[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KY., OKLA., COLO., ARIZ., WYO. CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 22



KENTUCKY:

Abolish the death penalty


This past August, the Kentucky General Assembly's Interim Joint Judiciary 
Committee met in Paducah to hear testimony on Kentucky's death penalty. The 
committee chairs - Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, and Rep. John 
Tilley, D-Hopkinsville - and staff worked hard to provide balance, with 
opportunity for multiple points of view.

There was a striking asymmetry however: while several individuals spoke in 
support of Sen. Gerald Neal and Rep. David Floyd's bill to replace Kentucky's 
death sentence with life without possibility of parole, there was no 
alternative proposal put forth. Some speakers, such as Commonwealth Attorney 
G.L. Ovey, spoke in support of retaining the death penalty, but none offered a 
means of addressing its serious flaws:

-- The American Bar Association's multi-year assessment - completed and 
presented to the members of the Judiciary Committee in 2011 - identified many 
judicial deficiencies, including inadequate legal counsel at trial, inadequate 
retention of evidence and a high rate of juror confusion. According to the ABA, 
these and other issues have resulted in over 60 % of death sentences being 
overturned on appeal. During the 2011 session, the House of Representatives 
passed HCR 173 to establish a death penalty reform task force, but no 
complementary action was ever taken on the Senate side. (Read the full 
assessment at: tinyurl.com/KYassessment)

-- The Commissioner of Criminal Justice testified to the committee that the 
Department of Corrections is incapable of carrying out executions due to a 
judicial stay in place since 2010, a lack of lethal injection drugs in their 
possession and lack of any lawful method of obtaining more lethal injection 
drugs.

-- The American Law Institute - the organization responsible for drafting the 
core of Kentucky's 1976 capital statute - withdrew capital punishment from its 
Model Legal Code in 2009, after finding it unworkable.

-- Recent examples of botched executions, caused by irresponsible experiments 
in lethal injection formulations and protocols in Oklahoma, Arizona, Florida 
and Ohio mock the notion that we have found a decent and humane means of 
putting people to death.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has written of our nation's 
"commitment to dignity and its duty to teach human decency as the mark of a 
civilized world. The States are laboratories for experimentation, but those 
experiments may not deny the basic dignity the Constitution protects." This 
nation and this commonwealth have been struggling for 4 decades, attempting to 
repair the death penalty - 4 decades of futile "tinkering with the machinery of 
death."

At what point do we realize that refusing to kill respects life more than 
killing? At what point do we realize that a government with such a long history 
of racial bias in its criminal justice system cannot be trusted to 
dispassionately decide who lives and who dies? At what point do we realize that 
criminal justice resources are better spent on programs and techniques proven 
to prevent violent crime?

Kentuckians For The Commonwealth supports abolition of the death penalty as a 
sensible approach that will make all Kentuckians safer and teach human decency.

(source: The Richmond Register)






OKLAHOMA----impending execution

'Ready' for his execution


Richard Glossip has come to terms with his death.

"I've thought about it so long, I got to a point, if it gets to that stage, I'm 
ready for it," said Glossip, 51, in a rare, in-person interview near his cell 
on death row. "You've got to be prepared. If you're not, it's not going to go 
well for you."

Friday marked the first day the Department of Corrections has allowed media 
access to death row inmates since the clumsy execution of Clayton Lockett on 
April 29. It took Lockett 40 minutes to die after medical personnel missed his 
vein with the intravenous needle that was supposed to deliver the deadly drugs.

Glossip said he hopes his death won't come soon, but he didn't sound 
particularly optimistic that he'll live beyond Jan. 29, when he's scheduled to 
die by lethal injection for his role in a 1997 murder-for-hire plot. He's the 
2nd inmate scheduled to die in the renovated execution chamber at the Oklahoma 
State Penitentiary, under the state's new execution procedures.

Glossip said he's already planned his last meal - an Arby's ham-and-cheese 
sandwich, a brisket sandwich, fries and a Coke. Other than his freedom, he's 
missed Arby's the most since arriving on death row in 1998.

Glossip first was convicted in a plot to kill motel owner Barry Van Treese a 
year earlier. The convicted hit man, Justin Sneed, is serving a life sentence.

Glossip maintains his innocence. He said Sneed acted alone in killing Van 
Treese, then pointed to him to avoid the death penalty. Glossip admits his 
actions afterwards look bad; he tried to help hide his 54-year-old employer's 
murder.

Despite that, Glossip said he doubts Gov. Mary Fallin will intervene "because 
of what happened with Lockett and the way she handled that whole thing."

"Anybody that says we need to get back to business as normal and calling 
executions business, that's a scary, scary thing to say," he said.

Contacted earlier this year, the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, which has 
handled all appeals related to Glossip's case, issued a statement saying 
justice would be served by his execution.

