[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, CONN., PENN., VA., FLA.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 27


TEXAS:

Argentine mom hopes pope will help get son off death row


When Lidia Guerrero met with Pope Francis in Rome last year, the Argentine 
native told her he knew all about Guerrero's son, who has been on death row in 
Texas for 19 years.

"I've prayed so much for that young man from Cordoba,' she says Francis told 
her, referring to the hometown of Victor Hugo Saldano.

The short meeting in February 2014 left Guerrero with more hope than she has 
felt in years about the future of her son, who she says is guilty of murder but 
has been driven to insanity on death row.

Francis, an Argentine native, is a staunch critic of the death penalty. Like 
most countries in Latin America, Argentina does not have capital punishment.

Death penalty opponents are hoping that Francis pressures lawmakers to abolish 
it when he visits the United States next month, and Guerrero is praying that 
the pope intervenes on behalf of her son.

Such pleas by popes or politicians from other countries often fall on deaf 
ears, and face particularly long odds in Texas, the US state that makes most 
use of the death penalty.

Still, Pope John Paul II successfully won a reprieve in 1999 from Missouri Gov. 
Mel Carnahan on behalf of a prisoner scheduled for execution who instead was 
ordered to serve life in prison without parole.

"I have no certainty that Francis will ask for clemency for my son, but I do 
have hope," said Guerrero, 67.

That hope is based on several factors, from the papal meeting to the legal 
fight surrounding Saldano's original death sentence. In 2002, the US Supreme 
Court sent the death sentence back to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to 
review because Saldano's Hispanic ethnicity was one of the criteria the jury 
considered when deciding between the death penalty and life in prison. In 2004, 
Saldano had a 2nd sentencing trial that did not factor in ethnicity and was 
again given the death penalty.

"2 different juries have found that Saldano is a future danger and should die 
for his crime," John R. Rolater, Jr., the assistant criminal district attorney 
in Collins County, where Saldano was convicted, wrote in an email response to 
questions from The Associated Press.

Guerrero and her lawyer, Juan Carlos Vega, say they sent a letter to the 
Vatican about Saldano in December 2013, and were immediately invited to Rome. 
Since the meeting, Vega says he has provided Vatican officials documentation on 
the legal fight.

"This isn't just 1 more death penalty case," said Vega, who helped present the 
case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Kenneth Hackett, U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, told the AP that he wasn't 
aware of Saldano's case but that people with loved ones in U.S. prisons 
frequently appeal to the pope. Hackett said Francis is very critical of the 
death penalty, and he may raise the issue while visiting a correctional center 
in Philadelphia.

Guerrero says her son left home at 18, first going to Brazil, where his father 
was living, and then to several countries in South America. Saldano spent the 
next several years traveling and working odd jobs as he moved across Central 
America and Mexico.

"From the time he was a boy, he always talked about seeing the world," said 
Guerrero.

In the early 1990s, Saldano entered the United States illegally via the 
Mexico-Texas border. After spending some time in New York City, he returned to 
Dallas and worked in a factory.

Guerrero says her son told her that he was living in a crime-ridden 
neighborhood and carried a gun for protection.

On Nov. 25, 1995, Saldano and Mexican friend Jorge Chavez, drunk and high on 
crack cocaine, were seen holding Paul King at gunpoint in a parking lot.

King was later found shot to death in a nearby forest. When Saldano was 
arrested, he was wearing King's watch and carrying the gun.

During the penalty phase of the 1996 trial, psychologist Walter Quijano was 
called as an expert witness, according to court documents. Quijano presented 24 
factors for the jury to use in evaluating whether Saldano would be dangerous in 
the future, including race.

Quijano said that blacks and Hispanics were overrepresented in Texas prisons, 
and thus there was a correlation between race and future dangerousness.

The jury gave Saldano the death penalty.

After several appeals, in 2002 the Supreme Court sent the case back to Texas to 
review after then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said the state erred by 
including ethnicity in the case.

During the sentencing trial in 2004, Saldano masturbated twice in the presence 
of jurors, and prosecutors cited incidents inside the prison, like smearing 
feces and urine on cell walls.

"They locked him in the pressure cooker of death row for 7 years and then told 
everyone, 'Look how dangerous he is,'" said Jonathan Miller, a professor at 
Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles who has worked on Saldano's case.

