[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KAN., MO., COLO., N.MEX., ARIZ., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 11



KANSAS:


Dennis Hawver, an Ozawkie attorney facing disciplinary action for his defense 
work in a death penalty case, filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday against the 
Kansas Supreme Court seeking damages and a court order blocking his possible 
disbarment.

Hawver represented capital murder defendant Phillip D. Cheatham Jr., who was 
convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in connection with the 
slayings of 2 women in 2003 in southeast Topeka. Early last year, the Kansas 
Supreme Court reversed Cheatham's convictions in the slayings and ordered a new 
trial, ruling Cheatham received ineffective assistance of counsel from Hawver.

Hawver filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Topeka just 3 days before he 
is to appear before the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday to argue what discipline 
he should receive.

Hawver is suing that court, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, and 
Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten of the U.S. District Court in Kansas. Hawver is 
representing himself in the Kansas Supreme Court and federal court.

"I'm trying to stand up for my rights," Hawver said during an interview 
Wednesday. "I have a First Amendment right to present my client's trial the way 
he wants."

Hawver said he would appear during the Friday hearing.

"I want to talk to them," Hawver said of the Supreme Court.

Hawver said that court's disciplinary decision against him could have a 
"chilling effect" on other lawyers if they are told by the Kansas Supreme Court 
how to conduct the defenses of their clients.

Hawver contends Kansas judicial agencies sought disciplinary action against him 
in retaliation because he testified in Cheatham's appeal of his conviction. 
Hawver also contends the alleged retaliation stems from his following the 
"signed written instructions" of Cheatham in what Hawver said was the trial 
strategy Cheatham wanted him to follow.

In that strategy, Hawver described Cheatham as "an experienced and highly 
street-smart and intelligent criminal" who was a cocaine dealer convicted of 
killing another "dope dealer." Hawver also told jurors that if Cheatham killed 
2 women in 2003, he wouldn't have left alive a 3rd shooting victim to identify 
him to police.

"This trial strategy, developed and approved by Cheatham in writing, is the 
trial strategy that (Hawver) is now being prosecuted for," Hawver said.

Hawver represented Cheatham, now 41, during his 1st jury trial in 2005, in 
which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

The shootings occurred in December 2003 in a southeast Topeka house. Cheatham's 
retrial will be in 2015 and is expected to take 5 to 6 weeks. Cheatham's 1st 
trial lasted 8 days.

In the federal lawsuit, Hawver is seeking a federal court order to block his 
disbarment. If the state Supreme Court does disbar him, Hawver is asking the 
federal court to reinstate him as a Kansas attorney without conditions.

Hawver also is seeking $10 million from Kansas officials personally who have 
violated his constitutional rights and $5 million for other Kansas lawyers who 
could face retaliation if they sought redress for violation of rights by the 
state Supreme Court.

On May 13, 2014, Hawver filed a brief with the Kansas Supreme Court contesting 
the findings of a 3-member panel appointed by the Kansas Board for Discipline 
of Attorneys. In recommending disciplinary action, 2 members favored disbarring 
Hawver and one an indefinite suspension.

A disciplinary administrator has recommended that Hawver be disbarred.

Hawver asked panel members to order him not to handle any murder cases but to 
allow him to handle other cases in his rural Jefferson County law practice.

The disciplinary panel's findings found Hawver "was not competent to represent 
Cheatham" and cited 24 points. Hawver disputed all disciplinary panel findings.

(source: Topeka Capital Journal)

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

Capital charge filed over Topeka officer's death


A 30-year-old man has been charged with capital murder in the shooting death of 
a Topeka police officer.

Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced Wednesday that he had 
filed the charge against Ross Preston Lane, who was being held without bond. 
Kansas law allows the death penalty for the slaying of a law enforcement 
officer.

Police Cpl. Jason Harwood was shot to death Sunday after stopping a car in east 
Topeka.

Lane also was charged with possessing a stolen firearm and criminal possession 
of a firearm as a past felon.