A spokesperson noted a 27-page ruling by the state Court of Criminal Appeals 
that outlined the facts of the case and rejected Glossip's appeals.

Glossip was convicted twice - the verdict of his 1st trial was thrown out on 
appeal - and he twice was sentenced to death.

Earlier this fall, Glossip's execution date was fast approaching when 
Department of Corrections officials said they needed more time to prepare for 
his execution and that of Charles Warner, who is scheduled to die before him.

Glossip said in preparation for his execution, prison officials had moved him 
to a special cell, designed to hold inmates for the final 35 days.

A new policy requires the cell???s florescent lights to stay lit 24 hours a day 
for all 35 days, he said. Glossip said he wrapped a sheet around his eyes to 
sleep. Warner, in the cell next door, pulled a blanket over his head.

All Glossip was allowed to bring with him was a single book. He said the rock 
music that helped calm him for more than two decades was taken away, as was 
television.

Glossip said his stomach couldn't tolerate the food - he'd always purchased 
food from the canteen, but new regulations say a prisoner can't buy food within 
35 days of his death - and he lost 14 pounds in 4 days.

A security camera watched his every move.

When his execution was delayed until January, Glossip was returned to his old 
cell on death row, located beneath the death chamber, and all his privileges 
were restored.

Glossip said inmates are angry at Lockett for his decision to make his 
execution difficult by resisting officers and using a razor to slice his arms. 
Those choices affected everyone on death row, Glossip said, because Lockett's 
bungled execution led to the state's new procedures.

"Lockett really did a number on us all," he said. "When they do this type of 
thing, they don't think about who it is going to affect. There are people not 
happy at all, but he's dead, so what are you going to say?"

Asked if he believes in an after-life and fears what it might hold, Glossip 
hesitated briefly. He admitted he had doubts until recently, when he saw a TV 
report in which a woman described her miraculous return from 3 1/2 hours of 
being dead.

"There's something out there," he said.

4 men already are scheduled to die in the 1st 3 months of 2015 - Warner on Jan. 
15; Glossip, Jan. 29; John Marion Grant, Feb. 19; and Benjamin Robert Cole Jr., 
March 5.

(source: Enid News)






COLORADO:

Judge in Colorado cinema rampage case allows 2nd sanity exam at trial


A judge overseeing the Colorado theater massacre case rejected a defense motion 
on Friday to have a 2nd sanity examination administered to accused gunman James 
Holmes barred from his upcoming murder trial, court records show.

Holmes, 26, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to opening fire inside 
a Denver-area theater during a midnight screening of the Batman film "The Dark 
Knight Rises" in July of 2012, killing 12 moviegoers and wounding dozens more.

Prosecutors have charged Holmes with multiple counts of 1st-degree murder and 
attempted murder, and say they will seek the death penalty for the onetime 
neuroscience graduate student if he is convicted.

Holmes underwent a mandatory psychiatric examination last year after invoking 
the insanity defense, but Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour 
ordered a 2nd round of testing, agreeing with prosecutors who argued the 1st 
one was flawed.

Public defenders sought to have the 2nd evaluation excluded or to limit 
testimony about it, arguing that it should have not been conducted in the 1st 
place, and that it overlaps the findings of the 1st examiner.

Results of the 2 mental examinations have not been made public, but in his 
ruling Samour noted that it was "patently obvious" that the 2 evaluations 
reached differing conclusions about Holmes??? sanity.

"The disparate reactions by the defendant to the two examinations speak volumes 
about the differences between the 2 reports," Samour wrote.

The judge denied the bulk of the motion, but did order that the 2nd evaluator 
could not testify at trial about the 1st evaluation's deficiencies.

Samour said 9,000 jury summonses will be sent to county residents next month, 
and lawyers for both sides will start paring down the list in January.

The judge said he wants opening statements to begin on June 3, but said that 
date could be moved up if jury selection concludes sooner than he anticipates.

(source: Reuters)






ARIZONA:

Attorneys ask judge to hold off on execution suit


A lawsuit challenging the secrecy of execution protocols in Arizona will likely 
be put on hold pending the investigation of the nearly 2-hour execution of 
Joseph Rudolph Wood last summer.

Both the state and defense attorneys have agreed to request that the lawsuit be 
halted temporarily until the review of an investigation by an independent 
agency is released. That report, by a group of former prison directors, was 
expected to be released in mid-November but it so far has not come out.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Wood and other death-row inmates says they and 
the public have a right to know about specific execution protocols such as the 
types of drugs used in lethal injections and the companies that supply them.

The July 23 execution of Wood, convicted of murdering his estranged girlfriend 
and her father, called into question the efficacy of the drugs used after it 
took nearly two hours for Wood to die. He gasped repeatedly before taking his 
final breath.

Wood's attorney, Dale Baich, says the execution was botched, a claim Arizona 
Department of Corrections officials adamantly deny. A spokesman for the agency 
could not be reached for comment late Friday evening.

