[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, OKLA., NEB.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 21



TEXAS:

Fifth Circuit Rejects Duane Buck's Appeal of Racially Biased Death Sentence


Should a person's skin color help determine whether or not they get the death 
penalty? A doctor at Duane Buck's sentencing hearing told the Harris County 
jury that Buck's race was a factor that made him more likely to commit violent 
crimes in the future. While some would say that's evidence of the death 
penalty's racial bias, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again looked 
at Buck's case and declared there's nothing wrong here. Nope, not a thing.

Buck was sentenced to death by lethal injection by a Harris County jury in 1997 
for the murders of his ex-girlfriend, Debra Gardner, and the man who was with 
her, Kenneth Butler. He also shot his stepsister, Phyllis Taylor, but Taylor 
survived. 2 witnesses identified Buck as the shooter, according to the Fifth 
Circuit ruling issued Thursday. Buck laughed during and after the arrest and 
stated to one officer that Garnder "got what she deserved." The big problem 
with Buck's case has never been a question of Buck's guilt, but why he was 
sentenced to death. His lawyers contend that it was because he's black.

During his murder trial psychologist Walter Quijano testified that Buck was 
more of a danger to society because he is African American. Quijano had 
actually been called by Buck's lawyer but the prosecutor cross-examined the 
psychologist.

"You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more violent than a 
female because that's just the way it is, and that the race factor, black, 
increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons, is that 
correct?" the prosecutor asked, according to court records.

"Yes," Quijano said. A few years after Buck was convicted, Quijano was cited by 
then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn for giving racially influenced 
testimony to juries. Cornyn, now a U.S. senator, identified seven cases that 
needed to be reviewed for sentencing, and Buck's was one of them. All of the 
other cases have been allowed new sentencing hearings, but Buck's has been 
denied. In 2009, the Fifth Circuit concluded Buck's lawyer was responsible for 
the introduction of Quijano's "race-as-dangerousness" testimony.

He was scheduled to be executed in September 2011 but the U.S. Supreme Court 
stepped and granted a stay of execution while the justices reviewed the case. 
(The Supremes also got the ball rolling on this issue years ago when they found 
that race was improperly used in sentencing Victor Saldano, who was set to die 
for the murder of Paul Ray King, the man Saldano abducted from a grocery store, 
robbed and shot to death. Quijano was the psychologist who testified on that 
case as well.) Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, though 
Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented on that call.

With that the issue got kicked to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals where it 
was decided 6-3 not to allow Buck a new sentencing hearing in 2013. His lawyers 
immediately went back to bat with a request for relief that was rejected by the 
district court, a decision that was then bounced back up to the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. (This is the third time the Fifth has looked at Buck's case, 
a fact noted in the 11-page opinion.)

On Thursday, a panel of Fifth Circuit judges, including Judge Jerry Smith, 
Judge Priscilla Owen and Judge Catharina Haynes (all Republican appointees) 
issued their decision. The opinion completely dodged the question of whether 
race should be allowed to be considered as a factor in deciding whether to 
issue a death penalty.

The justices restricted themselves to "asking only whether the district court's 
resolution of the claim 'was debatable among jurists of reason.'" The trio 
decided the district court decision they were reviewing wasn't, in fact, up for 
debate. They nodded at the race issue and then ignored it.

Yup, that's right, the Fifth Circuit won't even address whether it's okay to 
consider race when issuing the death penalty.

The Fifth ruled that Buck's petition did not show a violation of a 
constitutional right or any indication that the district court had made the 
wrong decision in previously denying Buck's appeal. Buck's request for a 
certificate to appeal included eleven points that his lawyers claimed made his 
case "extraordinary" but the Fifth ruled that none of these points, including 
the contention that Buck had been promised his case would be reviewed and he 
would be re-sentenced the way the other Quijano cases were, qualified as 
"extraordinary."

One of Buck's lawyers, Kathryn Kase, stated that they'll ask the Fifth to 
review the case again and that they'll ask the Supreme Court to weigh in if 
they need to.

(source: Houston Press)






OKLAHOMA:

April trial set for defendant in Duncan family deaths ---- An April trial has 
been set for Alan J. Hruby, 20, who is charged with three counts of 
first-degree murder in Stephens County District Court. He is accused of 
shooting his father, mother, sister, inside their Duncan home in October.


An April trial has been set for a man who wrote in a letter this summer that he 
welcomes the death penalty "100 %."

Alan J. Hruby, 20, is charged with 3 counts of 1st-degree murder in Stephens 
County District Court. He is accused of shooting his father, John Hruby, 50; 
his mother, Joy "Tinker" Hruby, 48; and his sister, Katherine Hruby, 17, inside 
their Duncan home in October.

He pleaded not guilty at arraignment Thursday.

Hruby told The Oklahoman in a June 29 letter he deserved the death penalty. "It 
is so unspeakable," he wrote.

The scheduling of a trial and the not guilty plea does not mean Hruby has 
changed his mind. Under state law, prosecutors must put on sufficient evidence 
at a trial - at least before a judge - to show the death penalty is warranted, 
even if a defendant wants that punishment.

Also, a defendant volunteering for the death penalty has to undergo a mental 
health examination to see if he is competent to make that decision.

Prosecutors allege he killed his family for his inheritance. Officials say he 
confessed Oct. 14.

