[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., MD., MONT., OHIO

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 18



TEXAS:

Chelsea Richardson's sentence officially reduced


If Chelsea Richardson felt relief when her death sentence officially became a 
life sentence, she did not show it.

Richardson was back in a Tarrant County courtroom Tuesday, this time to hear 
visiting Judge Steve Herod accept a sentencing agreement reached by prosecutors 
and her attorneys for the 2003 murders of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley of 
Mansfield.

Wearing a baggy yellow jail jumpsuit and dark-rimmed glasses, Richardson, 27, 
spoke only to acknowledge that she waived her right to appeal.

The hearing was mostly a formality. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 
overturned Richardson's death sentence in November.

The judges ruled that the punishment phase of Richardson's trial in 2005 was 
affected by misconduct by then-prosecutor Mike Parrish, who withheld evidence 
from the defense. Parrish retired in 2008.

Richardson and her boyfriend, Andrew Wamsley, were convicted of capital murder 
in separate trials for the deaths of his parents. Authorities said Andrew 
Wamsley, Richardson and a friend, Susana Toledano, killed the couple so that 
Andrew Wamsley could inherit his parents' $1.56 million estate.

Richardson was the only one to receive the death penalty.

Under the new sentence, she must serve 40 years before she is eligible for 
parole. She will get credit for time served.

Richardson's attorney, Robert Ford, who led efforts to get her conviction 
overturned, died last year. Attorney Bill Ray represented her at the hearing.

Relatives of Richardson and the Wamsleys attended Tuesday's hearing. 
Richardson's mother, Celia Richardson, said afterward that she still believes 
that her daughter is innocent. She said she felt that her daughter was being 
"swept under the carpet" after an error-filled trial.

Celia Richardson described her daughter's case as "totally screwed up."

Rick and Suzanna Wamsley's relatives released a statement through a spokeswoman 
for the Tarrant County district attorney's office. They said they supported the 
plea bargain because the alternative would have meant returning to court for a 
new penalty phase and reliving the painful details of the crime once again.

They said they plan to "fight paroles" for all involved.

"There is no such thing as closure for such a tragedy," the statement said. 
"Our family will be reminded of this horror each anniversary of Rick and Suzy's 
death, each holiday without them, all of the family celebrations without them."

The hearing lasted for about five minutes. After Herod pronounced the sentence, 
Richardson whispered something to her attorney, ran a hand through her long 
brown hair, adjusted her glasses and walked with a courtroom officer out the 
door.

(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)






ALABAMA:

Justices rule for death row inmate after legal mistakes


An "uncommon combination of mishaps" justifies allowing an appeal, the court 
says

Cory Maples was unable to pursue appeals after a series of mistakes

Justice Scalia, in dissent, says the ruling imperils the "orderly system of 
criminal litigation"


The Supreme Court gave an Alabama death row prisoner another chance Wednesday 
to appeal his conviction after a mailroom mistake and other circumstances 
initially left him unable to pursue further claims in court.

At issue was whether a missed deadline to file a key appeal provided 
justification to grant Cory Maples a second chance, when the error was not the 
inmate's fault and the result would mean a punishment as serious as lethal 
injection.

The justices' 7-2 ruling was a setback for the state, and the inmate's case now 
goes back to lower courts.

"The uncommon combination of mishaps in Maples' case, we hold, provide just 
cause to excuse the procedural lapse in state court," Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

The compounding series of errors and negligence involved both state officials 
and the private attorneys once representing him.

The prisoner's new legal team, supported by some civil rights groups, argued 
the criminal justice system was being turned on its head by potentially 
allowing prisoners to suffer the consequences of their lawyers' mistakes or 
incompetence.

But state attorneys countered that long-established rules on filing often 
complex paperwork must be strictly enforced to ensure that all parties -- 
including the courts -- get a proper chance to hear the claims in an orderly 
fashion. And the state says that in this case, Maples' initial appellate 
attorneys were from a blue-chip law firm in New York.

Maples was convicted in the 1995 murder of two companions, Stacy Alan Terry and 
Barry Dewayne Robinson II, with whom he had been drinking heavily. Court 
records showed that Maples took a .22-caliber rifle in his Decatur, Alabama, 
home and shot both men twice in the head, execution-style. He later confessed 
to police but offered no explanation for the crimes.