State officials have agreed to not seek any death warrants while the case is 
pending. The mutual agreement also states that Arizona officials will consider 
changing execution protocols. If they do change them, they will make the new 
protocols public, according to the joint agreement.

"The whole purpose of this is to put the litigation on hold so the facts and 
issues could be better developed," Baich said.

The secrecy that surrounds executions in Arizona and other states has been a 
source of contention since they stopped making public details such as the drug 
manufacturers and drug combinations in 2010. That's when states that have the 
death penalty began having trouble accessing the necessary drugs because 
European drugmakers stopped supplying them.

A group of media organizations including The Associated Press has filed a 
lawsuit also contending that the information is of public interest and the 
public has a right to know.

Wood was given 15 doses of the sedative midazolam and a painkiller before he 
died.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Jodi Arias trial paused as defense files motion to dismiss death 
penalty...again


Anyone that is wondering if the defense team of Jodi Arias is getting paid 
every time they mention the word "mistrial" or "motion to dismiss" can rest 
assured that yes, they are. The current costs for the defense team alone in the 
Jodi Arias trial are hovering over the $2.5 million dollar mark, and counting. 
Thanks to the good taxpayers of Arizona, the defense team who works out of the 
public defender's office for the Maricopa County Superior Courts, can continue 
collecting their paycheck. But, if their current motion is successful, not for 
long. What are the chances of that? This won't be the 1st motion filed to 
dismiss the death penalty in the Jodi Arias trial, and if history is any 
indication, it probably won't be the last. USA Today reports Nov. 21 that a 
hearing on the latest motion filed to dismiss all charges put a pause in the 
Jodi Arias trial Friday as Judge Sherry Stephens heard arguments over alleged 
pornography files on the personal computer of the victim of this murder, Travis 
Alexander.

Jodi Arias is on trial for the murder of her lover Travis Alexander in 2008. In 
2008, she traveled from Yreka, California, to Mesa, Arizona, in a road trip 
where she ensured she would not be caught on a surveillance camera once. After 
she arrived at his home in the early morning hours of June 4, 2008, they had 
sex and went to bed. In the late afternoon of that same day, shortly after 5 
PM, sex play in the shower turned deadly.

On June 9, 2008, Travis Alexander would be found in his home that was 
splattered with blood. He would be found with over 25 stab wounds, one that 
included a fatal 5 inch wound to his chest. His windpipe was also severed to 
the point of near decapitation, and he had a gunshot to the head. Jodi Arias 
was the only person in the home besides Travis at the time he was killed.

She was convicted of first degree murder for this crime in 2013. The jury at 
the time was unanimous in that decision, where the jury became deadlocked was 
whether or not Jodi should serve a life or a death penalty for this crime. A 
retrial was ordered, but the decisions on the guilt and aggravation phases 
remained.

Thus, Jodi is now a convicted felon facing a retrial of the sentencing phase 
only on her conviction. During this retrial of the penalty phase, the defense 
team has filed numerous motions in their efforts to have the death penalty 
removed, or to halt the proceedings all together. It's long been considered the 
"delaying the inevitable" strategy of the Jodi Arias defense team.

The most recent motion being used to halt proceedings is a motion alleging 
prosecutorial misconduct regarding alleged pornography files that may or may 
not have been on the personal computer of the victim in this case, Travis 
Alexander. We have previously reported on these alleged pornography files, and 
the opposing viewpoints on those files between the defense and the State. It 
seems that the computer history of Travis Alexander, 6 years after his murder, 
is still being widely contested by both sides.

As we previously reported, the State is furious that the computer drive they 
just received back from the defense was a switched hard drive. On the other 
hand, the defense is furious over the fact that the hard drive in question is 
allegedly missing some files. Not just some files. Numbers everywhere from 2500 
to over 6 thousand files that are pornographic in nature are allegedly missing 
from this computer.

The last this debate has seen occurred in a motion filed by the prosecutor. 
This week defense attorney for Jodi Arias, Arizona Central reports Jennifer 
Wilmott filed a motion in response to the claims of Juan Martinez. But it was 
not just any motion. The full motion can be seen in the slideshow and contains 
the title, "Motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice and/or in the 
alternative to dismiss the state's notice of intent to seek the death penalty 
due to recently discovered purposeful and egregious prosecutorial misconduct."

USA Today reports that a hearing was held on Nov. 21 on this motion. This was a 
hearing without the jury present. Meaning, if the jury is adhering to their 
admonitions to not read any news or social media then, the current jury has 
presumably no idea that any of these arguments are even happening. The jury's 
last experience on this case was when they heard testimony in court on Thursday 
from defense witness sex expert Dr. Fonseca.

