[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CONN., VA., GA., ALA., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 14



CONNECTICUT:

Death penalty ruling may pave way for national abolitionists


A sweeping decision this week by the Connecticut Supreme Court that found the 
death penalty no longer meets society's evolving standards of decency could be 
influential across a nation that is increasingly questioning the practice, 
legal experts said.

Thursday's ruling found capital punishment violates the Connecticut 
constitution, but the justices backed their decision by citing what 
abolitionists say are universal problems with the death penalty, including 
economic disparities in its use, the costs involved with appeals, the inherent 
cruelty involved in lengthy waits for execution, and the risk of executing 
innocent people.

"It reads as a missive to the U.S. Supreme Court," said Kevin Barry, a 
Quinnipiac University law professor and expert on death penalty law. "It is a 
blueprint for our nation's high court to strike down the death penalty 
nationally."

31 states still have capital punishment, but seven states have eliminated it in 
the past decade, including Nebraska in May and Maryland in 2013, which both 
passed legislation outlawing the death penalty.

Connecticut's abolishment is different because it comes in the form of a court 
ruling, one that found the 2012 state law that banned executions for future 
crimes did not go far enough, experts said. The court found the death penalty 
"no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose."

"This is one more institution saying this is too broken and it can't be fixed, 
and let's be done with it," said Shari Silberstein, executive director of the 
anti-death penalty group Equal Justice USA.

The ruling could also influence courts in states such as Maryland and New 
Mexico, which, like Connecticut, eliminated the death penalty only for future 
crimes, said Robert Blecker, a professor at New York Law School and a proponent 
of the limited use of capital punishment. States including Delaware, Colorado, 
Kansas, New Hampshire and Washington are also considering repealing the death 
penalty only for future crimes, he said.

"My view is that there will never be an execution of anyone who, if they had 
committed the same crime on the day of their execution, would not be subjected 
to the death penalty," said Blecker, author of the book "The Death of 
Punishment." ''This ruling backs that up."

The death penalty was widely used in the United States for decades until the 
1960s, when questions about its fairness reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which 
eventually ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. After states 
reworked their laws, the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976.

In recent years, the number of death sentences and executions in the U.S. has 
plummeted as juries take advantage of new laws offering life with no chance of 
parole and as prosecutors hesitate to bring capital charges because of the 
cost, especially at the appeals stage. In the past 5 years, executions have 
slowed again while the supply of lethal drugs has dried up as manufacturers, 
responding to activist pressure, have put them off limits for capital 
punishment.

The number of death sentences imposed last year marked a 40-year low in the 
country, said Robert Dunham, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty 
Information Center, which tracks information about the use of capital 
punishment in the United States.

There have been recent indications that the U.S. Supreme Court may be preparing 
to take its first broad look at the constitutionality of the death penalty 
since 1976, perhaps as early as this fall.

In June, Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent of an opinion upholding 
Oklahoma's use of a new lethal injection drug, said that circumstances have 
changed drastically over the past 40 years, and that the death penalty may now 
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

"Given these changes, I believe that it is now time to reopen the question," he 
wrote.

One of the main tests the U.S Supreme Court would look at is the nation's 
standards of decency, Barry said. If it follows Connecticut's lead, in may not 
need to find that the majority of states oppose the death penalty, only that 
the trend is heading in an undeniable direction, he said.

But death penalty supporters may also look to Connecticut to back their 
position that executions should remain legal in states where it has public and 
legislative support.

Connecticut's ruling drew harsh criticism from the 3 dissenting justices and 
legislative Republicans, who accused the court of improperly taking on the role 
of policymakers.

Connecticut Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano noted that multiple lawmakers 
would not have voted to repeal the death penalty in Connecticut if that ban had 
applied to those already on death row.

In her dissent, Connecticut Chief Justice Chase Rogers wrote court ignored the 
most obvious evidence that society still accepts the death penalty.

"The legislature, which represents the people of the state and is the best 
indicator of contemporary societal mores, expressly retained the death penalty 
for crimes committed before the effective date of (the repeal)," she wrote.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Because The Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional, This State Will No Longer 
Execute Anyone


"[T]hroughout every period of our state's history," Justice Richard Palmer 
wrote in a Connecticut Supreme Court decision handed down on Thursday, "the 
death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has 
marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor 
and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups." He added that it 
"always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less 
intrinsically worthy."