He was convicted, and the jury recommended the death sentence by a vote of 
10-2.

After the conviction, two attorneys from the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, 
working on behalf of Maples for free, filed a motion in an Alabama court 
claiming ineffective assistance by the trial defense. The chain of errors may 
have begun when the appellate lawyers did not list the name of their firm in 
the papers filed in Alabama.

When that court later sent two copies of its ruling denying the motion to the 
New York-based attorneys, the mailroom inexplicably sent them back unopened. 
The envelopes were labeled "Return to Sender -- Left Firm" and "Return to 
Sender -- Attempted Not Known."

Both lawyers had, in fact, left the firm, but no notice of new legal 
representation at the same firm was given to either the court or to Maples 
himself. A local lawyer in Alabama not heavily involved in the appeals also 
received the initial ruling, but he, too, did not follow up to ensure that the 
New York lawyers continued the necessary filings.

By the time the mix-up was discovered, apparently thanks to inquiries by the 
inmate's mother, Maples' window for appeals had run out.

The local judge was not sympathetic, saying the county clerk was not required 
to follow up or investigate why the key documents were sent back without 
acknowledgment.

"How can a circuit court clerk in Decatur, Ala., know what is going on in a law 
firm in New York, N.Y.?" Morgan County Circuit Judge Glenn Thompson asked in 
his ruling.

Subsequent state and federal courts also refused to grant Maples another chance 
to file his appeals, saying the 42-day deadline was standard and 
non-negotiable.

But the high court's majority spread the blame on both the state and, 
especially, Maples' attorneys.

Ginsburg noted attorney "negligence" alone rarely gives inmates a second chance 
in court to contest their convictions. But the court majority said this case 
presented an "extraordinary" set of facts, including that Maples was 
"abandoned" by his lawyers.

"They did not inform Maples or the Alabama court of that reality," Ginsburg 
wrote. "Through no fault of his own, Maples, an inmate on death row, was left 
unrepresented at a critical time for his state habeas petition. Moreover, he 
lacked any clue that he had better fend for himself."

The majority was also tough on the state's refusal to give Maples a break in 
light of these circumstances.

Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed. "If the interest of fairness justifies our 
excusing Maples' procedural default here, it does so whenever a defendant's 
procedural default is caused by his attorney," not the state, he said. "That is 
simply not the law -- and cannot be, if the states are to have an orderly 
system of criminal litigation conducted by counsel."

Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the dissent.

This high court victory for Maples does not mean he will eventually receive the 
new trial he is seeking. Because so much of the facts and testimony of the 
various parties remains in question -- particularly the actions of the county 
clerk and the in-state attorney for Maples -- lower state and federal courts 
could be wrestling with this case for years.

Sullivan & Cromwell employs about 800 lawyers, charges premium client rates, 
and does significant pro bono work on behalf of a variety of indigent 
prisoners. The firm is more than 130 years old.

Among the 34 states with the death penalty, Alabama alone does not 
automatically give all its 200 or so current capital inmates taxpayer-funded 
legal assistance to file papers challenging their convictions, sentences and 
lethal punishment. Big out-of-state firms like Sullivan & Cromwell often step 
in and tackle the usually long and expensive appeals process.

Lawyers for Maples say that missed deadlines, whatever the reasons, have 
occurred before and that some flexibility should be built into the system, 
especially when it involves crucial issues like habeas corpus and the death 
penalty.

"It's really an almost unthinkable situation, and anyone, even the most ardent 
supporters of capital punishment, ought to be concerned about the result in 
this case and should not want a decision allowing a man to be executed in these 
circumstances, because that can only erode public confidence in the system of 
capital punishment," attorney Gregory Garre told CNN in a recent interview.

The case is Maples v. Thomas (10-63).

(source: CNN)






MARYLAND:

Witness in death penalty trial demonstrates cell-door tampering----2 inmates 
left cells to attack officer, another witness testifies

A prosecution witness in a prisoner's death penalty trial demonstrated Tuesday 
how a cell door from the now-closed Maryland House of Correction could be 
tampered with, and a fellow inmate called by the state said he watched a fatal 
attack on a correctional officer by a pair of prisoners who left their cells.

