[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEB., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 8



NEBRASKA:

Group in Norfolk Working to Bring Death Penalty Issue to a Public Vote


There's a new storefront in Norfolk, Nebraska, but they aren't selling 
anything, they're just asking for signatures. Volunteers in Norfolk have joined 
forces with a group called Nebraskans for the Death Penalty to collect enough 
signatures to bring the legislature's repeal of capitol punishment to a public 
vote.

Ron Stauffer, who's leading the push in Norfolk tells ABC9 news, "A couple of 
the Senators made a statement in the paper that they voted their own issues, 
their own convictions, and that's not why they're in the legislature, they're 
there to vote what their consistuents sent them there to vote."

Supporters around town have joined Stauffer's efforts including Vivian Tuttle.

"My daughter was killed in at the US Bank in Norfolk, NE in 2002. Those people 
have been on death row for 12 years and 9 months. I want it finished. I want 
them to get the death penalty," Tuttle says.

Tuttle adds that her family needs some sense of closure, and she's motivated to 
unite people who want the same.

"I'm not going to give up, I'm gonna go any place I can go to find some people 
that will sign this petition."

But, not everyone she asks to sign the petition agree.

Breanna Lemke-Elznic declined saying, "We cannot punish people for being 
killers or rapists or other horrible things by killing them. It's kind of a 
double standard that I feel is inappropriate."

And while that may be the sentiment that wins out, Stauffer and Tuttle just 
hope this petition will lead to Nebraskans being heard.

"If it gets voted down, I'm fine with that. At least the people had the 
opportunity to decide that. It was not decided by just a small group of 
people," Stauffer adds.

The group needs roughly 57,000 signatures to place the law on the November 
ballot. But, to prevent the death penalty change from going into effect before 
a vote, they need 115,000 by August 27th.

(source: ABC news)

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

Families altered by violence weigh in on death penalty petition debate


A family forever changed by horrific violence is showing its support for a push 
to get the death penalty on the Nebraska ballot.

Andrea Kruger was killed by Nikko Jenkins in August 2013. Her parents will help 
circulate petitions in Valley this Saturday.

The Roberts family said it's about Nebraska voters getting a say after the 
unicameral repealed the death penalty this year. However, other families 
touched by violence are on the other side of the issue.

"I'm only as strong as the support that I receive," said Kruger's mother, Teri 
Roberts.

Nearly two years after losing her daughter, weeks after returning home from 
surviving and undergoing physical rehabilitation for a life-threatening and 
life-changing illness, Roberts and her husband Kent are volunteering their 
time, to get the death penalty on the 2016 ballot.

"I wanted to play my part in it, so that's why I volunteered myself and my 
husband to collect signatures on Saturday," Teri Roberts said.

The 2 will be at Valley's City Hall, knowing the fate of Jenkins depends 
entirely on it.

"There are those few in this world that I think really should be held 
accountable and executed for the lives that they've taken and the lives that 
they've left behind that have been destroyed," said Teri Roberts.

Tricia Moore disagrees. Her son Jer'Ray died in April 2013. His killer, 
DeVaughn Green, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 60 
years in prison. Moore signed a public letter against the death penalty.

"I don't think an eye for an eye, a life for a life," Moore said. "I don't feel 
that way. It's not going to bring him back."

The Roberts said in the most horrific attacks, even life in prison couldn't 
bring justice.

"Come on," Kent Roberts said. "This guy deserves to live for this? No, not at 
all. Put yourself in our position and what would you think?"

In order to get the issue on the November 2016 ballot, organizers need to 
collect about 57,000 valid signatures by the end of August.

(source: KETV.com)

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

150 sign petition here for vote on death penalty


Voters had an opportunity to sign a petition in Albion last Thursday, July 2, 
to place Nebraska's death penalty on the ballot in 2016.

Anthony Neidhardt of Gretna, an Albion native, was circulating a petition for 
the death penalty vote on the sidewalk just outside the Boone County Courthouse 
grounds last Thursday afternoon. He reported that he ran out of petitions and 
about 150 people had signed in Albion.

(source: Albion News)






COLORADO:

Coloradans Who Have Changed Their Minds About The Death Penalty


The death penalty has been a key focus in trial of accused Aurora theater 
shooter James Holmes. In order to serve on the Holmes jury, jurors were "death 
penalty qualified," meaning they could not serve if they were opposed the death 
penalty.