All parties were in court on Friday Nov. 21 however, minus the jury, to hear 
the latest arguments on the most recent motion to dismiss the death penalty, 
and all charges. Jennifer Wilmott's motion to dismiss all charges argues that 
the fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments of Jodi's constitutional 
rights have been violated. As a result, she claims, "The State's misconduct is 
of the nature that dismissal of all charges is warranted."

Jennifer Wilmott left no stone unturned in her motion. She cites misconduct on 
the part of the prosecution, again, and believes the facts show that all 
charges against Jodi Arias should be dropped.

"While the actions denoted above document only a portion of the misconduct that 
the State has engaged in during the pendency of this case, the facts outlined 
above....are certainly the most repugnant to any sense of justice found in the 
5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution....and for 
the reasons mentioned above, the charges against Ms. Arias should be dismissed 
with prejudice. In the alternative...any sense of justice that comports with 
the death penalty jurisprudence detailed above would require that this Court 
dismiss the 'State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty' with 
prejudice."

In her motion she writes that the personal computer of Travis Alexander was 
originally examined in 2008. Detective Melendez with the Mesa Police previously 
testified on Oct. 21 that he examined this computer using a software program 
called Encase, and that this was the only software he used and was compliant 
with Mesa Police Department protocol.

Department protocol also requires the use of a technological device known as a 
"write blocker". This is a program put on the computer to ensure that nothing 
on the computer can be altered during the course of a forensic examination. 
This protocol is in place for obvious reasons.

The most obvious reason being the reason we are discussing at this very moment. 
The "write blocker" is intended to avoid any lawsuits and motions such as this. 
Detective Melendez testified in the retrial of the sentencing phase that he 
finished his investigation on the computer in November of 2008 when he 
transferred to the Computer Forensics division of the Mesa Police.

In addition to the hard drive being analyzed by Melendez, a Lonnie Dworkin from 
Compufor analyzed the hard drive and according to Jennifer Wilmott. In her 
motion, on the analysis of Lonnie Dworkin, the defense writes, "His analysis 
did not uncover the existence of any pornography on this computer."

Wilmott continues on to acknowledge that Jodi previously testified that on 
January 21, 2008, that she allegedly caught Travis masturbating to a picture of 
a young boy. Wilmott concurs that Jodi does not have any evidence of this 
allegation. Wilmott also contends however that on this incident, "The State 
claimed that Ms. Arias was lying about this incident, that she was making this 
incident up to disparage Mr. Alexander and that Ms. Arias was a 'liar' whose 
testimony should not be believed."

Wilmott also contends that, "prior to gaining a conviction on the charge of 1st 
degree murder", the State knew that Travis's computer did in fact contain 
pornography and also had evidence that suggested Travis was sexually interested 
in kids. Wilmott also contends, "The evidence produced at the evidentiary 
hearing will demonstrate it is clear that the State knew this evidence existed 
because, on June 19, 2009, before Ms. Arias examined Mr. Alexander's computer, 
the State deleted this evidence."

Wilmott goes on to make some very serious allegations, but does not provide 
proof. Instead she says the generic lawyer line, "the evidence will show." She 
is very specific in her allegations. She says, "Recent Forensic Analysis has 
shown that between the times of 13:56:19 and 16:51:34 on June 19, 2009, that 
thousands of files were deleted from Mr. Alexander's computer. To clarify 
further, evidence produced...will demonstrate that this was not some sort of 
inadvertent forensic error, but instead that someone went into the computer 
without a 'write blocker' and sought to alter its content, and alter they did, 
with such a level of success that the State's deceit was not uncovered for 
several years."

Wilmott alleges that whoever had the computer at this time is responsible for 
that, and says that it must have been the State. Wilmott then provides a list 
of dates that these alleged porn files were allegedly accessed. She also 
provides the actual porn sites in the motion, the full motion with that list of 
sites can be seen in the slideshow.

The dates the porn was accessed begin on May 28, 2008. Several sites were 
allegedly accessed on that day, several on May 31, 2008, and also several sites 
were accessed on June 10, 2008. Travis Alexander died on June 4, so who was 
looking at his computer if those files were really on it?

There is a wide body of speculation circulating that Jodi Arias could have 
possibly planted the porn files on Travis's computer during one of her moments 
in his home. Wilmott has a quippy response for that.

"The date and time they were viewed negates any valid argument that Ms. Arias 
put these files on Mr. Alexander's computer."

Wilmott then presents a list of XXX rated porn sites, and attempts to allege 
that Travis likes child porn. But even she can not definitively assert that he 
does, as she also says these are pages that "likely" contain child pornography. 
But the word "likely" isn't a word that erases reasonable doubt, is it?

Neither the defense nor the State disputes the presence of porn files. How they 
got there, and how they have since disappeared, is the subject of this entire 
debate. In fact, whether or not porn files exist is not the actual relevance of 
this motion. The relevance of this motion rests on the fact that the defense is 
making very serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and mishandling of 
evidence.

