisiana, the hangman's noose, then the electric chair, and now the
Virginia Smith's African-American family. She was 14 when 3 white youths
took her into the woods, raped and stabbed her to death. None of them got
the death penalty. They had all-white juries.

Patrick tried to protect me from watching him die. He told me he'd be
okay, I didn't have to come with him into the execution chamber. "Electric
chair's not a pretty sight, it could scar you," he told me, trying to be
brave. I said, "No, no, Pat, if they kill you, I'll be there," and I said
to him, "You look at me, look at my face, and I will be the face of Christ
for you, the face of love." I couldn't bear it that he would die alone. I
said, "God will help me." And there in the women's room, just a few hours
before the execution, my only place of privacy in that place of death, God
and I met, and the strength was there, and it was like a circle of light
and it was just in the present moment. If I tried to think ahead to what
would happen at midnight, I started coming unraveled, but there in the
present I could hold together, and Patrick was strong and kept asking me,
"Sister Helen, are you all right?"

Being in the death house was one of the most bizarre, confusing
experiences I have ever had because it wasn't like visiting somebody dying
in a hospital, where you can see the person getting weaker and fading.
Patrick was so fully alive, talking and responding to me and writing
letters to people and eating, and Id look around at the polished tile
floorseverything so neatall the officials following a protocol, the
secretary typing up forms for the witnesses to sign, the coffee pot
percolating, and I kept feeling that I was in a hospital, and the final
act would be to save this man's life. It felt strange and terrifying
because everyone was so polite. They kept asking Patrick if he needed
anything. The chef came by to ask him if he liked his last mealthe steak
(medium rare), the potato salad, the apple pie for dessert.

When the warden with the strap-down team came for Patrick at midnight, I
walked behind him. In a hoarse, childlike voice he asked the warden, "Can
Sister Helen touch my arm?" I put my hand on his shoulder and read to him
from Isaiah, Chapter 43: "I have called you by your nameif you walk
through fire I will be with you." God heard his prayer, "Please, God, hold
up my legs." It was the last piece of dignity he could muster. He wanted
to walk. I saw this dignity in him and I have seen it in the other two men
I have accompanied to their deaths. I wonder how I would hold up if I were
walking across a floor to a room where people were waiting to kill me. The
essential torture of the death penalty is not finally the physical method:
a bullet or rope or gas or electrical current or injected drugs. The
torture happens when conscious human beings are condemned to death and
begin to anticipate that death and die a thousand times before they die.
I'm not saying that Patrick Sonnier or any of the condemned killers I've
accompanied were heroes. I do not glorify them. I do not condone their
terrible crimes. But each of these men was a human being and each had a
transcendence, a dignity, which should assure them of 2 very basic human
right that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls
for: the right not to be tortured, the right not to be killed. To have a
firm moral bedrock for our societies we must establish that no one is
permitted to killand that includes governments.

At the end I was amazed at how ordinary Patrick Sonniers last moments
were. He walked to the dark oak chair, and sat in it. As guards were
strapping his legs and arms and trunk, he found my face and his voice and
his last words of life were words of love to me and I took them in like a
lightning rod and I have been telling his story ever since.

When they filmed the execution scene of Dead Man Walking on a set in New
York City I was there for the whole last week, watching Sean Penn, as the
death row inmate Matthew Poncelet, get executed by lethal injection. It
was tense, it was slow, it was hard. They shot each scene 10 or more
times. It took forever. Sean dying, Susan accompanying him, me
remembering. Once, during a break, Sean stayed strapped to the gurney and
Susan went to visit with him for a while. He's strapped at his neck,
trunk, legs, arms, ankles. The cameras are over him. There's a hushed buzz
from other actors and technicians. Susan's standing close and taking
softly to him. I notice she's holding his hand. It's just a movie. He's
not really dying, but there she is holding his hand. Even playing at dying
and killing can be real, real hard on you.