That practice will not end for good with Thursday's decision, but it will end 
in the state of Connecticut. Justice Palmer's opinion holds that the death 
penalty is unconstitutional.

As a practical matter, Palmer's opinion in State v. Santiago will only impact 
11 inmates. In 2012, Connecticut abolished the death penalty for future crimes, 
but they did not make this law retroactive. Thus, the eleven men who were on 
death row when this bill became law remain eligible for execution.

The Santiago opinion lists several reasons why this situation is untenable. 
Though the death penalty is often justified because people believe that it will 
deter other people from committing capital crimes - an argument that is 
doubtful at best - that argument no longer applies in Connecticut. "As a 
general matter, the empirical evidence regarding deterrence is inconclusive," 
Santiago explains in a passage quoting another opinion. "Following the 
abolition of the death penalty for all future offenses committed in 
Connecticut, however, it is possible to determine the exact number of potential 
crimes that will be deterred by executing the defendant in this case. That 
number is zero."

Much of the opinion, however, rests on an account of the history of the death 
penalty in Connecticut and throughout the country, which paints abolition as 
the logical culmination of the state's longstanding rejection of executions. 
Noting that the proper question in a case alleging that a particular punishment 
is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual is "whether the punishment at issue 
comports with contemporary standards of decency," the court argues that "the 
acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined 
steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400 year history."

A centerpiece of its case that the death penalty no longer "comports with 
contemporary standards of decency" in Connecticut is the fact that the state 
has only executed 1 person in the last 55 years, and that person was "a serial 
killer who believed that he deserved to die and voluntarily waived his right to 
further appeals and habeas remedies." Even in this case, however, the court 
notes that "it took the state more than 2 decades to carry out his sentence."

Indeed, according to the court, states that continue to execute inmates with 
any frequency are outliers. "The total number of executions carried out 
nationally has fallen by more than 60 % . . . dropping from 98 in 1999 to 39 in 
2013, and then falling again to 35 -a 20 year low - in 2014." Most jarringly, 
"[o]f the 35 executions carried out in 2014, approximately 90 % occurred in 
just four states: Texas, Missouri, Florida, and Oklahoma."

(source: thinkprogress.org)






VIRGINIA:

Death penalty questioned


Pre-trial motions hearings in the James Lloyd Terry capital murder case have 
almost become a monthly ritual the past 2 years.

They continued Wednesday in Halifax County Circuit Court before Judge Joel C. 
Cunningham, with a number of motions scheduled for argument.

Only 1 motion was heard on Wednesday, a defense motion which in essence would 
declare the Virginia death penalty unconstitutional.

Capital defenders Bernadette Mary Donovan, Matthew Engle and Karen Kissiah 
filed a motion to "declare the Virginia death penalty scheme unconstitutional 
due it its demonstrated failure to meet minimum constitutional requirements set 
forth in Furman/Gregg and their progeny."

The court heard testimony from Wanda Foglia, a professor at Rowan University in 
New Jersey, who has done notable research on how capital jurors decide death 
penalty cases.

A PowerPoint presentation displaying findings from the Capital Jury Project 
accompanied Foglia???s testimony, a program of research on how persons who 
serve as jurors on capital cases make the life or death sentencing decision.

Initiated in 1991 by a consortium of university-based researchers from 14 
states, including Virginia, the Capital Jury Project seeks to determine whether 
jurors' exercise of capital sentencing discretion under modern capital statutes 
conforms to constitutional standards, and whether these statutes have remedied 
the arbitrariness ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.

According to the Capital Jury Project, 58 % of capital jurors underestimate the 
death penalty alternative, 50 % believe the death penalty is mandatory, and 80 
% express a predisposition for the death penalty.

Also, the Capital Jury Project findings indicate 82 % of capital jurors 
interviewed don't feel responsible for the sentence, 83 % misunderstood death 
penalty instructions, and 49 % made premature punishment decisions.

Danville Special Prosecutor Petra B. Haskins spent a significant portion of 
Wednesday's hearing asking Foglia for clarification on a number of issues 
surrounding the project's conclusions, including criteria for the selection 
process of jurors for the project.

Presiding Judge Joel C. Cunningham did not rule on the motion before the court 
on Wednesday, rather he set a date of Aug. 31 to rule on the defense motion 
argued before him.

