[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TEXAS, FLA., CALIF., N.J., , PENN., MISS.
rhalperi at mail.smu.edu
Wed Nov 21 17:01:57 CST 2007
Seeking clarity on Watkins' death penalty views
As a candidate for Dallas County district attorney, Craig Watkins left no
doubt that he supported capital punishment.
After taking office, he pledged to seek the death penalty for Thomas
Miller-El, whose conviction had been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"He needs to be on death row," Mr. Watkins said in January. "He should
have been dead a long time ago."
But now, a year after winning election, Mr. Watkins sounds less
definitive. He has staked out a murky middle ground, leaving the public in
need of greater clarity.
He recently told Newsweek magazine that he's conflicted about capital
punishment. "It depends on which day you ask me," he said.
Mr. Watkins sought to explain his comments in an interview with The Dallas
Morning News, saying that his views about the death penalty could not be
boiled down to absolutes. He detailed his personal misgivings, noting that
his spiritual beliefs sometimes seem incompatible with the realities of
This newspaper ended its century of support for the death penalty in
April, calling for a halt to executions. So Mr. Watkins' qualms about a
flawed and irreversible punishment are understandable even commendable.
But voters may struggle to square his seemingly emphatic support for
capital punishment before the election with the far more nuanced view
espoused in recent days. And they may wonder how this complex worldview
translates to the day-to-day job requirements of district attorney.
Mr. Watkins said his ideas about the death penalty have not changed. He
blames the constraints of the campaign for his earlier answers, saying he
was asked simplistic questions and was forced to provide overly simplistic
responses. Mr. Watkins connects his approach to capital punishment to his
broader views about being "smart on crime."
Generally speaking, his seems like a more reasoned approach than "hang 'em
high." But on this important issue, Mr. Watkins must be clear about his
personal beliefs and his modus operandi as district attorney.
Of course, we would welcome Mr. Watkins to the side of death penalty
opponents. But he eschews such labels, saying that his position cannot be
so easily defined.
Mr. Watkins is sworn to uphold Texas law, which includes capital
punishment. His personal reservations don't preclude him from doing that.
To wit: Yesterday, Mr. Watkins announced that he would seek the death
penalty for Robert Sparks, who is accused of killing his wife and 2
The district attorney said that people initially weren't interested in
hearing about shades of gray or deeper explanations.
But his latest comments certainly have grabbed our attention and sparked
more questions. Mr. Watkins, we're all ears.
(source: Opinion, Dallas Morning News)
Convicted murderer on death row is granted a new trial
A convicted murderer who has spent more than 2 years on death row was
granted a new trial by the Florida Supreme Court today.
Roy Lee McDuffie, was convicted of killing 2 Deltona Dollar General store
clerks on Oct. 25, 2002, and sentenced to death after a lengthy trial.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the trial court made errors -- not
allowing a friend to testify, restricting the defense's cross-examination
of 2 eyewitnesses and allowing the jury to hear a threatening voicemail
left by the defendant -- that could have affected the outcome of the case.
However, the court still believes there is enough evidence to support a
conviction so it did not order an acquittal.
The State Attorney's Office said it would prepare for another trial and
expects the same outcome.
Defense attorneys for McDuffie, who always believed in his innocence, were
pleased with the decision.
Store clerks Janice Schneider, 39, and Dawniell Beauregard, 27, were shot
and stabbed inside a small office at the back of the dollar store.
Beauregard's hands and feet were bound with duct tape and 1 piece of the
tape bore a partial palm print that matched McDuffie.
(source: Orlando Sentinel)
Defense making argument against death penalty for Cua
The San Mateo County district attorney's office said Tuesday they want
proof from the defense that a 53-year-old man suspected of murdering his
former employers does not deserve the death penalty if convicted of the
Joseph George Cua, a part-time resident of both Burlingame and Hemet in
Southern California, pleaded not guilty in August to two counts of murder
and denied a special circumstance allegation of multiple murders.
The prosecution and defense will meet sometime in the next month, says
Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, at which point the defense
can bring up the defendant's upbringing, psychiatric issues or any other
mitigating factors that might affect how the case is pursued.
