[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.C., FLA., LA., OHIO, OKLA., NEB.

[Rick Halperin]

July 5


NORTH CAROLINA:

Lay death penalty to rest


Until early in the past century, local governments were responsible for 
executing prisoners sentenced to death in North Carolina. In 1910, the state 
took over that responsibility, and in the state's 1st execution on March 18, 
1910, Walter Morrison was put to death in the electric chair.

In the century that followed, the state has executed more than 1,000 people - 
although none since August 2006. For a decade, procedural and legislative 
issues have resulted in effect in a moratorium on executions. But capital 
trials and convictions have continued, albeit at a slowing rate.

Today, 146 men and 2 women sit on North Carolina's death row. None is from 
Durham or Orange counties, where prosecutors in recent years have seldom sought 
the death penalty.

And while the Supreme Court last week, in a widely awaited ruling, again gave 
the constitutional imprimatur to the death penalty, a dissent by 2 justices 
sharply questioned whether that should be the case.

In North Carolina, where in recent years we have seen several death row inmates 
exonerated - but for the delays, we might well have put an innocent person to 
death. Given what we know today about the flaws inherent in our judicial 
process, it is altogether probable that some of those 1,000-plus we've executed 
may never have committed the crime for which they were meted out the ultimate 
punishment.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissent last week, alluded to those flaws.

"In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in the death 
penalty could be healed...," he wrote. "Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, 
and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed."

Breyer outlined what he saw as "fundamental constitutional defects" and changes 
over the past 4 decades in how we assess them. "It is those changes, taken 
together with my own 20 years of experience on this Court, that lead me to 
believe that the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a 
legally prohibited "cruel and unusual punishmen[t]."

The court's decision followed by just weeks a report from North Carolina's 
Center for Death Penalty Legislation which pointed to practical as well as 
philosophical arguments against capital punishment.

That study, the Center for Death Penalty Information summarized, "examines the 
financial and human costs of cases in which, 'prosecutors sought the death 
penalty despite a clear lack of evidence, resulting in acquittal or dismissal 
of charges.'"

Justice Breyer is right in arguing "it is highly likely that the death penalty 
violates the Eighth Amendment." It is time to lay it to rest.

(source: Editorial, The Herald Sun)






FLORIDA:

As death penalty debate reignites, Florida carves its own path


For nearly 6 months, the death chamber at Florida State Prison has remained 
empty.

No prisoners have been executed, not since Jan. 15, when Johnny Kormondy -- 
convicted of fatally shooting a Pensacola banker in 1993 and raping his wife -- 
was given a series of 3 injections and breathed his last breaths.

A Supreme Court ruling last week means that unusual respite for convicted 
killers should end, with Florida resuming what has been an accelerated pace of 
executions ordered by Gov. Rick Scott.

Just don't expect the rest of the country to follow its lead.

With the exception of a few states like Florida, use of the death penalty has 
waned amid legal challenges in state and federal courts and shifting public 
opinion. Last week, two Supreme Court justices suggested the death penalty 
itself is not constitutional, writing that it's time for a robust debate and 
for the high court to act.

Other questions have fanned the debate over the death penalty itself. The 
Nebraska Legislature overrode their governor's veto to ban capital punishment 
in May, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take up a case about the 
procedures that put Floridians on death row.

Amid those legislative and legal attempts to curtail capital punishment, both 
the number of people on death row and the total number of executions have been 
trending downward nationwide since 2000.

And then there's Florida.

Under Scott, Florida has been executing death row prisoners at a faster rate 
than under any governor since the death penalty came back into use in 1977.

Since Scott entered office in 2011, Florida has executed 21 people. Last year, 
the state's 8 executions put it third nationwide, behind just Texas and 
Missouri, which executed 10 apiece. Apart from those three states, there were 
only seven other executions in the country last year.

Florida is one of just a few states directly affected by last Monday's Supreme 
Court decision.

In the ruling, the high court said that midazolam, 1 of the 3 drugs used for 
lethal injections in Florida, is constitutional. Critics had tried to ban it, 
arguing it constituted "cruel and unusual punishment."

Within hours, Attorney General Pam Bondi asked for permission to continue 
executions which were halted by the Florida Supreme Court in February while the 
use of midazolam was under review.

Bondi isn't the only Florida leader pushing to continue executions here.