Cunningham is set to consider a number of other motions at that hearing, 
including a defense motion to strike continuing serious threat as an 
aggravating factor in the sentencing phase of a capital case; a motion to 
appoint an eyewitness expert; a motion to prohibit introduction of prejudicial 
evidence into the jury determination of mental retardation; and a motion to 
continue the trial from its current date of Oct. 19.

Terry is facing capital charges in connection with the death of Charlotte 
Osborne Rice in April 2011.

Terry was arrested after the body of Rice was discovered in her North Main 
Street home in South Boston when authorities responded to a report of a 
possible breaking and entering.

Acting on a 911 call from a neighbor, Joe Taylor, police arrived at Rice's 
residence where they apprehended Terry following a foot pursuit through yards 
adjacent to Rice's house.

Terry, a registered sex offender, could face the death penalty if convicted of 
capital charges.

(source: yourgv.com)






GEORGIA:

Fulton to seek death penalty for accused serial killer


Fulton County prosecutors announced they planned to go ahead with seeking the 
death penalty against a man accused of being a serial killer and already facing 
a death penalty trial in DeKalb County.

Aeman Presley is accused of murdering 2 homeless men: Dorian Jenkins and Tommy 
Mims were shot multiple times as they slept on the streets in Atlanta on 
Thanksgiving week last year. Prosecutors had filed notice April 1 on their 
intent to seek the death penalty in Fulton.

In DeKalb County, Presley pleaded not guilty Tuesday in the shooting death of a 
hairdresser on the downtown Decatur square. A tentative date was also set for a 
separate trial in the death of another homeless man.

Aeman Presley, wearing a charcoal gray suit over an open-collared blue dress 
shirt, did not speak during the process.

Presley appeared in DeKalb Superior Court , accused of killing Calvin Gholston, 
53, a homeless man who was shot last September, and hair dresser Karen Pearce, 
44 of Cobb County, who was killed in December.

Gholston, 53, was shot multiple times Sept. 27 outside a shopping mall in 
unincorporated DeKalb. Police say they considered Gholston, who suffered from 
schizophrenia, to be homeless.

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)






ALABAMA:

Alabama bigamist and wife face 11 capital murder charges in fire

11 capital murder charges were filed on Friday against an accused Alabama 
bigamist and 1 of his wives for a fire that killed 4 people, including 2 
children and the man's s2nd wife, who was 9 months pregnant, authorities said.

If convicted, Christopher Henderson, 40, and Rhonda Carlson, 42, will face 
either life in prison or the death penalty.

The Aug. 4 fire killed Kristen Henderson, 35, and her unborn child, as well as 
her 8-year-old son from another relationship and her mother, 67. A 1-year-old 
family member also died.

The fire happened at a home in Maysville, Alabama, west of Huntsville, police 
said.

The fire took place a few days after a divorce hearing in which it was revealed 
that Christopher Henderson had never divorced Carlson, whom he married in 
Alabama in 2013, before he married Kristen Henderson in Tennessee last 
September, Madison County Chief Deputy Dave Jernigan told Reuters in an 
interview.

Kristen Henderson became pregnant soon after the wedding, police said.

In mid-July, Christopher Henderson filed for divorce from her, Jernigan said. A 
week later, Kristen Henderson won a protective order against him, with a judge 
determining her husband posed a significant threat to her and her unborn child, 
he said.

Shortly after that, during a hearing on the divorce, the fact that Christopher 
Henderson had never divorced Carlson came to light. That development likely 
caused the pair to decide to set the home on fire a few days later, Jernigan 
said.

"That's where the bigamy came out," Jernigan said. "I think that's what 
precipitated it."

The pair each face five capital murder charges: 2 for the 2 children who died, 
1 for the unborn child, 1 for the fact that the deaths happened in commission 
of a felony burglary, and one because more than 1 person was killed in the same 
crime.

Additionally, Christopher Henderson faces a 6th capital murder charge because 
his alleged victim had won a restraining order against him, which ratchets up 
the murder charge to a capital crime under Alabama law.

Bigamy is illegal in Alabama, but no charges were filed in connection to that.

The pair remained without bond in the Madison County Jail on Friday.

(source: Reuters)



COLORADO:

Aurora Theater Shooting prosecutor challenges lawmakers to campaign against 
death penalty


On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was 
unconstitutional. That decision means 11 people on death row are now going to 
have life sentences.