At the meeting, "We will definitely have decided whether or not to pursue
this as a death penalty case by early January," Wagstaffe said.
District Attorney James Fox will make the decision.
Investor Fernand Wagner, 78, and part-time hairstylist Suzanne Wagner, 68,
were found murdered in their Millbrae home in 2006. Police discovered
their bodies after Suzanne Wagner failed to show up to work on June 14.
Cua was arrested in Oxnard a few days after police discovered the savagely
beaten bodies in the home at 623 Lomita Ave.
Cua managed properties for the Wagners in Burlingame and San Jose, and
according to defense attorney Edward Pomeroy, he developed a close
relationship with the couple over 25 years ago. He was arrested following
a phone tip from a confidential source identifying him as a suspect,
according to authorities.
Though DNA evidence from blood found at the crime scene and in Fernand
Wagner's Cadillac, which was found after the murders in Daly City, appears
to match Cua's DNA, defense attorneys argue that does not prove Cua was
the perpetrator of the crime, and that forthcoming lab reports may show
that someone else had been in the home.
A pretrial conference is scheduled for Cua Jan. 8 at 1:30 p.m.
A jury trial is set for March 3 at 8:45 a.m. Cua is in custody on a
(source: San Mateo Daily News)
Because we could not stop for death...
The Times editorial board's seesawing views on capital
punishment----November 21, 2007
To shorten the long waits between a death penalty conviction and an
execution 17 years in this state the California Supreme Court asked on
Monday for a constitutional amendment that would let lower courts handle
some of the load. The lengthy wait time is one of many reasons the death
penalty has been called cruel and unusual punishment in the past,
including by the editorial board. But the board wasn't always as staunchly
against the death penalty as it is today, switching to consistent
opposition only in the 1970s, and switching back once when the criminal
was right. All olde-tyme spellings from the originals.
On Dec. 31, 1913, the board express its disgust with those who sympathize
with criminals, soundly if not violently defending a death penalty
As far back as history wends its way there has been a fetish made of
murderers and conspicuous scoundrels by the persons afflicted with
grewsome sentimentality. Criminals, if vicious enough to be notorious, are
babied and petted, made the recipient of presents, letters and fussed over
in a manner that outrages decency and intelligence.... While all of these
pleas are being made for [convicted robber and murderer Ralph] Fariss,
while certain newspaper writers are mingling tears with ink as they
discuss his "youth," his "family" and so on ad nauseam, no one seems to
deem it worthwhile to call attention to the fatherless babes of Mrs.
Montague.... He has placed himself beyond the ban of tender sympathy by
his callous brutality; and the death sentence was just.
Three years later, on April 7, 1916, comes a disturbing demonstration of
The Times' thoughts on race and execution, which the board surely thought
2 negroes were hanged by mobs Wednesday.... Never a month goes by but
something of the kind takes place and the lynchers are never apprehended.
The negroes may, and often do, deserve the death penalty, but so do many
other men before whom justice throws her aegis until the law has spoken.
Just to be clear, the editorial board was broad-minded enough to concede
that lynching was a bad idea.
For many years to come it would sound the Times would sound same note on
executions, or stay silent. On May 8, 1948, however, the board seemed to
sway slightly, imagining a society that could go without imposing the
The British Parliament has adopted a law suspending the death penalty for
murder for a 5 year test period, and the life of one man already condemned
has been saved by the act....
Murderand crime generallyis not the problem in England as it is with us.
In 1945 the United Kingdon had 35 murders, which may be contrasted to 116
in Los Angeles. The new policy in England represents a great change from
the conditions in the past century.
On June 17, 1953, the board meditated at length on the sentencing of
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, seeming at once to approve the verdict and to
call into doubt the moral foundation for it:
No civilized human being rejoices in the death of another human being, but
from the Law of Moses to the present day organized society has inflicted
the death penalty upon some of its members for the safety and preservation
of all others.
If Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are executed this will be what the society
organized as the United States of America has done.
While honest citizens may debate the theory of capital punishment, it is
well established in our law and those who embark on capital crimes are by
no means ignorant of the risk.... In passing the death sentence, Judge
[Irving] Kaufman commented that the Rosenbergs' crime, proven to the
unanimous satisfaction of the jury, was "worse than murder." This view was
echoed by President Eisenhower in denying their petition for executive
With these facts straight, it is apparent that the Rosenbergs have
received their full measure of justice. But what of mercy, which their
advocates now seek? Mercy is an attribute of Divinity, and we shall not
presume to restrict it.