"If you don't have the death penalty, it's a free murder," says Rep. Matt 
Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, a staunch supporter of the capital punishment. "I'm 
for no free murders, and that's why I think Florida is right for bucking the 
national trend of watering down the death penalty."

Gaetz has been at the forefront of pushing for capital punishment reforms aimed 
at shortening the amount of time between sentencing and execution.

He sponsored a 2013 law that forces the governor to move quickly after death 
row prisoners have exhausted all of their appeals in the courts. That law, the 
Timely Justice Act, is one of the reasons executions have ticked up the last 2 
years, he said.

The goal, said Gaetz, is to bring the average death row wait down to eight 
years from the current wait time exceeding 20 years. Despite Scott's fervor in 
signing death warrants, no one convicted after 2000 has been executed.

But laws like the Timely Justice Act worry opponents of the death penalty, who 
point to those exonerated from death row.

For every 4 people sentenced to death in Florida since the 1970s, 1 person has 
been released, according to Mark Elliott, executive director of Floridians for 
Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

"We call for a halt on Florida executions," Elliott said in a statement. "No 
one knows how many more innocent people remain on death row or, God forbid, 
have already been executed."

Still, the appetite for reform remains focused on moving prisoners through the 
appeals process and into the Starke death chamber as swiftly as possible.

The last couple years, members of the Legislature have proposed stricter 
requirements for judges to issue death sentences.

Florida is unusual in that it requires only a seven-to-five vote from a jury to 
recommend a death sentence. The judge makes a final determination based on the 
jury's suggestion, but majority required is unusually narrow.

A bill this year to require unanimous consent of juries failed to gain traction 
after its first hearing in the Senate. And Gaetz says he was researching a 
similar proposal in 2013 when he chaired the House Criminal Justice 
Subcommittee.

"Before the sun set on the day I sent some questions to the attorney general's 
office, Pam Bondi was in my office wagging her finger in my face," Gaetz said. 
"It's the only time in my 6 sessions that Pam Bondi has ever visited my 
office."

Her concern was that changing the sentencing rules will open new opportunities 
for the 395 people on death row to appeal their cases, overloading the courts. 
Yet, these same sentencing rules could be thrown out even without the support 
of the Legislature.

Most states require a unanimous vote or at least a 10-to-2 majority.

The next major death penalty case to be taken up in the U.S. Supreme Court will 
seek to answer this very question: Is a seven-to-five majority on a Florida 
jury sufficient to recommend the state put someone to death?

This series of smaller questions -- first lethal injection drugs and next 
sentencing processes -- could blossom into a broader challenge to any use of 
the death penalty.

Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in fact, called 
for the Court to take up a case on the constitutionality of the death penalty 
itself in writing a striking dissent to the lethal injection case.

As most states have banned the death penalty altogether or their governors have 
abandoned its use, Elliott says he's seeing the tide turn politically against 
the death penalty.

"We are seeing more and more conservatives, libertarians and progressives in 
agreement to end capital punishment programs," he said.

That doesn't sway Gaetz, who says the death penalty remains essential, 
especially in Florida.

"I think that Florida attracts more than its fair share of depraved killers," 
he said. "We have had a large quantity of high-profile murders in our state 
with very heinous motives ... The memories of these events are seared in the 
minds of many Floridians."

(source: Bradenton Herald)






:LOUISIANA:

Suspect in death of New Orleans police officer scheduled to be on court Monday


The family of a man accused of killing a New Orleans policeman has released a 
statement of sympathy and thanks to the dead man's family.

Public defender Christopher Murell, one of Travis Boys' attorneys, emailed the 
family's statement Sunday.

They say they're deeply sorry for the heartache that Officer Daryle Holloway's 
family and children must be feeling. And they say they're very moved by his 
mother's grace in asking the community to pray for them.

Olander Holloway asked for the prayers during a memorial for her son. She said 
she cannot imagine what Boys' mother is going through, and does not have any 
hard feelings toward his family.

Boys is scheduled for arraignment Monday in Orleans Parish Criminal Court. 
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty on the 1st-degree murder charge.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Where's Yankee know-how on executions?


Whatever happened to good old American know-how? Sure, we are the only advanced 
society with the death penalty, but we must ask ourselves whether we are 
proving worthy of the distinction. We sentence 'em to death all right, but we 
are seldom up to the task of killing them.

In fact, the process has gotten even more drawn out in recent years because 
several states, having switched to the supposedly more humane method of lethal 
injection, can't lay their hands on the requisite drugs.