Rolater, the assistant district attorney, said that Saldano was competent to 
stand trial and "has a documented history of faking mental illness during his 
confinement."

Saldano is in the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 
about 75 miles (120 kilometers) northeast of Houston. Cells are 60 square feet 
(5.6 sq. meters) with small windows. Inmates are kept alone 23 hours a day.

Saldano's execution date has not been scheduled.

Even if Francis brings up the case, clemency is a long shot. It would require a 
recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to Gov. Greg Abbott, 
and Abbott could reject it.

Still, Guerrero would be happy with any development that shines a light on her 
son's case and capital punishment.

"The death penalty is dangerous thing," said Guerrero. "And Victor has already 
paid for his crime."

(source: inquirer.net)






CONNECTICUT:

Conn. Ruling Against Death Penalty Draws Mixed Reaction ---- Capital-punishment 
opponents praised the decision, but critics accuse the state's Supreme Court of 
judicial activism and Gov. Dannel Malloy of political duplicity.


The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision this month that declared its death 
penalty law to be unconstitutional drew not only praise from capital punishment 
opponents in the Constitution State, but also charges of judicial activism.

Connecticut abolished the death penalty in 2012. The law, however, did not 
apply retroactively to the 11 individuals who were already on death row at the 
time. The high court determined this was a violation of equal protection and 
due process.

The state Legislature and Gov. Dannel Malloy passed the law with that caveat 
because of 2 convicted murderers who were sentenced to death for a horrific 
2007 armed home invasion in Cheshire, about 25 miles south of Hartford. The 
assailants raped and strangled a woman, sexually assaulted 1 of her 2 young 
daughters, doused them in gasoline and set the house on fire. The mother, 
Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her daughters, ages 11 and 17, died of smoke 
inhalation.

Dr. William Petit, the husband and father of the murder victims, who survived 
the brutal attack, said in a written statement after the court's ruling that 
the 4 justices who voted to repeal the death penalty law had disregarded the 
separation of powers and judicial precedent.

"The death penalty and its application is a highly charged topic with profound 
emotional impact, particularly on the victims and their loved ones," he said.

Given the publicity, shock and horror that surrounded the Cheshire home 
invasion, Gary Rose, a professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, 
Conn., who follows Connecticut state politics, told the Register that it would 
have been "political suicide" for Malloy and state lawmakers in 2012 to support 
a complete abolition of the death penalty.

Rose told the Register that he believes the governor and his allies, despite 
their assurances that the law would pass constitutional muster, knew that 
effectively creating two separate classes of murder convicts would be struck 
down whenever it reached the Connecticut Supreme Court.

"I think the whole thing was a preordained silent type of deal, quite frankly," 
Rose said. "The court felt there was no way to have some people who were 
eligible for execution and others who weren't, and I'm 100% convinced the 
governor probably knew that the law would put the Supreme Court in a very 
awkward and very compromised position."

Said Rose, "It was a very clever move by the governor."

Malloy issued a conciliatory statement after the court's Aug. 13 ruling. He 
said capital punishment was a difficult and "deeply personal" issue for 
Connecticut residents and declared: "Today is a somber day, where our focus 
should not be on the 11 men sitting on death row, but with their victims and 
those surviving family members. My thoughts and prayers are with them during 
what must be a difficult day."

Criticism

The governor's statement did not satisfy Republican and some Democratic 
lawmakers who criticized the court's ruling and Malloy in several local 
newspaper op-eds.

State Sen. Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who serves as the senate minority leader, 
has asked Malloy to publicly disclose the legal advice he relied upon when 
guaranteeing that the law would be upheld. In 2012, Fasano said, "It was clear 
that many lawmakers relied upon your words in making their tough decision 
regarding their votes on the repeal bill."

"Without your guarantees, it is clear that you would not have had the support 
to advance any death-penalty repeal legislation," Fasano wrote in an Aug. 17 
open letter to Malloy.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, told 
the Register he also believes it is disingenuous for the governor or any state 
lawmaker to claim that they were surprised with the court's decision.

"Everyone knew that the state Supreme Court would view it as a violation of 
equal protection," said Wolfgang, who accused proponents of the 2012 law of 
"setting up" the high court.