Another 30-year-old man, Anthony Allen Ridens Jr., was charged with obstructing 
apprehension of a felon and possession of a stolen motorcycle.

(source: Associated Press)






MISSOURI:

Missouri Lies About Lethal Injection, Still Puts a Man to Death


We know almost nothing about how Earl Ringo Jr. was executed in the early hours 
of the morning by the State of Missouri. Missouri deliberately hid crucial 
facts about its lethal injection drugs and their administration, blocking the 
public from understanding how capital punishment is carried out in our name. 
This state government took the secrecy one step further, its officials telling 
outright lies under oath about what could happen to Mr. Ringo and others 
scheduled for execution. We need our courts to care enough to demand the truth. 
We need other states' governors to put a halt to executions until we have 
answers to the most basic questions about lethal injection.

Missouri was caught in its lies a week before Mr. Ringo's execution date. The 
Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections George Lombardi promised, 
under oath, that Missouri would not use midazolam, the controversial drug tied 
to botched executions in Oklahoma, Ohio, and Arizona. That was at a hearing 
held in January. But chemical log forms revealed last week prove that prison 
officials were in fact administering midazolam and had done so in executions 
both before and after Lombardi's testimony.

Instead of admitting to their flat-out lie, Missouri officials first tried to 
claim that the drug was "offered" to prisoners, as if it were their choice to 
receive a drug that had tortured prisoners in other states. But officials have 
conceded that the prisoners did not get to make the decision about whether to 
accept midazolam, a drug that is only administered intravenously.

Next, Missouri tried to change the definition of the word "execution" itself. 
Missouri Department of Corrections spokesman David Owen said that Missouri 
didn't use midozalm during the execution, only "in advance" of the execution. 
The record logs reveal that "in advance" means as little as three minutes 
before . Under this logic, Missouri could administer any secret torture regime 
in the hours leading up to an execution, outside of the public eye, without any 
review or disclosure.

Tragically, court majorities, over the vigorous dissents of a few judges, 
swallowed these verbal gymnastics and let the secrecy continue.

This kind of secrecy encourages and protects the use of shady manufacturers and 
illegal substances. Expired drugs, untested cocktails and methods - these are 
shameful examples of a criminal justice system gone terribly wrong. Indeed, 
back at the hearings in January, Department of Corrections officials disclosed 
that they purchased lethal injection drugs the same way one might buy crack 
cocaine: in the cover of the night, across state lines, with cash in hand.

More fundamentally, such covert action is un-American. We are a nation built on 
democracy, open government, and accountability. Our ideals are founded on the 
premise that our government doesn't lie to us, and that when it does, courts 
will care, and act.

4 justices of the United States Supreme Court voted last night to stop the 
execution of Ringo until these new revelations could be evaluated by a court. 
Unfortunately, that was one justice too few.

What's needed now is for federal courts and governors to halt all executions 
until we have answers to the most basic questions about lethal injection.

(source: ACLU)






COLORADO:

Gubernatorial running mates debate death penalty


Running mates for Gov. John Hickenlooper and Republican nominee Bob Beauprez 
debated a governor's role in the economy, fracking, the death penalty and more 
during a half-hour debate taped at Colorado Public Television's Denver studio 
Wednesday afternoon.

The debate in its entirety will air on CPT on Sept. 26 at 7:30 p.m.

At the height of the debate, Lt. Gov. Joe Garcia twice accused Douglas County 
Commissioner Jill Repella of being confused about the death penalty and 
fracking. Repella said Hickenlooper "punted" on the fate of death row inmate 
Nathan Dunlap by granting a temporary reprieve last year.

"We don't pick and choose which law we want to apply, and which law we don't 
want to apply," Repella said. "We don't have the opportunity to question it. 
The judicial branch of government is government. It went through that process."

She added: "The laws of Colorado are crystal clear. What's alarming to me is 
the inability to make a decision, one side or the other."