But we solemnly submit that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg could have shown a
little more mercy for the millions of human beings who may someday perish
in frightful atomic explosions.
Only 3 years later, the board is considering reasons to oppose the death
penalty, focusing not on morality but on practicality. Sept. 19, 1956:
Perhaps capital punishment would have fewer defenders if life imprisonment
meant what it says. Too often life sentences under our probationary system
are shortened to 20, 15, or even fewer years. This commutation may be
proper in some cases but when heinous crimes are committed and life
sentences are pronounced without hope or possibility of parole, perhaps
many will feel that justice is served as well as it is in the gas chamber.
On May 11, 1957, the Times urges the legislature to make a decision on the
death penalty, even though the board itself is still a bit unsure about
its position, and seems to imply that murderers who killed in a passionate
rage are fairly upstanding members of society:
The Assembly makes no distinction between murder for profit and crimes of
passion.... By mistaken lenity, California in effect sentenced a number of
innocent and worthy people to death....
The Times believes that, on the whole, the argument for capital punishment
is stronger than the arguments against it, and we doubt the force of the
argument that capital punishment fails as a deterrent. It is not a
deterrent against murders of passion but neither is any other measure.
3 years later came the conclusion of the infamous Caryl Chessman case. The
convicted murderer and rapist became a rallying point for opponents of
capital punishment, a group which The Times once again pointedly declined
to join. The board echoed its 1913 editorial, adding some creepy
analogies, on Feb. 20, 1960:
The world has just seen and abetted an act of American lynch law lynch
law in reverse. The mob did not break the jail and drag an untried suspect
off to the nearest tree, but its clamors and threats so intimidated
authority that a criminal, judged and condemned, was plucked away from the
executioner.... Similar emotions, springing from ignorance mostly, have
operated to save Caryl Chessman from the sanitary disposal mechanism that
a civilized society is constrained to set up to shield itself from the
contamination of criminal psychopaths.... By contriving to stay alive he
does to the honor, dignity and safety of the state of California what he
did to those two poor women in the hills above Los Angeles.
But only days later, on Feb 26, 1960, the board took a softer tone:
Abolishment of capital punishment in California entails much greater
responsibility for the Legislature than tearing out the gas chamber at San
Quentin. It cannot do this without rewriting the rules on life
imprisonment, to make it mean, in the cases of former capital crimes, what
it appears to mean.
And on Dec. 30, 1966, despite objecting to Gov. Pat Brown's commutations
of sentences, the board avoided the pro or con question and just asked the
legislature to figure it out, already:
The moral and practical implications of capital punishment have been
debated for thousands of years and there are still no absolute answers....
We do not urge here either [the death penalty's] abolition or retention,
but we do suggest that the way things operate at present makes a mockery
of the death sentence.
3 years later, the board faced another major criminal caseSirhan Sirhan's
trial for the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy. It editorialized on the
conclusion of the case on April 25, 1969. As with Chessman and Rosenberg,
in the case of an extraordinary crime, the board manages to condone the
The jury's finding of first degree murder was based on overwhelming
evidence of premeditation, and its imposition of the death penalty was in
keeping with the law.... Sirhan is a wretched and ultimately pathetic
little man, who would have remained deservedly obscure except for the
tragedy he caused. That tragedy cannot be erased.
One can only pray that others like it can be prevented.
But three years after that, on Feb. 21, 1972, the board seemed to have
reversed its position, this time defending itself with a moral argument.
The Supreme Court of California, in a decision of persuasive clarity and
wisdom, has found the death penalty unconstitutional under the state's own
constitution.... The quality of society is the heart of the matter. The
court has contributed to that quality once again.
Over the next year, the board would write several editorials reaffirming
that argument. Only 4 days later, the board reconfirmed that position,
despite the concerns of one Gov. Ronald Reagan. In June, the board praised
the U.S. Supreme Court for its Furman v. Georgia decision, which began a
4-year moratorium on capital punishment in the United States. In October
of 1972, the board urged "No" on Proposition 17, which would have restored
California's death penalty (the measure passed anyway). And in January
1973, the board tried to dissuade the Justice Department from writing
legislation restoring the death penalty.