The "what" of what the porn files are in other words, doesn't matter. If the 
porn files in question were a basket of apples for example, what is happening 
here is an argument over what happened to the "basket of apples." The defense 
is saying Jodi has testified to things that suggest this "basket of apples" 
could exist.

The State has said, we can't find the basket of apples and so Jodi must be 
lying. The defense is now then saying, "we can prove the basket of apples 
existed once, but the fact that they don't exist anymore really bothers us and 
we think you had something to do with that. Which is wrong."

If the defense is right, and they can prove it, they are correct. Losing a 
"basket of apples" or, in this case, thousands of porn files, and using that to 
ruin Jodi's credibility is a really bad thing that could amount to 
prosecutorial misconduct. Does it change the fact that Jodi butchered Travis 
Alexander or that she is not guilty of all charges against her? No.

There are a number of theories presented by both sides on what happened to this 
missing basket of apples. Juan Martinez has theorized that an anti-virus 
program was installed on Travis's computer and would not have allowed 
pornography to download in the first place. He claims that viruses that were 
attained were the cause of the alleged pornography.

This is, oddly enough, something that Wilmott does not disagree with. She said, 
"There were thousands of pornography site hits found on Mr. Alexander's 
computer. Some were caused by viruses and some were accessed prior to viruses 
being downloaded onto his computer. The type of viruses found on Mr. 
Alexander's computer are severe, and typically associated with the computer 
user visiting pornography sites."

Who accessed those files? Who deleted them? How did the viruses get there? Even 
in this motion Jennifer Wilmott makes it clear that the answers to those 
questions are not clear. One thing she does concede, "It cannot be shown that 
any member of the Maricopa County Attorney's office was involved in these 
misdeeds."

Wilmott then contends that based on all that she has said thus far, the first 
degree murder conviction should be overturned. She says, "Dismissal of a 
conviction is warranted when the misconduct is of the nature that it so 
infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial 
of due process."

She also cites the Brady Rule, suggesting that Juan Martinez is guilty of a 
Brady violation. Wilmott feels that destruction of the evidence in question 
would "constitute clear Constitutional error as its destruction deprived Ms. 
Arias of a fair trial." According to Cornell Law, violations of the Brady Rule 
could for some cases actually lead to dismissal, however, the defense is on the 
burden to prove these serious allegations.

The Brady Rule is a legal term coined from the 1963 case Brady V. Maryland 373 
U.S. 83 and requires the prosecutor in all cases to disclose to the defense 
material evidence that is in the State's possession. Evidence that is 
considered under the Brady Rule is evidence that is considered to be "favorable 
to the accused", or is evidence that could negate an individual's guilt.

Evidence under the Brady Rule typically is used to reduce an individual's 
sentence, or to help them establish credibility. If the State is found to be 
guilty of Brady violations, as Monica Lindstrom tweeted yesterday, this will 
mean consequences that stem from supression of the alleged evidence, to 
dismissal of all charges. It is not however up to the State to prove that they 
are innocent of these violations.

The burden is on the defense to show that the Brady evidence is not only 
material to this case. But that is not all they must prove. They must also 
prove that the trial outcome would have been completely different had the State 
disclosed this material evidence. In this case, and especially with this 
"basket of apples" of thousands of porn files, there appears to be more 
reasonable doubt than evidence and the defense seems to still have an uphill 
battle on this one.

The defense has already conceded that when Jennifer wrote, "It cannot be shown 
that any member of the Maricopa County Attorney's office was involved in these 
misdeeds." So it would seem then that proving a Brady violation would be 
difficult for the defense. But that does not mean they did not work vigorously 
in yesterday's hearing to establish a Brady violation. Jennifer Wilmott 
concluded her motion by saying, "While the actions denoted above document only 
a portion of the misconduct that the State has engaged in during the pendency 
of this case, the facts outlined above....are certainly the most repugnant to 
any sense of justice found in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the 
United States Constitution....and for the reasons mentioned above, the charges 
against Ms. Arias should be dismissed with prejudice.

In the alternative...any sense of justice that comports with the death penalty 
jurisprudence detailed above would require that this Court dismiss the 'State's 
Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty with prejudice."

We followed William Pitts from NBC 12 who tweeted live from the courtroom 
yesterday to find out what really went on in yesterday's hearing. The hearing 
began with former defense counsel on the stand Maria Schaffer, who was one of 
the first individuals from the defense to have a look at the computer after it 
was seized from Travis Alexander. Schaffer attended a meeting at the Mesa 
Police Department on June 19 to do so.

This testimony ultimately turned into what is becoming a typical State versus 
defense argument portrayed by "he said she said." No agreements were made, the 
State and the witness could not even agree on who turned the computer on. This 
is important because turning the computer on, on this very day, could have been 
the very act that accidentally or allegedly deleted thousands of alleged porn 
files.