The death penalty in Colorado is in the spotlight because of the Aurora Theater 
Shooting trial and because of a Denver case currently being decided by a jury.

In Denver, a jury is currently in the sentencing phase in the case against 
Dexter Lewis. He was found guilty of stabbing 5 people to death inside Fero's 
Bar near Colorado Boulevard and Alameda Avenue in 2012.

On Aug. 7, an Arapahoe County jury could not come to a unanimous decision on 
putting the Aurora theater shooter to death. He will officially receive his 
multiple life sentences during his sentencing hearing Aug 24-26.

A juror told 7NEWS that there was 1 juror who was firmly in support of a life 
sentence.

"Even on a trial of this magnitude and this length, does one vote dictate a 
change in the law?" asked George Brauchler, the district attorney who 
prosecuted the Aurora Theater Shooting case. "The week before we get this 
outcome, I think the Quinnipiac Poll came out and found, once again, unchanged 
from when the Governor saved the life of Nathan Dunlap, that Coloradoans [sic] 
are still 2-to-1, in favor of having the death penalty."

That Quinnipiac Poll contacted more than 1,200 Colorado voters at the end of 
July. The results showed that 63 % of voters supported the death penalty for 
the Aurora theater shooter. The poll also showed that 32 % preferred a life 
sentence.

"I think it's worth a conversation, but the idea that Coloradoans [sic] have 
moved on from the death penalty is not accurate," said Brauchler.

"And I would challenge anyone in the legislature who wants to abolish the death 
penalty to campaign on that. To campaign to all of their constituents, 'if you 
vote for me, you are voting to abolish the death penalty,'" said Deputy 
District Attorney Rich Orman. "None of them will do that because they know 
their constituents favor the death penalty in this state."

"This is a shallow interpretation that he has because legislators are human 
beings," said State Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, after seeing Orman's comments.

Guzman is the Senate Minority Leader and was a sponsor of the 2013 legislative 
attempt to repeal the death penalty. That bill never made it past the 1st vote.

In 2009, an attempt to repeal the death penalty failed by 1 vote.

"I cannot imagine going out right now and saying, 'Vote for me,' and making 
this a campaign issue right now," said Guzman. "I think there needs to be some 
time for healing. We're not going to heal from this totally. I think there 
needs to be some space between these decisions that are local."

She is an experienced vocal opponent of the death penalty. Guzman's 73-year-old 
father was murdered during a robbery while working at a gas station for 
additional retirement money.

"Did you ever want to seek death in your father's murder?" asked 7NEWS reporter 
Marshall Zelinger.

"No, from the moment it happened," said Guzman.

Her father was bludgeoned to death. Someone was arrested and found guilty. 
Guzman knows that person was there when her father was murdered, but she has 
questions.

"I am never, to this day sure, that the actual arrest is the actual man who did 
it," said Guzman. "For me justice doesn't come without its sister, 'Mercy.'"

(source: thedenverchannel.com)






CALIFORNIA:

Illegal Alien May Face Death Penalty for Rape, Murder


Illegal alien Victor Martinez (Ramirez) is 1 of 2 men that could face the death 
penalty in California for 1st-degree murder in the brutal rape and bludgeoning 
- with a claw hammer - of 64-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran Marilyn Pharis.

Pharis initially survived, called 9-1-1 and lived for about one week following 
the brutal attack.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce Dudley indicated Thursday that a 
decision had yet to be made whether or not to pursue the death penalty against 
either Ramirez or the other alleged murderer, Jose Fernando Villagomez, 20, 
according to the New York Daily News. Dudley will make the decision based on 
information from police, other prosecutors in the D.A.'s office, executive 
staff, the victim???s family and defense attorneys, Fox News quoted her as 
saying. Ramirez has been arrested 6 times in the last 15 months for crimes 
ranging from sexual assault and possessing methamphetamine to weapons and 
driving without a valid license. The most recent arrest was 8 days before the 
murder, according to immigration officials. He was released just 4 days before 
the July 24 murder after he pled no contest to weapons and drug charges.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer request 
for Ramirez in May 2014 after the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department 
incarcerated Ramirez. ICE issued the request with the intention of pursuing 
possible administrative immigration enforcement action, according to a 
department spokesperson. The request was not honored and Ramirez was released a 
week later. ICE was not notified.