A 2013 Quinnipiac University Poll found 69 % of Coloradans supported the death 
penalty, though many have mixed feelings about capital punishment, including 
Gov. John Hickenlooper. In his 1st term, Hickenlooper expressed support for 
capital punishment for certain crimes, but 2 years ago he granted a temporary 
reprieve to convicted killer Nathan Dunlap who sits on death row.

Hickenlooper has previously talked with Colorado Matters' host Ryan Warner 
about the issue: "I've certainly wrestled with this -- probably as much as any 
other issue because I think the moral compass... it shifts, even in one person 
like myself," Hickenlooper said in 2013.

We brought together Coloradans who've also wavered in their views on the death 
penalty. Kate Solisti lives in Lyons has come to support it. Anne Landman of 
Grand Junction opposes it, but hasn't always. And Tom McHenry of Denver has 
very mixed emotions about the issue.

(source: Colorado Public Radio)






CALIFORNIA:

Alleged Lake California shooting suspect could face death penalty


The suspect accused of killing two people in Lake California faced a judge for 
the first time Tuesday since the deadly shooting.

John Wayne Noonkester, 32, appeared before a Tehama County court judge Tuesday 
afternoon. As he entered, he gave his mother, sister and cousin a reassuring 
nod. Meanwhile, family members of victims Kimberlee Thomas and Keith Thomas 
embraced each other as they faced the man accused of shooting and killing their 
loved ones.

Noonkester faces 2 counts of murder and 1 count of attempted murder. However, 
because of the nature of the crime, the District Attorney's office added 
special allegations to the charges, including discharge of a firearm and 
multiple-murder. If convicted of the latter, Noonkester could face life in 
prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty.

According to investigators, Noonkester used a rifle to shoot his ex-wife 
Kimberlee Thomas and her father Keith Thomas in front of The Little Country 
Store in the community of Lake California on July 2. Family members have said 
the 2 had been in the middle of a custody dispute over their 2 daughters.

In court, Noonkester was also served with a restraining order keeping him from 
contacting several people including, his 2 daughters. Noonkester, visibly 
distraught as the bailiff presented him with the documents.

Noonkester did not enter a plea, but he did ask for a public defender.

The judge ordered no bail to be set for Noonkester.

Noonkester is expected back in court July 14.

(source: KRCR news)

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

Capital Murder Charges For Grandson of Couple Found Dead in Glendale 
Home----Nathaniel Wayne Scheiern is scheduled to be arraigned July 21 in 
connection with the killings of 82-year-old Verna Scheiern and 77-year-old 
William Scheiern.


Capital murder charges were filed Tuesday against a 34-year-old man accused of 
the ax killings of his grandparents, who were found dead last month in the 
Glendale home the 3 shared.

Nathaniel Wayne Scheiern is scheduled to be arraigned July 21 in connection 
with the killings of 82-year-old Verna Scheiern and 77-year-old William 
Scheiern.

The murder charges include the special circumstance allegation of multiple 
murders. Prosecutors will decide later whether to seek the death penalty 
against him.

The criminal complaint alleges that Scheiern killed his grandparents on or 
between June 24 and June 25. Police officers found the home's front door open 
and discovered the bodies June 28 after getting a call from a concerned family 
member who had not heard from the couple.

Scheiern was not at the residence when the bodies were found. Authorities 
subsequently learned that he had been hospitalized after a single-car crash 
June 25 on a freeway in Santa Clarita.

He was arrested Thursday evening on suspicion of murder and was being held 
without bail.

(source: nbclosangeles.com)






USA:

Americans Support SCOTUS's Death Penalty Ruling, But Have Complicated Feelings 
About The Issue


Americans generally agree with the Supreme Court's decision last week to uphold 
Oklahoma's use of a controversial lethal injection drug, a new poll finds -- 
but many supporters express some concerns about whether executions could be 
carried out too painfully, and many are divided over what the main goal of 
allowing death sentences should be.

In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, more than 60 % of Americans say they favor the 
death penalty in murder cases. By a narrower margin, 47 % to 36 %, they also 
approve of the Supreme Court's ruling on Oklahoma's execution protocol. Lawyers 
for death row inmates in the state had argued that the use of 1 of the drugs, 
midazolam, used for lethal injections constituted "cruel and unusual 
punishment" because it didn't reliably render inmates unconscious before their 
deaths.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rejected those claims. But in a dissent, 
Justice Stephen Breyer argued the death penalty itself may inherently 
constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment."