(source: Oxford American)






USA:

Killing machine


'FROM THIS DAY FORWARD," Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in
1994, "I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death." Blackmun's
anguished refusal to patch and repair an inherently unjust system was an
act of judicial acumen and conscience that sadly goes unshared in much of
this country and elsewhere. And yet his reasoning remains unassailable. No
combination of statutes, regulations and safeguards has resulted in a
capital punishment system that is fair, moral, equitably applied and
immune to error.

The spectacle of state-ordered death has been on display across the world
this week  in the sentencing of a Los Angeles serial killer whose case
revealed that another man had been wrongly convicted for several of the
crimes; in the dispiriting case of a Georgia man set for execution despite
the shaky evidence against him; in the abrupt killing of a Chinese
official by a government more interested in image than justice; in the
stoning of an Iranian man for violating his nation's moral code; in the
sentencing of 6 almost-certainly innocent foreign medical workers in
Libya. Which of these is more barbaric?

The death sentence a jury meted out to serial killer Chester Turner is a
powerful reminder that in 1995, another jury wrongly convicted David Allen
Jones of rapes and murders that Turner committed. Jones served 11 years
before being released, and we give thanks that the state, in its
capricious application of the death penalty, had not sentenced him to die.

Troy Davis, however, likely will be executed by the state of Georgia next
week. Seven of the nine witnesses who said he shot a police officer have
either recanted or contradicted their testimony, and many say police
intimidated them. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis'
habeas corpus petition alleging evidence of police coercion on a
technicality  it was brought too late.

False or questionable convictions are worst-case scenarios, but the
immorality of capital punishment is not confined to those instances in
which it is turned against the innocent. As Blackmun also wrote, even when
the system works as designed, "our collective conscience will remain
uneasy."

Zheng Xiaoyu's corruption led to the deaths of people who trusted him to
safeguard China's food and medicine; Turner's crimes were heinous, and the
Iranian man convicted of adultery may have been guilty as well. Executing
them, however, does not right their wrongs. Rather, it adds the state to
the list of those who engage in premeditated murder. And thus it expands
the universe of the complicit, as we continue our futile tinkering with an
unjust and unjustifiable machine.

(source: Editorial, Los Angeles Times)

***********************

Death penalty debate ---- China just executed a man for all the wrong
reasons


Zheng Xiaoyu was executed this week. The former head of China's food and
drug administration lost his appeal to the Supreme People's Court,
according to the Times of London, "in an unusually swift legal process
clearly intended to warn other Communist Party officials that those found
guilty of corruption will not be spared."

Zheng had allegedly received bribes in exchange for approving dangerous or
otherwise sketchy drugs. One fake antibiotic has been linked to at least
10 deaths in China, and that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming the charges are true, few should weep for Minister Zheng.

Zheng's execution received ample coverage around the world. But, as best I
can tell, there has been next to no outrage about it. Major news outlets
that usually have human rights groups and death penalty opponents on speed
dial seem content to treat this as a business story or as a window into
the otherworldly realm that is China.

The silence over the obvious implications of Zheng's execution is both
conspicuous and telling.

Haven't we been told for decades - with reams of statistics at the ready -
that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent?

So why are so many people willing to accept the Chinese government's
position that Zheng's execution is a necessary tool in combating
corruption? Are Chinese bureaucrats some subspecies of human being
uniquely susceptible to this sort of suasion? Or is it that American
murderers are uniquely immune to such threats?

My guess is that the comparative silence over the Zheng case can be
chalked up to tactical considerations. There are so many more politically
useful death penalty victims. Wasting a lot of time on Zheng would be
counterproductive. When transparently guilty serial killers and child
murderers are executed, death penalty opponents rarely pound the table as
loudly as when guilt is less clear-cut or when the convict in question is
more politically convenient.

There's nothing inherently wrong about this. If you're determined to get
rid of capital punishment, you're going to press your case where it's
strongest and conserve your resources at other times. Animal rights
activists get better traction when cute, cuddly animals are in the
crosshairs than when rats are under the knife. Abortion opponents have a
winning issue with partial birth abortion and are on defense when opposing
the right to terminate very early pregnancies, particularly in cases of
rape or incest. Consistent outrage is a luxury political activists can
rarely afford.