Louisiana is one of them, so nobody will be put to death here for at least 
another year.

The shortage arose when European drug manufacturers quit shipping to us because 
they do not wish to abet capital punishment. Bunch of damn socialists, 
obviously. Rely on pantywaist foreigners at your peril.

A federal judge has suspended executions in Louisiana for at least a year while 
the state seeks a source of drugs or comes up with a new method of execution. 
Various other states have a back-up if drugs can't be obtained, prescribing 
either the gas chamber, the electric chair, the noose or a firing squad.

Not that it makes much difference because the vast majority of death row 
inmates - even the ones who happen to be guilty - are never going to be 
executed. Natural causes will get them first. If it weren't for Texas, you'd 
have to say we've pretty much given up the ghost.

Squeamish pharmaceutical companies may have made the process even more drawn 
out, but the death row backlog can hardly be laid at their door. A fresh supply 
of drugs would not appreciably diminish life expectancy among the more than 
3,000 convicts under sentence of death in America.

Last year, 72 people were sentenced to death - the fewest since capital 
punishment was reinstated in 1976 - but we only managed to execute 35 convicts. 
Louisiana has 85 prisoners on death row and hasn't executed one since 2010. 
That was no great trick either because Gerald Bordelon declined to file an 
appeal. Our last involuntary execution was way back in 2002.

Even allowing that a shortage of drugs may have stayed the executioner's hand 
in some cases, we are clearly never going to catch up.

Texas puts us to shame, having carried out 9 of America's 17 executions this 
year. Officials in Texas have not been stymied by any European bleeding hearts, 
having secured from a secret and presumably American source a supply of the 1 
drug they use to do the job.

It is not so easy for Louisiana to score because we are one of several states 
that dispatch the condemned with what the press unfailingly and whimsically 
dubs a "cocktail" of 3 drugs.

The latest confirmation of our reluctance to serve it is provided by the case 
of Christopher Sepulvado, who murdered his 6-year-old stepson by stabbing him 
with a screwdriver and plunging him in scalding water in 1992. Sepulvado filed 
a lawsuit seeking to prevent his execution by trotting out the old "cruel and 
unusual" line, but the issue is strictly academic so long as the state has no 
means to kill him anyway. Thus, the hearing scheduled for a couple of weeks ago 
was put off, as, by no means for the 1st time, was his date with death. 4 other 
death row inmates were granted stays too.

The hope is that, by July of next year, Louisiana will either find the drugs 
required for executions under the current statute or pass a new one it can 
abide by. A bill that would have brought back Old Sparky got nowhere in the 
last session, but maybe the Legislature will be made of sterner stuff next 
year.

So far, however, the state is proving incapable of figuring out how to kill 
anyone. This is such a pathetic show you'd almost think our heart wasn't in the 
capital punishment business. Come on. If we don't exterminate a bunch of 
wretches pronto, the world will start to wonder whether we are proud of our 
unique status or not.

(source: James Gill, The Advocate)






OHIO:

Duty to execute with dignity


Justice Samuel Alito sees "a guerrilla war against the death penalty." He used 
those words when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April in the case 
brought by three prisoners on death row in Oklahoma. The justice returned to 
the thought in his 5-4 majority opinion last week upholding a 3-drug 
combination used in conducting the death penalty. The majority wasn't about to 
strike down this version of lethal injection, and thus halt death sentences, 
because preferred drugs are not available.

The story is well known. European and American manufacturers of barbiturates 
such as sodium thiopental have refused to make the drugs available for 
executions. Thus, states have scrambled to pull together replacements. The 
barbiturate is the tool for rendering the prisoner unconscious, allowing for 
the paralyzing agent and heart-stopping chemicals to bring death quickly with 
little, if any, pain.

Unfortunately, as Oklahoma, Arizona and Ohio have learned, the substitute drug 
midazolam, a sedative, has proved unreliable, resulting in three prolonged 
executions, the prisoners appearing to suffer. That suffering may trouble few, 
a convicted killer hardly a sympathetic figure. What the court majority failed 
to emphasize is that it matters how, precisely, the death penalty is handled. 
Among other things, the state by treating a prisoner with dignity draws a 
crucial distinction with the brutality of the crime.

The hard reality is, the drugmakers have made a free choice, and that 
complicates things for Ohio and other states. It isn't enough for the courts to 
overlook the obvious consequences or to suggest, as Alito did, that if a 
prisoner doesn't like the method of lethal injection, he or she somehow has an 
obligation to offer an alternative to see that the execution goes forward.