"If they wanted a blanket abolishment, they should have done it the honest way. 
It should have been debated in the light of day, instead of setting up what 
everyone knew was a pretext for the supreme court to act," Wolfgang said.

As predicted by many, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, found the 
law to be untenable and ordered all 11 men to be released from death row. 
However, the court did not restrict its ruling to the issues of equal 
protection and due process, but also declared capital punishment to be 
unconstitutional because it "no longer comports with contemporary standards of 
decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose."

The opinion drew harsh criticism from the three dissenting justices, including 
Chief Justice Chase Rogers, who wrote that the majority disregarded "the 
obvious," that the legislature, "which represents the people of the state and 
is the best indicator of contemporary social mores, expressly retained the 
death penalty for crimes committed before the effective date of (the repeal)."

The majority opinion also claimed that racial, ethnic and socioeconomic biases 
are "inherent" in the death-penalty system, as well as commenting on the risk 
of executing innocent people, the cruelty of forcing people to wait to be 
executed and the costs involved with appeals.

The Legal Context

"The Connecticut ruling provides some good analysis, good insights and good 
data for people to chew on to consider whether their states are like 
Connecticut or not," said Richard Dieter, senior program director at the Death 
Penalty Information Center, a national nonprofit that provides analysis and 
information on issues concerning capital punishment.

Dieter told the Register that the Connecticut ruling should be seen in light of 
the dissenting justices in the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Glossip v. 
Gross on June 29 that upheld Oklahoma's lethal-injection protocols. Writing in 
dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer raised broad questions about capital punishment 
and openly asked for a discussion on whether the death penalty violates the 
Constitution of the United States.

"The Connecticut decision was not out of the blue," Dieter said. "This kind of 
debate is going on in many places. State legislatures are debating this issue. 
More state governors are putting capital punishment on hold in their states, 
including Pennsylvania, most recently."

Capital punishment is still legal in 31 states, but the number of states that 
are deciding to abolish it has been growing in recent years. In May, Nebraska 
voted to repeal the death penalty. Maryland also abolished the death penalty in 
2013. Dieter expects the U.S. Supreme Court will at some point agree to hear a 
case that could result in a possible landmark decision on the fate of capital 
punishment in the United States.

"Some states will hold on to the death penalty for dear life, but that doesn't 
mean the death penalty won't be seen as cruel and unusual punishment in the 
rest of the country's eyes," Dieter said, adding: "The death penalty is in the 
dock. It's being examined very closely."

Church Teaching

The Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment, unlike abortion or 
euthanasia, is not an intrinsic evil, and states have the right to its use. 
Church teaching acknowledges the state???s right to use the death penalty under 
certain circumstances, when it is the only means available to protect society 
against the offender.

However, referencing St. John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae 
(The Gospel of Life), the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that in 
modern societies "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an 
absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent'" (2267).

"Prior to the 2012 abolishment, that was essentially the situation we had in 
Connecticut," said Wolfgang, noting that the state has just had one execution 
since 1960. In 2005, convicted serial killer Michael Ross was put to death 
after deciding to end his legal appeals.

The Catholic Mobilizing Network to End the Use of the Death Penalty issued a 
statement to the Register welcoming the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling, 
adding that the court's jurisprudence "is mirrored by the public's increasing 
rejection of executions and the larger national conversation about commonsense 
criminal-justice reform."

The Catholic Mobilizing Network further said: "The Catholic Church understands 
justice and God's mercy are never achieved with the killing of another human 
being. As the past three Popes have stated, the death penalty does not serve a 
legitimate penological purpose and is not in keeping with our deep respect for 
life and the inherent dignity of the human person. We look forward to the day 
when our nation recognizes, as the Connecticut Supreme Court did, that the 
death penalty is never the answer."

Wolfgang added that he is also opposed to the death penalty.

"So I'm fine with the result," he said, "but the method by which it was reached 
was outrageous."

Prayers for Victims and Their Families

The Connecticut Catholic Conference, articulating the Church's modern teaching 
on the death penalty, has long supported repealing the death penalty and was an 
active participant in a statewide coalition to abolish capital punishment in 
Connecticut.