But that shouldn't affect how we think about such issues. Political
tactics are not a substitute for political principles, and yet people
confuse the two all the time. The death penalty is always more popular
when crime rates are high. We think that if Murderer A is executed for
killing someone else's child, that will make it much less likely that
Murderer B or C will murder our own child. When murder rates are low,
support for the death penalty decreases because people are less afraid.

This utilitarian calculus is not only understandable but rational and
deeply seductive. Death penalty opponents understand this, which is why
they insist that deterrence has no effect. I think this is poppycock, the
studies saying otherwise be damned. It defies common sense to think that
Chinese officials won't be deterred at all by Zheng's demise. At minimum,
this will raise the price of bribes in China - which, as any economist
will tell you, means that at the margins there will be fewer bribes. That
the statistical evidence in the U.S. allegedly doesn't support the
deterrence argument is more of a commentary on the inefficiencies of our
criminal justice system.

But the point is that it shouldn't matter whether capital punishment is a
deterrent. The death penalty cannot be justified by the deterrence
argument alone. As the late sociologist Ernest van den Haag wrote,
"Deterring the crimes, not yet committed, of others does not morally
justify execution of any convict (except to utilitarians, who think
usefulness is a moral justification)." It is child's play to make the
utilitarian case for executing shoplifters, but as all but the most
morally stunted should see, hanging one shoplifter cannot be justified by
the argument that it will deter another.

Like van den Haag, I support the death penalty because I believe that in
some cases the death penalty is just. But, save perhaps in the realm of
military justice or some truly grave crisis, executing to set an example
for others is an indefensible rationalization of mob rule. That is what
they have in China and, too often, that is what some advocates of the
death penalty argue for here.

(source: Opinion, Jonah Goldberg, Bowling Green Daily News)

*************************

In The Hands Of Monsters


Zina Linnick's parents, like parents everywhere, probably spent time
sitting at her bedside when she was little, comforting her, assuring that
she could sleep well when the lights go out. There are no such things as
monsters.

They were wrong

Yesterday Zina's body was found. She found out, in the last minutes of her
12 year old life, that monsters are indeed all too real. And she died at
the hands of one. And now comes the all too familiar back story, the guy
was a convicted sex offender who had failed to register as such and had
dropped off the radar screen, a multi-convicted criminal, an illegal
immigrant who somehow didn't get deported after being convicted of a
smorgasbord of crimes, etc., etc.

And the beat goes on

It seems that nearly every day now we wake up to the news that another
girl is missing from somewhere, and we wait for what now seems to be the
inevitable outcome. The girl's body will be found somewhere in a wooded
area, dumped like inconvenient litter by some animal who didn't - couldn't
- recognize that he had just destroyed a human being, disposed of with the
same disconnection that he would have when scraping something unpleasant
off of his shoe.

It happens over and over again. How many times lately?

For those of you out there who do not believe in the death penalty....I
defy you to find one, ONE valid reason why the monster who just killed
that 12 year old girl should keep on breathing for one single hour longer.
I know all the old, tired arguments against it. Will it bring her back?
Nope. But nobody will be able to bring that animal back, either. It's just
revenge, they whine. Yeah. So? That's exactly what it is. Revenge. Has a
nice ring to it, doesn't it? We should hold ourselves to a higher standard
and not commit state sanctioned murder. I don't think the state can
possibly have a higher standard than executing a monster who preys on her
children without regard, mercy, or pity.

And, yeah, I know....that's not the end-all answer. It won't fix the
entire problem. But it certainly will fix small parts of it one at a time.

Maybe parents should stop telling their kids that there aren't any
monsters out there because there surely are. Polly Klaas and Jessica
Lunsford and now Zina Linnick and many others all spent the last terrified
moments of their lives in the hands of one.

So...tell me again what's wrong with the death penalty in thse cases?