The jury stood and watched an expert in jail cell locks manipulate the locking 
system on a door brought into the Anne Arundel County courtroom to show how he 
believes the locks on the cell doors of two state prisoners were jimmied, and 
testifying that nearly half of the cell door locks he checked barely 
functioned.

The testimony came during the third day of the death penalty trial of Lee 
Edward "Shy" Stephens, a 32-year-old prisoner serving a sentence of life plus 
15 years. Stephens is charged with first-degree murder in the fatal stabbing 
July 25, 2006, of Cpl. David McGuinn, and has maintained his innocence.

Also Tuesday, a prisoner on the House of Correction tier where McGuinn was 
stabbed while conducting the 10 p.m. head count testified that a number of 
prisoners knew the attack was coming and watched as Stephens and Lamarr (also 
spelled Lamar) Cornelius "Junebug" Harris assaulted McGuinn.

Prisoner Edward Jason "Free" Freed told jurors that another prisoner alerted 
him earlier on the day of the homicide to the coming event. So, he said, from 
his bunk, he poked a mirror out between cell bars to watch at the appointed 
hour and saw a lineup of mirrors similarly positioned on the 49-cell tier to 
watch McGuinn.

"Towards the end of the tier, after he's passed Junebug's cell, Junie lifted up 
the door," said Freed, who was serving time for robbery with a deadly weapon.

"He started stabbing him from the back," he testified, later adding that "as 
soon as Junie started stabbing him, Shy started stabbing, too." He said the men 
had trapped McGuinn and appeared to stab him repeatedly before McGuinn ran off 
the tier.

The defense has maintained that Freed is testifying in exchange for leniency on 
pending federal gun charges.

With jurors out of the courtroom, Stephens' defense team lambasted prosecutors 
and unsuccessfully asked Judge Paul A. Hackner to declare a mistrial. 
Prosecutors had McGuinn's sister, Crystal, talk to prisoner Rasiast McDonald, 
last Thursday in their offices, and she testified that he told her he wouldn't 
testify against Stephens out of fear. Hackner had previously barred witnesses 
from speaking about their testimony.

While Hackner did not find that prosecutors had engaged in "undue influence," 
he chided them for telling him there was a transportation problem last week 
with McDonald when the problem was that McDonald had to be pried out of his 
cell to be brought to the courthouse. Prosecutors expect to try to call him 
again.

The prosecution is expected to continue into next week in a trial expected to 
last 7 weeks.

(source: Baltimore Sun)






MONTANA:

Application for clemency says death row Canadian Ronald Smith a ‘changed man’


Lawyers for the only Canadian on death row in the United States concede their 
client committed a “terrible offence” when he murdered 2 young Montana men 30 
years ago, but say he doesn’t deserve to die.

Ronald Smith’s clemency application says he is a changed man who suffered 
through an abusive childhood.

Smith’s lawyers filed the necessary papers Wednesday with the Montana Board of 
Pardons and Parole in Deer Lodge, Mont.

Smith, 54, has exhausted all other appeals.

“In the face of the harsh circumstances of being locked down in virtual 
isolation for 28 years, he has nonetheless made a genuine attempt to live a 
life that exhibits remorse, rehabilitation, a changed heart and mind and a 
potential for good,” reads the document prepared by lawyers Greg Jackson and 
Don Vernay.

“We request that you consider and grant this application and commute Mr. 
Smith’s sentence from death to life without parole.”

The application is supported by a letter from the Canadian government.

“Mr. Smith is a Canadian citizen and is supported in his petition for executive 
clemency by the government of Canada, who have shown their support through the 
letter attached to this petition.”

The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper initially balked at supporting 
Smith’s bid, saying he had been convicted in a democratic country. But the 
federal court forced the government to act on Smith’s behalf.

Smith, originally from Red Deer, Alta., pleaded guilty to 2 charges of 
deliberate homicide and 2 charges of aggravated kidnapping in February 1983 and 
requested the death penalty. He rejected a plea deal offered by prosecutors 
which would have given him life in prison.

He later changed his mind and asked the District Court to reconsider the death 
penalty. That has led to 3 decades of legal wrangling.

Smith was 24 and taking LSD and drinking when he and 2 friends met up with 
Thomas Running Rabbit and Harvey Mad Man Jr. near East Glacier, Mont. Smith and 
Rodney Munro marched the 2 men into the woods where Munro stabbed one of the 
victims and Smith shot both of them.