Commenting on the court's Aug. 13 ruling, Michael Culhane, executive director 
of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the conference "concurs" with the 
court's decision in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

Culhane added: "However, first and foremost, the conference is also very 
cognizant of the victims and their families ... and our thoughts and prayers 
are with them as they deal with what must be a very difficult period."

(source: ncregister.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Pa.'s death penalty moratorium is the right move


As I read about Sue Sciullo's reaction to our governor's moratorium on the 
death penalty ("Lingering Execution Moratorium Pains Victim's Mother," Aug. 
24), I recalled how I felt when my 2 brothers were killed: Herman in World War 
II and Ken when he was young in a car accident.

Feeling shocked, empty of a loved one so close and dear, leaves a void and a 
hurt that may never fully heal.

However, as a people we cannot allow such understandable emotions to define how 
we govern. We must base our laws upon reason even though the system that 
implements them seems inadequate and lacking.

I trust that Mrs. Sciullo and her family will continue dealing with their 
grief. At the same time I want to be proud of our commonwealth for leading us 
in a mature response even to such horrific crimes.

SISTER DOROTHY ROTH----McCandless

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

Death sentences rarely help victims' families heal


My heart goes out to Paul Sciullo's mother ("Lingering Execution Moratorium 
Pains Victim's Mother," Aug. 24). I have walked in her shoes. In 1998, my 
beautiful daughter, Shannon, was murdered by a serial rapist in Pennsylvania. 
The common assumption is that families who suffer this kind of loss support the 
death penalty for the assailant.

I have now learned through working with murder victims' families in more than 
20 states that a growing number of families have come to understand that the 
justice and peace that was promised to them by seeking a death penalty is 
rarely achieved. They are thrown into a complicated legal process, appeals that 
go on for decades, hearings that splash the offender's name on headlines while 
the family waits an average of 17 years reliving their pain over and over. And 
even when an execution does take place, the promised closure doesn't come.

My family wanted the life without parole sentence and with the assailant's 
conviction and sentence, we were more quickly able to begin the healing 
process. We now work to honor Shannon's amazing life through educating our 
society about the incredible flaws and biases of our death penalty system.

The moratorium, which we support, allows the Senate task force to study in 
depth the problems of the capital punishment system.

Legislators will gain a clear understanding of the huge price this unjust 
sentence has on the families of victims. Hopefully, actions that will benefit 
future decisions while helping victims' families heal more quickly can be 
considered.

VICKI SCHIEBER----New Market, Md.

(source for both: Letter to the Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)






VIRGINIA:

Don't give Jesse Matthew the death penalty----No matter how horrific the crime, 
we should not condone capital punishment


Jesse Matthew's jury trial for murder charges against 2nd-year College student 
Hannah Graham has been set for July 5, 2016 - just under a full year from now. 
For some, his trial, should he be found guilty, may serve as a form of closure: 
the removal of a serial offender from our streets, while it cannot bring Hannah 
back, will protect other potential victims. But though this trial seeks to 
answer questions, it brings up even more, because in this case the prosecution 
has decided to seek the death penalty - a possible result we should not 
support.

The prosecution's decision renews an ongoing debate about the value of capital 
punishment. Most arguments against the death penalty are much broader than 
Matthew's individual case. There is little to no evidence that it deters crime; 
it is less cost-efficient even than life without parole (by a whopping $1 
million per trial); and for every 9 people executed, we can identify 1 innocent 
person who has been exonerated and released from death row - and this is just a 
small sampling of arguments against capital punishment. Conversely, death 
penalty advocates tend to focus on the value of retribution and closure for 
victims' families.

While I encourage everyone to investigate the arguments outlined above closely, 
in this particular instance, our community should look internally to confront 
moral questions about execution, and what executing Matthew would mean in our 
small corner of the world. We are taught from a young age that 2 wrongs don't 
make a right, and when it comes down to it, willfully executing another human - 
when self-defense or safety is not a concern - is wrong.

Often, when approaching capital punishment, we are tempted to consider the 
issue of whether someone deserves to die. And if he committed this crime, 
Matthew may well deserve that fate. But perhaps that is not the issue we should 
consider. Bryan Stevenson, in a brilliant TED Talk, turns the question of the 
death penalty on its head. He argues we should ask ourselves not whether the 
perpetrator deserves to die, but instead: do we deserve to kill?