(source: KXMC News)

*********************

Who would Jesus stone?


A tragedy of biblical proportions occurred in Iran this past week,
according to an Associated Press report. A man convicted of adultery was
stoned to death in a village in the northern part of the country.

Being stoned to death is a particularly cruel and barbaric way to kill a
human being. Executioners bury the victim up to his waist then hurl stones
at his head and torso until he is dead. The practice is prohibited by
international law, and has been condemned by every human right's group in
the world.

Of course, it has been around for centuries. Stoning took place among the
Greeks, the Hebrews and later Muslims. Ironically, the Quran does not
prescribe stoning as a means of execution. The practice found its way into
Islamic law and when it is carried out, as it was in Iran recently, it is
the law that governs the process.

There are other offenses which carry the death penalty in Iran. They
include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, drug
trafficking, prostitution, treason and espionage.

Interestingly enough, the holy book of Jews and Christians does prescribe
stoning for a number of offenses. Some of these include worship of other
gods, child sacrifice, preaching in the name of another god,
spirit-divination, blasphemy, not observing the Sabbath, using an ox to
kill someone, adultery and insubordinate behavior of a child.

And while we happily no longer practice stoning here in the West, there
are those Bible believers who think we should. Just last week at the
Ridgecrest Conference Center, a North Carolina retreat owned and operated
by Southern Baptists, a group calling itself American Vision hosted an
event called "Preparing the Generation to Capture the Future."

The basic theme of the conference was the need for conservative Christians
to re-claim America. Speaker after speaker asserted their belief that
America was founded as a Christian nation but was now giving way to
secular humanism. Unless true believers step up and re-claim our land for
Christ, attendees were told, all will be lost.

Among the featured speakers was Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist
who believes that only right thinking Christians should hold elected
offices. In many books and pamphlets, North has laid out his vision of an
America governed by Old Testament precepts, and that includes the practice
of stoning. In fact, North has written that stoning is the preferred
method of execution because it is a communal activity and the resources
for accomplishing it are readily available.

So why don't we stone people anymore? Well, the Eighth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Stoning would
seem to fall into that category.

However, it's still in the Bible, and many believers insist it should be
read and interpreted literally. So what do we do about that?

Fortunately, Jesus took care of the matter for us. One dark night a woman
caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus to be stoned. "It's the
law," the crowed reminded Jesus. He scratched around in the dirt for a few
moments then said to the crowd, "Let those without sin cast the first
stone." The woman walked away alive.

It's hard to know whether Jesus was simply exposing hyper
self-righteousness, or undermining stoning itself, but it certainly set a
powerful precedent. Only those who are without sin are able to execute
others. That certainly narrows the field of potential executioners,
somewhat.

(source: James L. Evans, a syndicated columnist, also serves as pastor of
Auburn First Baptist Church; Decatur Daily)




GEORGIA----impending execution

Will Georgia Kill an Innocent Man?


The pending execution of Troy Anthony Davis, scheduled to take place on
July 17, is raising serious questions about his guilt - and about the Newt
Gingrich-era federal law that has limited his appeals options and
prevented him, say his supporters, from getting a fair shake.

Davis, 38, a former coach in the Savannah Police Athletic League who had
signed up for the Marines, was convicted in the 1989 murder of Mark Allen
MacPhail, a Savannah, Ga., police officer. MacPhail was off-duty when he
was shot dead in a Savannah parking lot while responding to an assault.
Davis was at the scene of the crime, and an acquaintance who was there
with him accused Davis of being the shooter. Since his conviction in 1991,
Davis has seen each of his state and federal appeals fail. But in the
court of public opinion, Davis presents a compelling argument. Seven of
the nine main witnesses whose testimony led to his conviction have since
recanted. The murder weapon has never been found, and there is no physical
evidence linking the crime to Davis, who has asserted his innocence
throughout.