Schaffer said Detective Flores turned it on. Juan Martinez had previously 
asserted that the defense turned it on, against the advice of the State. In 
court yesterday however Schaffer asserted she never touched the computer.

Juan Martinez then gave Schaffer a list of evidence she previously requested on 
the case. He reminded her that it was her request to look at the evidence, and 
said that Schaffer turned on the computer because she wanted to see "how big 
the files were" so that she could appropriately budget time for the defense 
expert she was seeking funding for. Schaffer said that may have been the case, 
however continued to testify that Juan Martinez was the one that turned it on.

NBC 12 suggested that Maria Schaffer was getting flustered under this 
cross-examination, but would not concede that she had ever been left alone with 
the computer. She was able to concede however that if she had been told turning 
on the computer would destroy evidence, that the computer would never have been 
turned on. This sounds a little bit like a concession that she may have in fact 
been the one to power the machine up on that day. As William Pitts tweeted for 
NBC 12, "This has real ramifications....if someone screwed up here, it's a 
problem. If the allegations are baseless, it's a problem."

The next witness up was a Bryan Neumeister who is a computer expert that 
"specializes in undeleting things." He began his testimony by saying that 
anyone that knew anything about computers would know not to turn the machine 
on, to remove the drive first and use a write blocker to investigate the 
computer. He was questioned on activities on the computer that occurred on June 
10, 2008.

This date is important because porn was allegedly accessed on this date,which 
was several days after Travis Alexander died. Nuemeister testified that on this 
date, the laptop downloaded several things such as iTunes and also some 
updates. This means that not only was the computer powered up at the time, but 
also online as William Pitts reports.

Neumeister testified that when these programs were downloaded, some of the hard 
drive was allegedly overwritten, thus deleting some of these alleged porn 
files. Neumeister also testified that 1 year later, June 19, 2009, the computer 
was turned on again and attempted to install the same updates that it had 
installed on year prior.

This would have had to have been done manually, by an actual human being. The 
expert testified that iTunes was also installed, which needs a human user to 
launch the process. Neumeister also testified that he learned from previous 
testimony that there were no viruses on the laptop. Thus he cloned the laptop 3 
times in order to ensure it was cloned properly.

This is interesting, because most witnesses are not supposed to know what other 
testimony has occurred in a case as it could effect their testimony. So what 
testimony is Neumeister referring to here? Neumeister conceded that several of 
the porn files allegedly found were caused by trojans and viruses. Others 
however he said, were manually typed in.

Overall Neumeister testified that he found 19 viruses, a registry cleaner, and 
spyware removal programs on the computer of Travis Alexander. He referred to 
the laptop as being "loaded" with viruses. He also claimed that the history of 
porn on the computer of Travis Alexander dates back to 2007, and also included 
several visits to escort services.

Shown as evidence of this was a log that illustrated what porn was accessed 
when. One time stamp showed the date of June 1, 2008, and the defense alleges 
this was not an access by a trojan or virus, but one that was manually typed 
in. He also claimed that as many as 70,000 files were "scrubbed out by a 
program that was not installed on Travis Alexander's laptop" according to 
William Pitts of NBC 12.

This led the witness to claim that proper forensic protocols weren't followed, 
and that the evidence must have been tampered with by the mere fact that the 
evidence appeared changed. The expert claimed to have as many as 90 pages of 
porn links visited by a human being, including links that read, "Hot girl 
giving a public blow@#%." When it came to 90 pages of files, the expert says he 
stopped looking, saying, "What's the point, there were so many."

The expert also testified that there were over 6000 hits on the keyword "teen" 
on the laptop of Travis Alexander. This concluded his direct examination by 
Kirk Nurmi. Juan Martinez was up for cross examination next, and, as always, 
this is where things got testy.

Juan went right to the beginning to begin asking about Lonnie Dworkin. This 
expert had testified that he had not found any of these files on the computer. 
Expert Neumeister explained that away by saying the drive that Dworkin was 
given was "bad." He also said about the files, "It's impossible to miss it! 
There is so much data there Juan!"

So which is it? Was Dworkin given a bad drive? Or was he negligent in his 
duties and overlooked "so much data" as is being suggested?

An argument over cell phones erupted. Cell phones were turned over to the 
police during this electronics seizure. Some of them did not have SIM cards, 
and Martinez asked Neumeister about that. He said, "If the cells didn't have 
SIM cards then you're saying the defendant had some shenanigans with them, 
right?"

In this line of questioning, Martinez was working to get the witness to admit 
to police misconduct, however Neumeister would not admit to those serious 
allegations, despite what the defense spent all morning implying. Instead he 
said that whoever imaged the drive, did a bad job at it, and "shouldn't be 
working in forensics." Additionally, Neumeister kept going back to the porn, 
"You're trying to skip over there 160,000 hits of porn on that computer and you 
guys said there was none!"