The Obama administration's November 2014 changes in immigration enforcement 
guidelines led ICE to not issue an immigration detainer after Ramirez's July 
2015 arrest. ICE officials based the decision on the enforcement priorities and 
a review of case history. That history showed no prior deportations or 
significant criminal convictions, according to ICE. Had ICE issued a detainer 
request, there is reason to believe that it would not have been honored given 
the prior incident.

Now that Martinez has been incarcerated and charged with first-degree murder, 
ICE has issued a formal request for notification should Martinez (Ramirez) be 
released from custody. It is not clear whether that request would be honored.

"Given the seriousness of the allegations associated with this individual's 
arrest, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is monitoring the case 
closely and has lodged a formal request with the custodial law enforcement 
agency seeking notification in advance of his release or transfer from local 
custody," ICE spokesperson Virgina Kice told Breitbart News.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney's office was not available for 
immediate comment.

(source: breitbart.com)






USA:

Despite 100 Years of Activism, the Death Penalty Still Won't Die


On Thursday, Connecticut's Supreme Court abolished the death penalty. The 
ruling was certainly great news for the 11 forlorn souls condemned to die in 
the state, but it was also a bit confusing for anyone who was paying attention 
back in 2012, when lawmakers there originally abolished the ultimate punishment 
for future prisoners.

But that's how things have played out over the course of American history with 
state-sanctioned killing: It's been banned in fits and starts, a reflection of 
a national character that is alternately progressive and puritan.

Laws governing executions have varied across America since colonial times, but 
by the end of the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish the death penalty 
was in full swing. During the Progressive Era, when women's suffrage and 
concern for the exploitation of immigrant laborers were atop the national 
consciousness, the death penalty was abolished in ten states between 1897 and 
1917, only to be reinstated in eight of them by the 1930s. (Some scholars 
believe reinstatement was a response to a combination of economic recession and 
vigilante violence; lynchings in the Jim Crow South were common at the time.)

In the middle of the century, support for the death penalty declined again, and 
in 1972, the US Supreme Court ruling Furman vs. Georgia brought about a 
temporary national moratorium on executions. That moratorium was lifted by the 
Supreme Court in 1976, and the following year, a Utah firing squad shot an 
inmate named Gary Gilmore.

Today, 19 states and the district of Columbia have death-penalty bans in place. 
And even though the Connecticut ruling doesn't have any direct impact on death 
penalty laws across the country, "that doesn't mean it doesn't have persuasive 
value in other states," Robert Dunham, Executive Director of the Death Penalty 
Information Center told VICE. Nebraska ditched its own capital punishment 
regime earlier this year, and the one-two punch of wildly different political 
cultures ditching execution could resonate widely.

As for the condemned, if you're on death row and suddenly can't legally be 
executed, you aren't just let into the general prison population right away. 
"People on the row will then file motions in the state courts in which they 
were convicted, and then the courts would overturn their death sentences, and 
impose the alternative sentence," Dunham said.

The move to "gen pop" from death row often represents a major improvement in 
quality of life for affected inmates. In the book The Wrong Man: A True Story 
of Innocence on Death Row, law professor Michael Mello provides an account of 
his correspondence with an innocent death row inmate named Joe Spaziano. When 
Spaziano gets temporarily moved out of death row, it's a game-changer:

In the general population, Joe could hang out with his Outlaw brothers who were 
also incarcerated at Florida State Prison. He was given a job outside the walls 
(but inside the razor-wire fences) picking up trash. He began a cartoon 
autobiography of his twenty years in prison for crimes he didn't commit. And he 
could call me on the telephone pretty much anytime the prison phone was free.

In her dissent on Thursday, Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Carmen E. 
Espinosa took issue with language in the majority opinion about how the death 
penalty "no longer comports with evolving standards of decency," noting that, 
"there is nothing that requires that the standards of decency evolve only in 
one direction."

That's not to say the reinstatement of the death penalty has gotten anyone 
tossed back onto death row, according to Dunham. "Once the decision is final as 
a matter of law, the death penalty is gone from that particular case," he said.

So while the death penalty has shown incredible resilience in the face of more 
than a century of abolitionist sentiment, the 11 Connecticut prisoners on their 
way out of death row are almost certainly never going to see the inside of an 
execution chamber.

(source: vice.com)