Earlier this month, two of the jurors who sentenced Davis to death signed
sworn affidavits saying that based on the recanted testimony, he should
not be executed. "In light of this new evidence," wrote one juror, "I have
genuine concerns about the fairness of Mr. Davis' death sentence."

One of Davis' major obstacles has been the federal Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), legislation championed by former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of his Contract with America and
signed by former president Bill Clinton. The act was passed in 1996 as a
way of reforming what Gingrich called "the current interminable, frivolous
appeals process." Its major provisions reduced new trials for convicted
criminals and sped up their sentences by restricting a federal court's
ability to judge whether a state court had correctly interpreted the U.S.
Constitution.

Facing political pressure one year after the Oklahoma City bombing and 7
months before the presidential election, Clinton signed the bill, but
inserted a somewhat incongruous signing statement that called for the
federal courts to continue their oversight role.

That was wishful thinking, say many legal experts. "President Clinton was
trying to have his cake and eat it, too," said George Kendall, senior
counsel at Holland and Knight and a board member of the Death Penalty
Information Center. The reality since 1996, legal analysts say, has been a
U.S. Supreme Court that has narrowly interpreted the act, further
restraining the ability of federal courts to grant new trials (on June 25,
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to give Davis one last hearing). "The
bottom line," said Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender in
Arizona, "is that the AEDPA is very harsh and unforgiving."

So now there are serious questions whether, as Gingrich famously said,
justice delayed is justice denied. The system of appeals can still stretch
out over decades, but in Davis' case, many of those appeals are now being
denied for procedural reasons. In his 2004 petition to the federal
district court in Savannah, Davis presented recanted testimony, most of
which involves witnesses who say police coercion caused them to wrongly
implicate Davis. He also presented nine individuals' affidavits that
suggested that the real murderer was actually the former acquaintance who
first accused Davis of the crime.

The federal judge rejected the petition since, under the current law, the
evidence must first be presented in state court. But Tom Dunn, the
executive director of the Georgia Resource Center, which helped represent
Davis, says that funding trouble prevented the center from presenting the
evidence in state court in the first place. Tracking down witnesses costs
money, but in 1995, just as Dunn's colleagues had been preparing Davis'
appeal, Congress eliminated $20 million in funding to post-conviction
defender organizations like the Georgia center, which lost 70% of its
budget. Six of the center's 8 lawyers left, as well as three of its four
investigators, and Davis' case became one of about 80 that Beth Wells,
then executive director, had to handle with her co-director.

"The work conducted on Mr. Davis' case was akin to triage," Wells wrote in
an affidavit, "where we were simply trying to avert total disaster rather
than provide any kind of active or effective representation...There were
numerous witnesses that we knew should have been interviewed, but lacked
the resources to do so."

Georgia officials insist that Davis' failed 2004 federal court hearing is
proof he has had his opportunity in court with the new evidence. "They've
had a chance to challenge the conviction," said David Lock, chief
assistant district attorney in Chatham County, where Savannah is located.

Davis' attorney has been filing a flurry of requests for a stay of
execution until a new trial can be held. Meanwhile Davis' sister, Martina
Correia, has helped assemble an diverse group of advocates - from Dead Man
Walking author Sister Helen Prejean to South African Archbishop Desmond
Tutu to former FBI director William S. Sessions (a death penalty
supporter) - to petition the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to
commute Davis' sentence to life in prison when it meets on July 16, the
day before he's scheduled to die by lethal injection.

Correia has watched her brother spend half his life in prison. This case
is not only about him, she says, but it's also about a law that
short-changes the convicted. "If for any reason [the last-minute appeal]
doesn't go the right way, Georgia is going to be so shamed," she said. "I
just don't want my brother to have to be executed to be the catalyst for
change."

(source: TIME Magazine)

******************

Judge: No stay on Davis execution


A judge Friday night rejected Troy Anthony Davis' 11th-hour appeal of his
murder conviction in the death of Mark Allen MacPhail.

Chatham County Superior Court Judge Penny Haas Freesemann also denied a
petition to stay Davis' execution, which is scheduled for Tuesday.