10 months later, on Oct. 1, the board reacted to California's decision to
reinstate the death penalty and, now fully in the anti-death-penalty camp,
resorted to a Holocaust analogy:
Gov. Reagan has suggested looking into a more humane approach than the gas
chamber, perhaps a lethal shot or pill like those given to cats, dogs and
horses. The governor's intentions cannot be faulted, but the method has
chilling overtones of Dachau....
Some ways to kill a person are more inhumane than other ways, but there is
no humane way to kill a person.
For the next several years, the board hammered Republicans, Reagan, the
Supreme Court, and even the general public with harsh words:
Conscience, Politics and Death, June 6, 1977
...[W]e deplore the actions of a small number of Republicans in the
Legislature who are weighing the political advantages of sustaining
Brown's veto, although all are vigorous advocates of capital
punishment.... It would be unconscionable for pro-death penalty
Republicans to sustain a veto that is offensive to their consciences and
to their constituencies in the shabby hope that it might serve them
The Principle Will Not Die, June 11, 1981
The Senate Judiciary committee has given its answer to violence. It is
The theory behind the bill is to impose death in a fair and rational way.
That is the theory, but the history of capital punishment mocks it in
practice. Regardless of the laws on the books, regardless of the
widespread support for capital punishment, society flinches from imposing
death with rigorous consistency....
It is morally wrong, we believe, for the state to take a life. In doing
so, it contributes to the brutality that afflicts society.
Morally Impermissible, Feb. 24, 1984
Unfortunately President Reagan chose to make the issue partisan in his
radio address last weekend in which he indicated the Democrats would show
they were soft on crime if they defeated the death penalty expansion...the
President urged the House to pass crime legislation that would stop
"coddling criminals." The phrase trivializes the issue, which is whether
it is morally permissible for society to take life when it can refrain
without mortal damage to itself. We think not.
Grisly Relic of History, Jan. 25, 1985
[P]olls say and we believe them to be accurate that the death penalty is
favored by probably 70% of Americans. But we remain convinced that there
will come a better day. When that day comes, the death penalty will be
abolished as a grisly relic of history and unworthy of a just society.
Death Penalty Dilemma, May 7, 1986
[E]xcluding death-penalty opponents [from juries] allows the prosecutor to
put his thumb on the scales of justice. But not excluding them gives the
defendant an unfair advantage. In fact, neither side should have an
advantage, but such even-handedness is not possible to achieve in these
cases. Apart from the logical problems of the court's ruling, the decision
clears away one of the last remaining generalized challenges to the death
penalty and makes it likely that there will be a spate of executions in
coming months. Many of the nation's 1,700 death-row inmates including at
least one in California were convicted by juries from which death-penalty
foes had been excluded. The executions are expected go forward in what
could be a blood bath whose magnitude is unprecedented in recent history.
On Oct. 17, 1986, the board took a full editorial to consider race and the
There are now 1,788 people on death row. Of them, 1,713 were convicted of
killing a white person. However, blacks are 6 times more likely to be
murder victims than whites are.
It strains credulity to see no significance in this pattern. Rather, it is
obvious that society values white lives more than black lives and is more
willing to impose capital punishment when a white life has been taken.
And on Sept. 12, 1994, the board wondered if celebrity mattered more than
race in one notable case:
The decision announced last week by prosecutors not to seek the death
penalty against O.J. Simpson appears to spring as much from pragmatism as
from any rarefied balancing of punishment against the alleged crime. Given
that Simpson was an appealing celebrity with no felony record, prosecutors
surely feared that seeking the death penalty could jeopardize their
ability to win a conviction for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.
And for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the board reversed its long
and vocal opposition to execution on June 12, 1997:
Timothy McVeigh should receive the ultimate penalty for committing the
most infamous act of terrorist murder to ever take place on American soil.
It can be reasonably argued that there is a social purpose in imposing the
death penalty in this instance to bring closure and, yes, a measure of
national retribution for a murderous act of unprecedented enormity. That
said, why not round up every death row murderer in the nation and march
them toward their final destination?