Munro accepted a plea deal, was eventually transferred to a Canadian prison and 
has completed his sentence.

Smith’s lawyers say his drug and alcohol use impaired his judgment. They also 
say he received poor advice from his lawyer at the time.

“As a result of the combination of his guilt over the offences, his virtual 
isolation in a foreign country without consular assistance, and the deplorable 
actions of his trial attorney, he instead chose to plead guilty and requested 
the death penalty,” argue Jackson and Vernay.

“Upon being placed in a less isolated environment, he immediately realized both 
the foolishness and impulsiveness of his actions and sought ... the original 
sentence offered by the state of Montana, but the state has adamantly refused 
to consider his request.”

The document says Smith began drinking as early as age 11 and was the eldest of 
four children who grew up in a violent and dysfunctional household. His father, 
an oilfield worker, was gone for long periods of time, which left Smith as the 
de facto man of the house. When his father would return, the violence would 
continue.

“Dolores Smith (mother) relates entering the room after Ron was abused by his 
father and seeing blood spatters on the walls from the beating Ron suffered at 
the hands of his father,” says the application.

“Ron’s sisters kept their suitcases packed, underneath their beds. They both 
relate that Ron was their ‘protector and confidant.’“

Smith’s lawyers also note that he had no prior history of violence before his 
arrest in Montana, has expressed remorse and accepted responsibility and had a 
long history of drug and alcohol abuse with no treatment.

The board of pardons and parole is likely to schedule a hearing on the 
application sometime this spring. It will make a recommendation either for or 
against clemency but the ultimate decision will fall into the hands of Montana 
Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

(source: Canadian Press)




OHIO:

Death Penalty Death Watch: Ohio


Charles Lorraine, who was convicted of killing an elderly man and his bedridden 
wife in 1986, was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection today in Ohio. 
But the Sixth Circuit court isn’t going to let that happen, which is good news 
for those of us who oppose capital punishment. (We also wrote on our editorial 
page today about the Delaware governor’s decision to commute a prisoner’s death 
sentence to life without parole, so there are really 2 bits of good news.)

No one disputes that Mr. Lorraine is guilty of murder. But the state of Ohio 
has had some trouble carrying out its “execution protocol” of late, repeatedly 
violating its own written rules, and now the courts are intervening.

In July, a federal district judge, Gregory Frost summed up Ohio’s problem as 
follows: “It is the policy of the State of Ohio that the State follows its 
written execution protocol, except when it does not.” (A Times editorial this 
summer summarized a few irregularities: “The state has let into its execution 
chamber someone who was not a member of the official execution team, a doctor 
who tried unsuccessfully to insert an intravenous line into an inmate’s arm. It 
has failed to document the appropriate preparation of the drug used. And it has 
failed to have two medical-team members present at an execution, to ensure that 
the injection was properly administered.”)

The state’s attorney general promised Ohio would address these problems. It has 
not. In fact, Judge Frost noted, in Ohio’s endless attempts to seem like it’s 
fixing errors and inconsistencies, sometimes “state agents lie to the courts.” 
So on January 11 Judge Frost agreed to halt Mr. Lorraine’s execution, arguing 
that Ohio “has unnecessarily and inexplicably created easily avoidable 
problems.” The 6th circuit upheld Judge Frost’s decision on the 13th.

What’s notable in this case is that Judge Frost and the 6th circuit are basing 
their decisions on the constitution’s equal protection clause—rather than on 
cruel-and-unusual punishment grounds, as is often the case. On paper, Ohio’s 
execution rules satisfy legal requirements; but in practice Ohio keeps taking a 
“big picture, close enough” approach, as Judge Frost puts it.

This story is far from over. Already Ohio has requested a Supreme Court review 
of the case, while Mr. Lorraine’s attorney has issued a statement calling for a 
moratorium on executions in the state. But the real “big picture” is this: 
There is no point to all this pretend tinkering, no way for governments to 
execute prisoners in a way that is not cruel and unusual punishment or in 
violation of other parts of the constitution. It is long past time for the 
United States to join the community of civilized nations and stop this immoral 
practice.

(source: Editorial, Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)