The twin actions leave Davis' legal team only an appeal for clemency on
Monday to block the death by lethal injection.

The session before the state Board of Pardons and Paroles in Atlanta is
set to begin at 9 a.m.

Davis is scheduled to die at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Prison in Jackson at 7 p.m. Tuesday.

In her 6-page order filed in court shortly after 7 p.m. Friday, Freesemann
ruled that affidavits filed by Davis' lawyers, which they said contained
"newly discovered evidence," failed to carry the legal burden in "each and
every submitted affidavit."

An extraordinary motion for a new trial sets out six specific requirements
to get court action.

For example, Freesemann ruled that three affidavits alleging Sylvester
"Red" Coles confessed to the murder contained "inadmissible hearsay."

Likewise, Freesemann ruled, affidavits from jurors who expressed concerns
about the case "do not form a legal basis of support for defendant's
extraordinary motion for new trial."

She denied the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

"Accordingly (the court) denied defendant's motion for a stay of
execution," Freesemann ruled.

Also Friday, state Department of Corrections officials reported Davis made
no special request for a last meal Tuesday.

The actions come as time appears to be running out for Davis, now 38, and
his nearly 16-year-long bid to overturn his Aug. 28, 1991, conviction in
the MacPhail slaying.

The victim, a 27-year-old Savannah police officer working off-duty
security, was gunned down Aug. 19, 1989, in the parking lot of the
Greyhound Bus Terminal at Oglethorpe Avenue and Fahm Street.

MacPhail was running to the aid of a man being pistol-whipped by Davis.

The jury found that Davis pulled a .38-caliber pistol from his waistband
and shot the officer once as he stood and again as he lay on the ground.

Testimony at the trial for Davis showed MacPhail's weapon was never
unholstered, its security strap never unfastened. His baton was still on
his belt.

After the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case June 25, it
seemingly ended Davis' appellate challenges.

But Monday, attorneys for Davis filed an extraordinary motion for new
trial and a request for a stay of execution.

District Attorney Spencer Lawton Jr. and his chief assistant, David Lock,
challenged the actions as being unfounded claims of new evidence filed
solely for the purpose of delaying the execution.

(source: Savannah Morning News)

****************

Courts should hear new testimony in Davis case


Letters to the editor

Raphael Semmes can conjure up whatever story he likes about the murder of
Mark McPhail ("Troy Davis deserves to die," July 2), but the only story
that matters is the truth.

The murder weapon was never found - let alone found anywhere near Troy
Davis' hands. The case against Davis consisted entirely of witness
testimony that was inconsistent even at the time of the trial. Since then,
7 of the prosecution's 9 non-police witnesses have recanted or
contradicted their testimony in sworn affidavits.

One of those witnesses, Jeffrey Sapp, said, "The police came and talked to
me and put a lot of pressure on me... They wanted me to tell them that
Troy confessed to me about killing that officer. The thing is, Troy never
told me anything about it. I got tired of them harassing me ... I told
them that Troy did it, but it wasn't true."

Because of procedural technicalities, the new statements and evidence have
never been heard in court. Now, only the Georgia State Board of Pardons
and Paroles can stop this execution, so that the facts of the case can be
fully heard. It is my hope that they will examine the information before
them closely and realize that fairness matters over finality.

More than 124 individuals have been released from death rows around the
country in the past 3 decades on grounds of innocence. Individuals who had
seemed so guilty to many turned out to be innocent, and many of them came
within hours of being executed. It's a lesson worth remembering.

LARRY COX

Executive director, Amnesty International USA

New York

(source: Letter to the Editor, Savannah Morning News)

***********************

State denies Troy Davis more time to make case for clemency----John Lewis
to testify on behalf of Davis, who is to be executed Tuesday


The state Board of Pardons and Paroles denied a request from Troy Anthony
Davis' lawyers this afternoon for more time to make their case for
clemency.

Lawyers had asked that the Monday meeting to discuss clemency be
postponed. They had formally asked for a stay so they can have more time
to gather witnesses and transport them to Atlanta.