Things began to get heated when Martinez then alleged that maybe Neumeister had 
something to do with the missing files. He suggested that Neumeister broke the 
machine, to which Neumeister replied, "That's just slimy. That's just slimy."

This was when court broke for lunch. After the lunch there was not much to the 
hearing, but it did look like there may have been some admonitions in play. All 
lawyers went back to chambers of Judge Sherry Stephens, after which a 
conference at the bench was held. William Pitts noted, "Stephens looks angry 
now."

In a calmer and more collected line of questioning, Juan Martinez then asked 
for more copies of the alleged hard drive in question. Judge Sherry Stephens 
then adjourned the hearing until December 4. The jury at this point is not to 
know that any of this even happened. Testimony in the retrial of the penalty 
phase will resume Monday as if that is the case.

Judge Sherry Stephens will likely rule on this on December 4. There are a 
number of possible things that will happen. If she believes the defense, she 
may find prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of discovery of evidence. 
Monica Lindstrom tweeted the sanctions she would then have available would 
range from dismissal of the case and charges to a suppression of this evidence. 
She may also over-rule the motion all together.

(source: The Examiner)






WYOMING:

Death penalty overturned for Dale Wayne Eaton in murder of Denver teen Lisa 
Marie Kimmell


The death penalty sentence in the 1988 murder of a Denver teenager has been 
overturned.

Lisa Marie Kimmell, 18, was driving from Denver to Cody to visit her boyfriend 
when she disappeared.

According to trial testimony, Kimmell was abducted by Dale Wayne Eaton on March 
25, 1988. She was held for days and raped repeatedly. The day she died, she was 
struck in the back of the head before she was stabbed 6 times in the chest and 
abdomen. Kimmell's body was then thrown over the old Government Bridge and into 
the North Platte River west of Casper, where she was found April 2 of that 
year.

No charges were filed until 2002, when Kimmell's Honda CRX was found buried on 
Eaton's property near Moneta in central Wyoming. Eaton was convicted of 
kidnapping, rape and murder in 2004 and sentenced to die by lethal injection. 
The investigation was called the "Lil Miss" case because of the distinctive 
personalized Montana license plates on Kimmell's car.

However, Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming 
issued an order granting Eaton a conditional writ of habeas corpus that vacates 
his death sentence, but not his conviction.

The court found Kimmell's trial team and appellate counsel "failed to fulfill 
the then applicable prevailing professional normals" and was "constitutionally 
deficient."

The order requires the State of Wyoming to give Eaton a new sentencing hearing 
within 120 days or his sentence will become life without the possibility of 
parole.

"The Attorney General holds the federal district court in the highest regard 
but is disappointed by this decision," officials said in a statement sent to 
7NEWS. "Wyoming prosecutors recognize the seriousness of capital punishment and 
seek it in only the most egregious cases. Mr. Eaton's kidnapping, rape, and 
murder of Lisa Marie Kimmell is one such case."

In 2012, lawyers for Eaton filed papers criticizing both his original state 
court prosecutor and defense lawyer.

They claimed his defense lawyer did an inadequate job.

They also claimed that Eaton's state prosecutor failed to disclose details 
about how another inmate who testified against Eaton was in line to receive a 
lower prison sentence. The inmate testified that Eaton told him how he abducted 
Kimmell at a rest stop on Interstate 25 after she pulled-in to use the 
restroom. The inmate said that Eaton pulled a gun and forced her to drive to 
his home near Moneta, where he tied her up and sexually assaulted her for 6 
days. Kimmell's body was found beneath the Old Government Bridge on the North 
Platte River near Casper, Wyo.

Eaton's property in Moneta was awarded to the Kimmell family after a 
wrongful-death lawsuit, and the buildings were burned to the ground on July 18, 
2005, the day after what would have been Kimmell's 36th birthday.

At the time of her death, Kimmell had just been promoted to unit manager for 
Arby's restaurants, for whom she had worked since she was 14.

(source: thedenverchannel.com)






CALIFORNIA:

BANK OF THE WEST CASE----Ramos attorneys request to see evidence; Prosecutors 
say they are turning over discovery as soon as it's available


Defense attorneys for Jaime Ramos are asking the court to order prosecutors to 
expeditiously turn over evidence against the surviving suspect in the deadly 
July robbery of Bank of West that resulted in the death of hostage Misty 
Holt-Singh.

Defense attorneys have already received a substantial amount of "discovery," as 
the documents are referred to in legal terms, from prosecutors.

But they worry the remaining reports will come too close to the scheduled 
preliminary hearing, not allowing them enough time to prepare for countering 
the accusations.

A preliminary hearing is the process in which a judge hears a portion of 
testimony and determines if there is enough evidence to send the defendant to 
trial. In Ramos' case, it is expected to last 3 days and scheduled to begin 
Jan. 8.