(source: The Oklahoman)






NEBRASKA:

Will others follow Nebraska's lead on death penalty repeal?


Editor's Note----This is the 2nd of a 3-day series of stories on the status of 
the death penalty in Nebraska, amid efforts to gather enough signatures to 
place the issue on the November 2016 ballot.

It's no surprise - especially for those who keep abreast of the politics of 
capital punishment - that support for the death penalty has generally been 
decreasing.

In recent years, some religious groups, fiscal conservatives, moderate 
Democrats and others have come out against it, so policy experts like Robert 
Dunham were expecting that more states might vote to repeal it.

What he didn't expect was that it would happen in Nebraska - and for it to 
happen in 2015.

"If you'd asked observers in 2014 or 2015 whether Nebraska was going to be the 
breakthrough state, very few of them would have put their money on that," 
Dunham said.

After the Nebraska Legislature's vote to repeal, national media, political 
groups and others analyzed how one of the most seemingly conservative states 
came to take a stand against the death penalty.

And one of the more pressing questions was this: What kind of effect will this 
have on the rest of the country?

Dunham is the executive director of deathpenaltyinfo.org, which is one of the 
largest resources for death penalty information and is based in Washington, 
D.C.

The Nebraska Legislature's vote, he said, is an indication of an accelerating, 
emerging trend.

Even though it came as a surprise to many, Dunham said it actually falls in 
place with what experts have been tracking across the nation.

In the 1990s, when public support for capital punishment was at 80 %, death 
penalty opposition was politically toxic for legislators because the 
conversation centered on fear of crime. But with results of some studies 
downplaying the death penalty's effects on crime, national support for the 
death penalty as a means of public safety has dropped to 7 %.

The conversation, in other words, has changed dramatically.

>From Dunham's perspective, a bill introduced by an independent senator - Ernie 
Chambers of Omaha - that received support from a Legislature of mostly 
registered Republicans represents a pivotal moment in the death penalty debate. 
It likely will send a strong signal to other states, he said.

"You'll see more bills seeking to repeal the death penalty, you'll see more 
action being taken on those bills and you'll see more instances in which they 
succeed," Dunham said.

Dunham said that's not surprising because the issues brought up during debate 
on the potential repeal of the death penalty aren't limited to Nebraska.

As the state with the second-most executions in the nation over the last 40 
years, Florida is one of the front-runners in terms of modern-day use of 
capital punishment. However, Florida is also the top state in individuals on 
death row subsequently being exonerated.

Charles M. Harris, a senior judge in the fifth appellate court in Florida, was 
appointed to the circuit bench in 1984 after 20 years of general civil 
practice. Part of the procedure when he was being considered for the bench 
required him to give his views on the death penalty.

At the time, Harris said, he had no real opinion on the issue.

But after serving on the bench for years, retiring to serve as a senior judge 
and working with the Florida Governor's Commission of Capital Cases, he said it 
became clear to him that the death penalty didn't have much going for it.

During his years as a judge, Harris sentenced a man to death for the 1979 rape 
and murder of a 6-year old girl. The offender, Brian Jennings, has been on 
death row for more than 30 years because of appeals and legal technicalities.

Harris said the case is a clear example of how someone can, in effect, 
capitalize on the criminal justice system, robbing victims' families of peace 
and a state of money.

But he doesn't necessarily see Nebraska's vote as a trend-setter.

"I was happy to see it, but there has been a trend lately for states to repeal 
the death penalty," Harris said. "It has not affected the way we do things 
here, and I doubt the Nebraska experience will make a difference."

Recently there was a movement in Florida's Legislature to adopt a policy that a 
death sentence can be ordered only by a unanimous jury. That kind of an 
approach, which is in place in some other states, failed to generate enough 
support. So, in Florida, a jury needs only to reach a 2/3 majority, but a judge 
can override the jury on a death penalty sentence.

"For as long as I can recall, up to the present moment, Florida citizens favor 
the death penalty (as) a 2/3 majority," Harris said. "The Legislature is well 
aware of this fact so I expect no movement there."

He said the only change he can see affecting Florida would have to come from a 
U.S. Supreme Court decision.

That isn't likely either given the high court's split on the issue, highlighted 
in the recent Glossip v. Gross case.

In his opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that he believed the death 
penalty may violate the Eighth Amendment, calling its constitutionality into 
question. However, Justice Antonin Scalia called Breyer's 46-page opinion 
"gobbledy-gook," saying the U.S. Constitution provides people with the ability 
and right to choose capital punishment.

In addition, although many states are introducing bills limiting the death 
penalty or aiming to abolish it, it's not a sweeping reform.

Last year, lawmakers in 14 states introduced bills that would abolish the death 
penalty, but of them Nebraska was the only one that prevailed.

There were also a number of bills that expanded capital punishment.

Several states proposed bills that would keep the providers of the drugs needed 
to execute someone confidential. Among those bills, the measures in Arkansas 
and Texas passed, while bills in Mississippi and Virginia were defeated in the 
final steps.

In addition, Utah reinstated the firing range in the absence of lethal 
injections and Indiana made beheading legal in a punishment for murder. North 
Carolina also expanded who can be licensed to perform lethal injections.

* * *

Coming tomorrow: An issue like the death penalty can generate a wide range of 
opinions.

(source: Norfolk Daily News)