The board would not postpone Monday's hearing, noting that his lawyers
were able to muster witnesses who had recanted at a rally earlier this
week in front of the board's offices.

"If they were available last Tuesday, they should be available on Monday,"
parole board lawyer Tracy D. Masters wrote in a letter faxed to Davis'
attorneys this afternoon.

Davis was sentenced to death for the shooting of Savannah police officer
Mark Allen MacPhail in 1989, but serious questions about his guilt have
been raised. His lawyers want to present several witnesses who have
recanted testimony used to convict Davis or identified another shooter.
Since his trial in 1991, 7 of 9 witnesses who implicated Davis have
recanted their testimony.

Davis has gained a powerful ally in his quest to avoid execution.

Veteran civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta will be
among those expected to testify on Davis' behalf at the clemency hearing.

The hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Monday.

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

*********************

Campaign grows to halt execution of cop-killer amid doubt he's guilty


Authorities should halt the execution next Tuesday of a man for killing an
off-duty police officer in 1989 because of growing indications he might
not be guilty, campaigners said yesterday.

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles is due to rule on Monday on
whether it should grant clemency to Troy Davis, 38, who is due to be
executed by lethal injection in Jackson, Ga.

Davis was convicted of killing officer Mark McPhail in the parking lot of
a Burger King in Savannah, Ga.

Pleas for a stay of execution are common, but campaigners including
Amnesty International and South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond
Tutu argue Davis could be innocent.

No DNA evidence linked Davis to the crime, no murder weapon was found and
7 of 9 witnesses central to the prosecution case have recanted or changed
their testimony, according to activists.

Some witnesses also have said they testified under duress and two of them,
plus 4 new witnesses, have identified a man they said was the actual
murderer, according to evidence that Davis' lawyers intend to present to
the parole board.

"We are not saying he is innocent," said Laura Moye, deputy regional
director of Amnesty U.S.A. "[But] if you look at the facts, we don't
believe he got a fair trial or a fair appeal. The new facts should be
reviewed."

"I don't think you could look at the facts of this case and feel safe
going forward with the execution," said Moye, whose organization opposes
the death penalty.

Davis's case was weakened by a 1996 law that narrowed the avenues of
appeal for death row inmates, and his lawyers were hampered by a refusal
of the courts to look at evidence that emerged after the initial trial,
Moye said.

In an opinion piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper, former
FBI director William Sessions said of Davis' case: "It would be
intolerable to execute a man without his claims of innocence ever being
considered by the courts or by the executive," referring to the state
governor.

(source: Reuters)

**************************

A grim duty----Date nears for Troy Anthony Davis execution.


EXECUTIONS ARE grim duties, including the one scheduled Tuesday for
convicted killer Troy Anthony Davis.

No one looks with enthusiasm on the state's responsibility to carry out
this ultimate punishment.

Even the family members of murder victims look on the death of the
perpetrator with a kind of satisfaction that brings closure but little
comfort.

But the law of the land states that those who take a life may be required
to pay with their own.

This fact is not hidden from those who live by violence. When a criminal
in Georgia decides to murder another human being, the risk of facing the
death penalty is evident.

In the case at hand, 12 jurors found Davis guilty of murdering off-duty
police officer Mark Allen MacPhail in 1989.

At least 4 witnesses identified him as the gunman. Four witnesses
identified him as the man who struck another man in the head with a pistol
- an assault that Officer MacPhail tried to stop when he was murdered.

8 courts rejected his appeals. And now, after nearly 16 years on death
row, Davis' reckoning is at hand.

While some may feel sympathy for the condemned man's family, that does not
negate a man's debt to justice.

On Tuesday evening, Davis will be required to pay that debt, ending a saga
that began on a springtime evening in 1989, when he made the fateful
decision to pull the trigger.

While some may feel sympathy for the condemned man's family, that does not
negate a man's debt to justice.

(source: Opinion/Editorial, Savannah Morning News)