Because almost everything about the McVeigh case is the exception, not the
But in more recent years, the board has refused to take exception for any
criminal, and even reverses its thoughts on McVeigh:
It's not about Clarence, Jan. 16, 2006
When Stanley Tookie Williams was executed last month, we said Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger was right to have questioned the former gang leader's tale
of redemption but still wrong to put him to death....
At 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, it's Clarence Ray Allen's turn to be put to death.
Allen arranged a triple slaying in 1980 while in prison for another
Some argue that the state has no business killing a blind and infirm
76-year-old former warehouse manager. To which we say, again, this isn't
about Allen, it's about us.
Rough justice, Dec. 28, 2006
If one opposes capital punishment as a matter of principle, as we do,
putting [Saddam] Hussein to death is of course objectionable. So was
executing Adolf Eichmann and Timothy McVeigh....
The most practical argument for sparing Hussein's life is rooted not in
procedural scruples or a rejection of the death penalty but in political
(source: Opinion, Los Angeles Times)
Plan to speed death penalty reviews seen as just one step----The proposal
to spread the state high court's burden draws praise. But cutting the
shortage of lawyers who handle appeals is also viewed as vital.
The state Supreme Court's proposal to speed review of capital cases can be
carried out without significant cost to taxpayers, but it's only a first
step toward easing the backlog on California's death row, legal observers
Chief Justice Ronald M. George called Monday for a constitutional
amendment to shift the high court's review of some death penalty cases to
lower courts. George said spreading the workload could accelerate the
appeals process, which can drag on for decades.
The state has the nation's largest death row population, 667 inmates, but
it takes an average of 17.2 years for them to reach execution, twice the
time period nationally.
Most officials applauded George's effort but said another problem, and one
that would be far more expensive to fix, was a shortage of lawyers to
represent death row inmates on appeal.
79 lawyers at state-funded agencies are currently handling appeals and
habeas corpus petitions for condemned prisoners, said State Public
Defender Michael Hersek. Since 1997, staffing at the state public
defender's office, dedicated to death penalty appeals, has been reduced
from 127 positions to 86.
About 90 condemned convicts are awaiting appointment of counsel, a process
that takes four to six years, given the backlog on death row and lawyer
staffing levels, Hersek said.
If the state can't handle the work, private attorneys can take over, at a
rate set by the Legislature at $140 an hour. Defense attorneys say the
rate is too low -- less than what public defenders make in the federal
system. Costs of the typical death penalty appeal are estimated at over
Many prosecutors doubted that an increase would make much difference in
the number of private lawyers willing to take on such work. But another
lawyer said a raise -- perhaps 50% -- would be "helpful."
"It might sound like a lot of money, but it really doesn't cut it," said
the lawyer, who works for the judiciary and spoke on condition of
anonymity. "These cases last forever; it's a huge undertaking and can ruin
your law practice. Many counsel are emotionally, professionally and
financially shunning these cases."
Hersek said that having the 7 high court justices share review with the
state's 105 appellate judges would probably reduce the wait for execution.
The state Supreme Court has 50 cases that are fully briefed and awaiting
decision, he said.
"We need a comprehensive approach to the breakdown of our death penalty
system," Hersek said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has scheduled "expedited review" of George's
"The governor agrees that death penalty appeals must be thorough, fair and
reasonably prompt, and he looks forward to reviewing this proposal and
ensuring that justice and the will of the people continues to be carried
out," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Bill Maile.
Federal appellate Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, who earlier this year proposed
a similar shift to lower courts for death sentence review, pointed to the
federal case of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as proof that
executions can occur without such long waits.
"From the judgment of death until execution was approximately 3 years,"
said Alarcon, of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "That shows you it
can be done."
Local prosecutors who bring death penalty cases applauded the opening
The plan would provide "a tremendous help in reducing the backlog," said
Colusa County Dist. Atty. John Poyner, head of the state prosecutors
association. "That's good for everyone except the person sitting on death
Riverside County Dist. Atty. Rod Pacheco also called the plan "a great
proposal." He heads a statewide group of prosecutors that develops policy
on the death penalty.