Just 13 % of Americans agree with that argument. 42 %, however, say certain 
methods of execution could be considered cruel and unusual, while 35 % say a 
state's use of the death penalty could never fall into that category.

Even most death penalty supporters, including a majority in both parties, agree 
executions shouldn't be brutal. By a 10-point margin, 51 % to 41 %, Americans 
who favor the death penalty agree that executions should be as quick and 
painless as possible. Overall, just about a quarter of Americans say "being 
quick and painless should not be a priority" in determining execution methods.

When presented with a list of 6 possible reasons for the death penalty to be 
administered, supporters were divided, with no option garnering more than 1/3 
of the responses. A broad sense of ensuring justice was the most cited option, 
while fewer than 1 in 10 named closure for victims' families as a prevailing 
reason.

While opinions on the death penalty as a whole vary by party, with Republicans 
considerably more likely to be in favor, there's little difference in rationale 
among those in each party who back allowing it.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted June 
30-July 2 among U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online 
panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. 
population.

(source: Ariel Edwards-Levy, Huffington Post)

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

How a President Hillary Clinton could help end the death penalty


On the last day of this year's Supreme Court term, the court handed down 
Glossip v. Gloss, ruling 5-4 that Oklahoma's death penalty protocols were 
constitutional, despite the significant risk that the state's experimental 
lethal injection procedures would result in death by torture.

Glossip is likely to be remembered for more than the specific holding of the 
case, however. In addition to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent taking apart 
the majority's logic on the narrow issue at stake, Justice Stephen Breyer, 
joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a separate dissent concluded: "I 
believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment." 
Breyer's dissent is important, leading some to even conclude that the Supreme 
Court might actually rule that way in the near future. But this probably won't 
happen unless a Democratic president replaces one of the Republican-appointed 
justices on the court, which is another reason the Supreme Court will be a top 
issue in the 2016 presidential race.

A majority of the Supreme Court has never held that the death penalty is 
categorically unconstitutional - indeed, there have never been more than 2 
justices at any one time who supported this view. In the 1972 case Furman v. 
Georgia, the Supreme Court suspended executions, but 3 of the 5 justices in the 
majority held that the death penalty would be constitutional if applied fairly. 
Only 2 justices - William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall - held that the death 
penalty was always unconstitutional, a position they held for the rest of their 
tenures.

2 other justices, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, wrote opinions shortly 
before their retirement suggesting that the death penalty might be 
unconstitutional. But otherwise every justice has supported the compromise the 
court reached in 1976: The death penalty is constitutional if applied in a more 
fair and rational manner.

It is possible that Breyer's opinion will be seen as a fraying of this 
compromise and a crucial step towards a ruling that the death penalty is 
unconstitutional. But if so, it is likely to be a process that plays out over a 
fairly long period.

At Slate, Robert J. Smith gives the most optimistic reading of Breyer's dissent 
from the perspective of death penalty opponents, suggesting that there might be 
5 votes on the current court to abolish the death penalty.

His argument is superficially persuasive. Justice Anthony Kennedy has been the 
swing vote to hold the death penalty unconstitutional for some offenses and 
offenders: those with mental disabilities, felons under 18, and people 
convicted of the sexual assault of children. It's true, Smith acknowledges, 
that this collectively represents a small fraction of people sentenced to 
death. But on gay and lesbian rights, Kennedy started out by authoring some 
modest, incremental opinions - such as those striking down rarely enforced 
anti-sodomy laws - and proceeded to a landmark opinion creating a national 
right to same-sex marriage. Particularly with public opinion trending against 
the death penalty, why wouldn't Kennedy write the death penalty equivalent of 
Obergefell v. Hodges?

The comparison, though, fails to withstand scrutiny. The crucial difference is 
that on LBGT rights, Kennedy batted 1.000. He never rejected an important claim 
that came to a vote on the merits. On the death penalty, conversely, Kennedy 
has hardly been a consistent friend to abolitionists. He joined, for example, a 
notorious opinion by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist holding that new 
evidence of actual innocence did not entitle someone convicted of a capital 
crime to federal habeas corpus relief. He has voted to uphold the 
constitutionality of victim impact statements, which lead to harsher 
punishments; death sentences where the mitigating and aggravating factors found 
by a jury were equally balanced; and another state's lethal injection protocol.