Garcia caused some among the dozen reporters and campaign staffers watching the 
taping on a monitor in the green room to lean back, and someone let out a 
whistling sigh as the lieutenant governor responded.

"I would suggest if Jill wants to be part of the executive branch she ought to 
read the constitution as it applies to the executive branch," Garcia said. "It 
directs the governor to do 1 of 3 things, and 1 of those 3 things is to grant a 
reprieve, so he did exactly what the constitution required him to do."

Hickenlooper granted an unusual temporary reprieve, leaving the decision for 
the next governor and saying at the time he wanted the state to have a 
discussion about capital punishment.

(source: Denver Post)






NEW MEXICO:

Time for state to shutter seldom-used death chamber


When New Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2009, it did not mean an end to 
all executions in the state. In fact, having covered the debate in Santa Fe at 
that time, I seriously doubt if the repeal bill would have been passed or 
signed by Gov. Bill Richardson had such a promise been made.

The cases of Timothy Allen and Robert Fry both figured prominently in the 
arguments against repeal. The 2 men had already been sentenced to death, and 
there was little apparent desire to alter those sentences.

Fry was convicted for the 2000 murder of Betty Lee, a 36-year-old Shiprock 
woman who was stabbed in the chest and had her head smashed with a sledgehammer 
later found at Fry's home. Her body was discovered in a remote area in 
Kirtland.

Allen was convicted in the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a 
17-year-old girl, but his case raises serious questions not present with Fry's. 
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Allen's attorney had never 
tried a capital punishment case before and did not research or offer as a 
defense Allen's history of schizophrenia and hallucinations. No witnesses were 
called for the defense during the sentencing phase.

Still, the idea that two men already convicted and sentenced to death would 
have those sentences overturned by the Legislature was a bridge too far for 
lawmakers, who wrote the law to apply only to future cases, and to Richardson, 
who could have commuted the sentences at the time he signed the repeal bill, 
but chose not to.

Now, attorneys for the 2 men are taking their appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Arguments are scheduled for Oct. 1, according to Associated Press reporter 
Barry Massey.

"Executing Mr. Fry but not other members of the same class of offenders based 
only on a date is arbitrary and freakish," his attorney, Kathleen McGarry, said 
in written arguments.

There is much about the application of the death penalty in this country that 
is arbitrary and freakish, and it includes not just timing but geography.

If a murder is committed in Anthony, New Mexico, the murderer faces a maximum 
penalty of life in prison. If, however, the exact same murder happens a few 
steps away in Anthony, Texas, the killer could very well end up in the nation's 
busiest death chamber.

I'm not sure what would happen if the shooter was in New Mexico and the victim 
in Texas, or vice versa. And what if the victim falls right on the state line - 
head in New Mexico, feet in Texas? Will the killer end up in a New Mexico 
penitentiary or the Texas death chamber?

The real question, I think, is should a few inches either way make the 
difference between life and death.

Meanwhile, on Thursday we published a story about two brothers in North 
Carolina who were cleared by DNA evidence after serving decades on death row 
for a 1983 murder they were wrongfully convicted of. The circumstances of that 
case are, sadly, not at all unusual. The 2 boys, ages 19 and 15 at the time and 
with low IQs, were tricked into confessing to a crime they didn't commit and 
then convicted in a trial in which no physical evidence was presented 
connecting them to the case.

Their exoneration brings to 20 the number of inmates who had been sentenced to 
death but were later cleared by DNA evidence, according to The Innocence 
Project. And that's the real issue. The courts are not infallible. And, the 
less money and darker pigmentation a defendant has, the more flawed they tend 
to be.

New Mexico has had just 1 execution in the last 54 years - Terry Clark, who was 
put to death in 2001. He should be the last.

(source: Editorial; Walter Rubel is editorial page editor of the Las Cruces 
Sun-News)






ARIZONA:

Jodi Arias no longer wants to defend self in death trial


Jodi Arias won't represent herself in the penalty phase of her murder trial 
after all.