"It's not a cure-all. It's not a panacea," said Ronald Matthias, special
assistant to Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose office represents the state in
all death penalty appeals. "Yes, there are other problems that need to be
addressed. But you have to start somewhere."
(source: Los Angeles Times)
New Jersey Senator Urges Delay on Repeal of Death Penalty
The leading social conservative in the New Jersey State Senate, Gerald
Cardinale, accused Democrats on Tuesday of trying to rush a bill repealing
the death penalty through the Legislature without sufficient deliberation.
The Democrats, who control both the General Assembly and the Senate, have
put the legislation on a fast track, and supporters and opponents alike
say it has a good chance of passage before the new Legislature takes
office in January. Passage by that group would not be as certain.
If the bill becomes law, New Jersey will become the 1st state to outlaw
capital punishment since the United States Supreme Court permitted
executions to resume in 1976.
Seeking to counter some of the momentum that has been building for the
proposal, Mr. Cardinale, of Bergen County, appeared at the state Capitol
on Tuesday with Prof. Robert Blecker of New York Law School, a prominent
death penalty supporter.
"There's no emergency here," Professor Blecker said. "As everybody knows,
New Jersey hasn'[t executed anybody in decades." The state's last
execution was in 1963. Mr. Cardinale said the Democratic leadership in the
Legislature was trying to bulldoze the opposition. "Ramming an issue of
this magnitude through the Legislature during the lame-duck session is at
the very least poor public policy and, quite frankly, offensive."
At one point during Mr. Cardinale's remarks, the news conference veered
into a sticky discussion of urban politics and race after he said that
Democrats were taking advantage of their "uninformed" urban base by
fast-tracking the bill.
"There is an uninformed electorate in certain areas of this state," he
said. "It forms the base of support for the majority party in both houses.
That uninformed electorate is moved in certain emotional directions by the
fact that they think the death penalty disproportionally affects
Mr. Cardinale later tried to clarify his comments, saying that he had no
particular group in mind. "I don't know if they're black. I don't know if
they're brown. I don't know if they're purple. It is not for me to judge."
(source: New York Times)
Trooper Accused In Slaying Of Blairsville Dentist Won't Face Death Penalty
A state police trooper accused of killing a dentist in Indiana County will
not face the death penalty.
Prosecutors said Kevin Foley, 42, stabbed and killed Dr. John Yelenic in
April 2006 at Yelenic's home in Blairsville.
At the time, Foley was allegedly dating the doctor's estranged wife.
Dozens of bloody footprints, matching the type of shoe Foley was known to
wear, were found at the scene.
Prosecutors said they don't believe the case meets the requirement for
Foley to face the death penalty.
(source: The Pittsburgh Channel)
U.S. Supreme Court sets conference on Berry execution
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a Nov. 30 conference on the death
penalty appeal of Mississippi inmate Earl Wesley Berry, whose execution
the court stopped in October.
Court officials said the justices' decision on whether they will hear
Berry's case could be announced shortly thereafter.
Berry was sentenced to die for beating and stomping Mary Bounds to death
Berry has raised the same argument as that in a Kentucky case that
challenges lethal injection procedures as cruel and unusual punishment.
In the Kentucky case before the Supreme Court, justices will consider
whether the mix of three drugs used to sedate and kill prisoners and the
way they are administered can cause pain severe enough to violate the
constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Arguments in the Kentucky case will take place early next year and a
decision should come by late June. The Supreme Court has allowed only one
execution to go forward since agreeing to hear the case.
Berry was convicted of kidnapping and killing Bounds on Nov. 29, 1987,
outside the First Baptist Church in the tiny north Mississippi town of
Houston. Berry was sentenced to death by a Chickasaw County jury on Oct.
28, 1988. His confession was used against him during the trial.
The Supreme Court did not delay Berry's execution indefinitely, saying the
stay would remain in effect until the justices take action on Berry's
petition for review of his case.
If the court decides not to review the appeal, the attorney general's
office would ask the Mississippi Supreme Court to seek a new execution
Berry was less than an hour from his scheduled execution time Oct. 29 when
the Supreme Court granted a delay.
(source: Associated Press)
More information about the DeathPenalty