On Friday, attorneys argued the discovery motion filed by the defense in San 
Joaquin County Superior Court.

Deputy District Attorney Mark Ott said he already has provided 40 to 50 compact 
discs of witness interviews, reports from the Department of Justice and the 
medical examiner's office, and photographs from the scene.

Ott also argued the state says prosecutors are not required to turn over 
discovery until 30 days before a preliminary hearing.

He is working on providing the defense more reports, which have yet to be 
finalized by Stockton police, he said.

Deputy Public Defender Jonathan Fattarsi is especially interested in obtaining 
the ballistics reports and information related to the stolen getaway car.

The release of discovery often is a slow process in homicide cases, Fattarsi 
said. "But this seems like more than the usual," he said in the case filed more 
than 4 months ago.

Fattarsi said his client has a right to the reports so he can mount a defense.

During the hearing, Judge Bernard Garber made it clear the reports should be 
given to the defense "as soon as possible."

He did not rule on the motion Friday.

Garber is considering that the documents are not finalized, as well as the 
defense's entitlement to "most or all" of the discovery. Since much of it has 
been handed over, he is allowing more time for attorneys to continue 
coordinating the exchange.

A continuance of the motion hearing is scheduled for Dec. 15.

Still in the air is the possibility the case will go to a criminal grand jury 
before the preliminary hearing takes place. If so, the grand jury - not a judge 
- would hear the evidence in a secret hearing without defense attorneys cross 
examining witnesses.

The grand jury would then make the decision on whether there is enough evidence 
to charge Ramos, and the preliminary hearing would be canceled.

Ramos, 19, is 1 of 3 suspected armed gunmen who took three hostages and 
enganged law enforcement officers and civilians alike during an hour-long 
pursuit marked by intermittent gunfire along the way.

Assailants Alex Martinez, 27, and Gilbert Renteria, 30, were killed during the 
final shootout.

2 hostages survived with injuries, but a 3rd - wife and mother Holt-Singh - was 
struck by police gunfire and died as a result. Police say Ramos used her as a 
shield.

Ramos is charged with murder in the 3 killings; the attempted murder of about 2 
dozen officers and the other 2 hostages; and a slough of other charges in a 
35-page complaint.

He is eligible for the death penalty based on special circumstances attached to 
the charges, but prosecutors have not said whether they will seek death.

(source: Stockton Record)

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

Charges in Willits rape, murder could carry death sentence


The registered sex offender suspected of raping and murdering Willits resident 
Kayla Chesser has been charged with a list of crimes that potentially carry a 
death penalty sentence, a punishment that is rarely sought in Mendocino County.

The Mendocino County District Attorney's Office has not yet decided whether to 
pursue the death penalty in the case against Terrell James Marshall, 44, 
spokesman Mike Geniella said Friday.

"It is a possibility," he said.

Marshall has been charged with murder, rape and sodomy along with special 
allegations that he committed the rape and sodomy in conjunction with a murder, 
according to Mendocino County Superior Court records. Charging documents also 
include allegations that he is a sex offender with a prior strike and a serious 
offender.

Marshall was convicted in 2000 of sexual penetration with a foreign object by 
force or fear in Santa Clara County. Officials from the Santa Clara County 
sheriff's and district attorney's offices declined to provide specifics of the 
case.

Records indicate Marshall also had a list of arrests in connection with 
less-serious offenses that include drunken driving, being under the influence 
of a controlled substance, failing to wear a seatbelt and assault.

The charges filed against Marshall this week have the potential to carry either 
a death penalty sentence or life in prison without the possibility of parole, 
according to handwritten notes jotted in court documents.

Marshall did not enter pleas to the charges during a videoconference 
arraignment Thursday.

If the District Attorney's Office seeks the death penalty, it would be the 1st 
time since a mid-1990s Hells Angels multiple-murder case that it was pursued, 
Geniella said. That bid eventually was dropped, he said.

Other than to say they were glad Marshall had been apprehended, Chesser's 
family has declined to comment about the case.

Marshall's cousin, who owns the Brooktrails home where Chesser was found dead, 
did not return phone calls.

Chesser's body was discovered in the early morning hours of Nov. 1. She had 
been with friends at a Halloween party, but they dropped her off at the 
Brooktrails house and then continued to socialize elsewhere, according to the 
Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.

When they returned, Marshall, a Vacaville resident, was at the house. When they 
later checked on Chesser, they found her dead in a bedroom.

An autopsy found she had been strangled and sexually assaulted.

Marshall left the house before police arrived but was apprehended later that 
day after driving his vehicle over a cliff near Covelo. Sheriff's officials 
said at the time it may have been a suicide attempt.

Chesser was a well-liked, lifelong Willits resident who taught dance and 
performed in a belly dance troupe.

(source: Press Democrat)