In that way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wasn't out of line in her dissent, arguing 
that the logic employed by the majority pointed to execution via almost any 
means. This editorial page long has opposed the death penalty. At the same 
time, if the state is going to have capital punishment, it must take care in 
its conduct, from beginning to end. That should be especially so in view of 
those released from death row, evidence surfacing eventually that they were 
wrongfully convicted.

Ohio has put off executions until early next year as part of seeking to avoid 
what happened to Dennis McGuire in early 2014. (Nebraska recently became the 
seventh state since 2007 to abolish the death penalty.) What state lawmakers 
here can do is take the next step in implementing the recommendations of the 
task force that examined ways to make improvements.

Lawmakers acted at the end of last year. Now a bill proposing helpful changes 
to post-conviction proceedings sits in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. 
An appropriate response to the Supreme Court ruling would be the legislation's 
swift passage.

(source: Editorial Board, Beacon Journal)






OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma attorney general talks about recent state, U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions----Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office represented 
Oklahoma in the lethal injection case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high 
court sided with the state and allowed the continued administration of a 
sedative that was challenged by death row inmates.


Over the past 10 days, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court 
have handed down major decisions on health care subsidies, execution methods, 
same-sex marriage and the placement of the Ten Commandments on state land.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was closely involved with three of those 
cases. His office represented the state in the lethal injection case before the 
U.S. Supreme Court. The high court sided with the state and allowed the 
continued administration of a sedative that was challenged by death row 
inmates.

Switching to the U.S. Supreme Court, Oklahoma won its case this week on the use 
of midazolam for lethal injections. The majority opinion would seem to make it 
even tougher for death penalty inmates to prevail on challenges to execution 
methods. But many analysts said Justice (Stephen) Breyer's dissent was more 
important than the majority opinion because it laid out a blueprint for 
challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Did you take a larger message from the ruling in the case?

Pruitt: Well I think you've hit 2. Obviously Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor and the 
dissenters in the case were hoping to collapse the 2-part test that has been 
historically applied to the Eighth Amendment analysis. And the most important 
part of that test is whether there's an alternative (execution method) 
available to the state to carry out its obligation of the death penalty.

And Justice (Samuel) Alito in his majority opinion clearly preserved that 
requirement. So that???s very important I think for states across the country.

And with respect to Justice Breyer, I appreciate his candor. I believe this 
case was always about abolition (of the death penalty) and he was candid enough 
to express that in his dissent.

Q: You've asked that execution dates be set for the 3 inmates whose executions 
were stayed during the Supreme Court case. Does the state have the drugs 
necessary and do you anticipate problems in obtaining drugs in the near future?

Pruitt: It's my understanding that the Department of Corrections has 
represented they in fact do have the drugs available to carry out the 
executions that we've asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to set.

And secondly, I think this continued challenge, not just for Oklahoma - I think 
many states across the country are going to continue to have to deal with the 
sourcing and supplying, the purchasing of the drugs necessary to carry out 
their responsibilities.

That's been the approach that the anti-death penalty folks have taken.

(source: The Oklahoman)






NEBRASKA:

Long death penalty watch ahead


Nebraska's legislative repeal of the death penalty attracted national 
attention, but it didn't stop at the water's edge.

That decision to light the Colosseum in Rome over the weekend in recognition of 
Nebraska's action is stunning evidence of how the world - at least the western 
world - has been watching.

And it looks like the death penalty will be looming front and center in 
Nebraska for at least 16 more months leading up to the November election in 
2016.

That assumes the referendum petition drive underway now will be successful in 
taking the issue to the voters in a presidential election year, whether there 
are sufficient signatures to suspend the law until then or not.

That would set the stage for an emotionally-charged debate that conceivably 
could be shaped by unknown events.

Does a particularly heinous murder occur just before the election?

If there's no execution prior to the vote, does that argue that the death 
penalty simply doesn't work?

Or, if somehow the state conducts an execution before the election despite the 
expressed will of the Legislature and legal questions about Nebraska's lethal 
drug protocol, does that validate the death penalty or does it remind voters 
how ugly an execution can be?

All of that uncertainty could affect votes at an election whose turnout should 
be substantial as voters choose a new president from what now is a circus of 
candidates.

But there's another factor that could be key: Sometimes, in political 
campaigns, the best ads win.

(source: Don Walton, Journal Star)