She said she was going to represent herself in the case Aug. 4, but changed her 
mind Wednesday.

Attorney Kirk Nurmi, who sought court permission to leave the case, will again 
represent Arias.

Arias, 34, was convicted of 1st-degree murder last year in the 2008 killing of 
Travis Alexander, but jurors couldn't reach a decision on sentencing. Under 
Arizona law, while Arias' murder conviction stands, prosecutors have the option 
of putting on a second penalty phase with a new jury in an effort to secure the 
death penalty. She could also be sentenced to life in prison.

Arias, who long clashed with her defense lawyers and tried to fire them 
previously, asked Judge Sherry Stephens last month to let her serve as her own 
lawyer during the 2nd penalty phase. Stephens granted the request but said 
there would be no delays.

"I do not believe it is in your best interest ... I strongly urge you to 
reconsider," Stephens told Arias before granting the motion.

Her latest move may come as a shock to some. A few experts believed Arias stood 
a good chance representing herself, not because of her skill, but because it 
could spare her life.

"It's actually probably a good idea to represent herself," said San 
Francisco-area defense attorney Daniel Horowitz. "She looks like a vicious 
psychopath with a ridiculous defense."

However, Horowitz noted, the jury "may find her pathetic."

"If she can get just one juror to bond with her on some level, even if they 
hate her, they're getting to know her, and it's harder to kill someone you 
know," he said.

(source: KTAR news)






CALIFORNIA:

Marilyn Kay Edge, Who Sought Death Penalty in Murder of Her 2 Kids, is 
Arraigned Today


Can we cut straight to the penalty phase? After all, an Arizona woman already 
asked an Orange County judge to put her to death last year for allegations she 
murdered her 2 children in a Santa Ana hotel room instead of turning them over 
to her ex-husband who had full custody.

Marilyn Kay Edge, Mom Accused of Murdering Her 2 Children, Has Arraignment 
Delayed

Scottsdale's Marilyn Kay Edge is scheduled to be arraigned in Santa Ana this 
morning after the grand jury handed down a murder indictment Tuesday alleging 
the 43-year-old suffocated her 13-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter before 
trying to kill herself in a Costa Mesa car crash.

She faces 2 counts of murder with special circumstance allegations of lying in 
wait. In October 2013, the 43-year-old had agreed with an Orange County judge 
to delay her arraignment "only if you promise to give me the death penalty."

According the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA), Edge was under 
an order to return her son Jaelen and daughter Faith to their father in Georgia 
by noon on Sept. 15, 2013, as the Air Force reservist had full custody of his 
children. But days before, Edge drove the kids to California with promises of 
fun activities like the beach and Disneyland, say prosecutors.

Just after 8 a.m. on Sept. 14, 2013, Edge crashed a gray Honda Accord into 
steel poles protecting an electrical vault in the parking lot of the Albertsons 
supermarket at 2300 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, and has first responders 
approached her she wrapped a cord around her neck, the OCDA says.

She told police about her children, whose bodies were found just after 9 a.m. 
inside the Hampton Inn & Suites at 2720 Hotel Terrace, Santa Ana, according to 
prosecutors. The original arraignment statement last year indicated the 
children had been poisoned. The OCDA had not yet explained why this year's 
indictment alleges the pair was suffocated.

However they died, Mark Edge, the father of the children, was so grief struck 
by the news he received on the front porch of his Marietta, Georgia, home that 
he had to be hospitalized, his attorney Marian Weeks told City News Service's 
Paul Anderson.

It had taken him years to win visitation, at which point his former wife moved 
with the children to Scottsdale. Mark Edge had to fight unfounded allegations 
his wife aired that he physically abused her and a friend of her ex-husband 
molested their daughter. Years of violating visitation orders led to the judge 
granting Mark Edge full custody, according to Weeks.

"If she just let him have weekend visitation, he would be the happiest person 
in the world, but she couldn't do that," Weeks said of Marilyn Edge. "It became 
so obvious that she would do anything to prevent visitation with her children."