The answer to his question is unequivocally no. If we expect our citizens not 
to kill - if we contend they do not deserve to do so - then why would we 
deserve to kill them in response to their actions? Moreover, why would we want 
to? Life in prison readily answers calls for justice; execution only serves as 
vengeance. We all felt, so deeply, the pain of losing our classmate, our peer. 
Would another death alleviate that pain? If the answer is yes, that should 
trouble us, not encourage us to kill more.

For many of us, Hannah's disappearance is too close to home to allow us to 
address this issue. But because it is so close to home, we should feel 
empowered to address these questions head on and, ultimately, follow a moral 
path. In Aurora, Colorado, a jury opted not to give James Holmes the death 
penalty after convicting him of killing 12 people and injuring 70 more in a 
shooting rampage. In the face of a horrific tragedy, that community maintained 
a strong moral standard. We were horrified at the injustice committed in our 
community; why, then, commit a different kind of injustice in that one's wake?

If Matthew is guilty, an appropriate punishment awaits him in prison. But if he 
ends up on death row, just as Hannah's death is on her assailant's conscience, 
Matthew's death would be on ours.

(source: Opinion; Dani Bernstein is the executive editor of (Univ. Va.) The 
Cavalier Daily)






FLORIDA----new death sentence

Man gets death penalty for killing couple during robbery


A Florida Panhandle man has been sentenced to death for killing 2 people.

A Walton County judge sentenced Barry Davis Jr. on Tuesday. He was convicted in 
May of 1st-degree murder and other charges.

Authorities say Davis killed John Gregory Hughes and Hiedi Rhodes in May 2012 
while robbing Hughes' Santa Rosa Beach home. The couple's bodies were never 
found. Davis' girlfriend testified that he cut up the bodies and burned the 
pieces after beating them and submerging their heads in a bathtub full of 
water.

The Northwest Florida Daily News (http://goo.gl/QrqvYA ) reports that 
prosecutors relied on bank account records, cellphone records and lack of 
contact with friends and family to argue the fact that the very social Hughes 
and Rhodes had not simply run off.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Prosecutors seek death penalty after suspect found guilty in home invasion 
murder trial


An Orange County man could face the death penalty now that a jury has convicted 
him of murdering a teenage witness.

A 12-member jury found Bessman Okafor guilty Wednesday of 1st-degree murder in 
the shooting death of Alex Zaldivar.

Okafor, 30, was accused of shooting 3 people, killing Zaldivar, in 2012 in an 
attempt to stop them from testifying against him in a home invasion trial.

Jurors deliberated for about 5 hours Tuesday before being sent to a hotel for 
the night. They returned to the Orange County courthouse at 9 a.m. to resume 
deliberations.

Shortly after noon, jurors returned to the courtroom, where the verdict was 
read.

Zaldivar's parents were emotional as the verdict was read. Wednesday would have 
been their son's 22nd birthday.

Jurors also found Okafor guilty of 2 counts of attempted 1st-degree murder in 
the shootings of Brienna Campos and her brother Remington Campos.

Zaldivar's father, Rafael Zaldivar, called Okafor's guilty verdicts on his 
son's birthday "poetic justice."

"He's an animal. He's sadistic. He's repulsive," Zaldivar said.

The teenager's mother, Kyoko Zaldivar, could barely speak through her sobbing.

"It has been very hard for me today, because he's not here," she said.

Brienna Campos and her brother testified in the murder trial, but neither could 
positively identify Okafor as the shooter.

"I'm hoping from now on I can have only happy thoughts about Alex," Campos 
said.

Campos was shot in the head and was near Zaldivar as he took his last breaths.

Remington Campos, who also survived a gunshot wound to his head, said he was 
glad the verdicts were guilty.

Defense attorneys said they believe that is what the jury was wrestling with as 
they deliberated.

"It wasn't as clear as law enforcement made it sound at first. I think once the 
evidence came out the jury realized there were gaps in the story, a lot of 
circumstantial evidence. The best witnesses in the case don't put Mr. Okafor in 
the house or around the house. I think it's caused the jury to think further 
and they're working real hard to make the right decision," defense attorney 
Dean Mosely said Wednesday.

Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty in the case. Jurors will 
return to the courtroom Thursday morning as the death penalty phase of the 
trial begins.

(source: WFTV news)