(source: Orange County Weekly)






USA:

A capital idea: not for the squeamish


Convicted murderer Clayton Lockett took 40 minutes to die when he was executed 
by lethal injection in April of 2014. Just 14 minutes into the procedure, the 
ostensibly sedated murderer attempted to rise from his gurney and speak 
audibly. Just months later, the execution of Joseph Wood took nearly 2 hours. 
During his death, Wood is recorded to have gasped nearly 600 times.

In both cases, the states responsible for the executions were using an 
experimental sedative called Midazolam. This drug has become the go-to for 
lethal injections as more "traditional" execution drugs like Pentobarbital have 
been pulled from the market by conscientious manufacturers. Yet Midazolam's 
track record at sedation is obviously spotty. Lethal injection, once touted as 
painless and easy death, is quickly proving to be anything but.

The debate surrounding the death penalty in America has many ethical, 
religious, and constitutional components. While we will hopefully one day 
achieve consensus on whether or not our country ought to practice capital 
punishment, this will clearly not happen anytime soon. In the meantime, death 
row inmates will keep dying. Therefore, regardless of your stance on the death 
penalty, it's imperative that we have a conversation about the methods used to 
kill the condemned.

On paper, the current cocktail of lethal injection drugs sounds like an 
excellent method of execution - the condemned criminal is gently sedated while 
his vital functions are powered down one by one. But differing rates of 
metabolism, clogged needles and a host of other problems have resulted in a 
high rate of botched executions, about 7.1%, according to Amherst's Austin 
Sarat. Clearly, a better procedure is needed, and the answer can be found in 
the only method with a zero % botch rate - the firing squad.

Consider the advantages of shooting a prisoner full of lead instead of 
potassium chloride. Because death by gunshot relies on physically traumatizing 
the body's vital systems rather than chemically shutting them off, issues of 
toxin resistance or body composition are rendered moot. Any convict shot half a 
dozen times at close range will die quickly, with far less opportunity for the 
anguish seen in the deaths of Lockett and Wood. For example, consider the 
execution of Utah's Ronnie Lee Gardner, who was pronounced dead only 2 minutes 
after being shot in 2010. Can it really be argued that he suffered more than 
those whose deaths took hours?

Additionally, participation in a firing squad requires none of the special 
training needed to handle or administer killer drugs - anyone competent enough 
to operate a rifle could be eligible to serve out the execution. Whereas lethal 
injection depends on many complex mechanisms, both artificial and organic, to 
work as intended, the probability of a rifle malfunction is slim.

It's also unlikely that ammunition or arms manufacturers will raise moral 
objections to their products being used to take life. After all, many of these 
companies already advertise weapons to both police and civilians for use on 
criminals. Even if these companies do try to boycott the death penalty, police 
departments doubtless have sufficient stockpiles of weaponry to carry out all 
necessary executions for the foreseeable future. As a result, the justice 
system will not be forced to use "experimental bullets," as they've had to do 
with Midazolam.

The squeamish, of course, will object that the firing squad is too gruesome a 
death to be used in a civilized society. Given the agony evidently suffered by 
victims of lethal injection, that case is becoming increasingly more difficult 
to make. Moreover, the practical result of both execution methods is the same - 
a dead convict. The firing squad even provides the same diffuse responsibility 
associated with lethal injection. Just as only one of the technicians sending 
drugs down the condemned's IV tube actually administers a fatal dose, one man 
on the firing squad can be given a blank round or a dummy bullet. As an 
execution tool, the rifle need be no more psychologically traumatizing than the 
needle. And considering the fate of the man on death row are the sensibilities 
of the headsmen really a priority?

Of course, it's possible to argue that our society ought not to execute 
criminals at all. Such a position is certainly worthy of consideration and 
vigorous debate. But if we can't agree on that, can we at least agree that we 
shouldn't torture criminals to death?

(source: Stephen Raab, The Observer)