Admittedly, some of these opinions are 2 decades old, and Kennedy might have 
changed his mind about the fundamental constitutionality of the death penalty. 
(Stevens, after all, was 1 of the 3 justices who authored the joint opinion 
announcing the 1976 compromise.) But Glossip itself provides powerful evidence 
against this possibility. Among other things, Justice Samuel Alito's majority 
opinion represents a sort of obscene gesture to death penalty opponents: "If 
you use legal methods to prevent states from carrying out a particular form of 
execution, it therefore has the right to carry out less humane ones."

This is nothing less than a justification for torture. It is very hard to 
imagine someone who opposes the death penalty in principle joining this 
opinion, which is exactly what Kennedy did.

It is thus vanishingly unlikely that this court will hold the death penalty 
unconstitutional. The interesting question is what might happen should a 
justice nominated by a Democrat become the median vote of the court. In a 
recent paper, the University of Maryland legal scholar Mark Graber suggests 
that we are about to see a much more polarized Supreme Court that, rather than 
hewing towards centrist opinions, swings well to the left or right depending on 
who has the fifth vote.

The death penalty is one area where this may be most evident. Unless popular 
opinion shifts strongly in favor of the death penalty, Breyer's opinion may 
very well reflect the default position of Democratic nominees, even the most 
conservative ones. If President Hillary Clinton can replace one of the 
Republican nominees on the court, we could ultimately see a decision declaring 
that the death penalty violates the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual 
punishments

But there's a dark side to the polarized court from the perspective of death 
penalty opponents. If President Scott Walker or Marco Rubio replaces Justice 
Ginsbug and/or Breyer, states might aggressively expand the death penalty to 
encompass homicides committed by minors or the sexual assault of children - and 
these laws would likely be upheld.

Breyer's dissent does not reflect a court that is going to rule the death 
penalty unconstitutional in the short term. But it does suggest that it is a 
medium-term possibility - and that the stakes of future presidential elections 
are about to get even higher, with control of the median vote of the Supreme 
Court accruing a greater policy impact than it's ever had.

(source: theweek.com)

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

The 3 biggest myths about the death penalty, debunked ---- Stephen Breyer 
nailed it in his Glossip v. Gross dissent. Capital punishment is barbaric and 
must be overturned


The Daily Dot After the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 ruling upholding the use 
of a lethal injection drug for death penalty cases last week, Justice Breyer's 
dissent has lit up the Internet. In his opposition, Breyer not only opposes the 
controversial use of midazolam, a drug that's been criticized as "cruel and 
unusual punishment," but also condemns the death penalty altogether. His 
argument that the United States must rethink its stance on capital punishment.

However, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion highlighted the difficulties 
in opposing the death penalty, as the debate on the issue continues to be 
riddled with misinformation. As the United States continues to be one of the 
top 5 nations with the most executions in the world, challenging these myths 
won't just create necessary policy change - it'll save lives.

1) The death penalty helps stop crime

In his opinion on the recent capital punishment case Glossip v. Gross, Scalia 
argued that "the suggestion that the incremental deterrent effect of capital 
punishment does not seem 'significant' reflects, it seems to me, a let-them-eat 
cake obliviousness to the needs of others." It reflects an old argument: that 
the death penalty is necessary because it scares criminals into abiding by the 
law.

Yet a 2009 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and 
Criminologyrevealed that 88 % of the country's top criminologists don't believe 
the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicides, 87 % believe abolishing it 
won't have any effect on murder rates, and 75 % agree that "debates about the 
death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real 
crime solutions to crime problems."

"We're very hard pressed to find really strong evidence of deterrence," 
explainedJeffrey Fagan, a student at Columbia Law School. When Fagan and 2 
other researchers collaborated to compare crime rates in Hong Kong and 
Singapore - the former which abolished the death penalty in 1993 and the latter 
which uses it as mandatory for murder - they found little difference in violent 
crime rates between the 2 cities.

A similar study by Professors John J. Donohue of Yale Law School and Justin 
Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania compared rates of violence between 
states that used capital punishment and those which had abolished it and also 
failed to find any evidence of a deterrent effect.

2) Anti-death penalty activists are just protecting a bunch of killers

Back when he was governor of California, Ronald Reagan once explained to a 
group of reporters that he had told opponents of capital punishment, "If you 
toll your bells every time somebody is murdered, I won't mind if you do it 
every time the state executes a killer." The erroneous implication, of course, 
was that anti-death penalty activists care more about criminals than their 
victims and, for that matter, that all of the inmates on death row are guilty 
criminals.

As director of the ACLU Cassandra Stubbs wrote for MSNBC, there is good reason 
to suspect that many of the people put to death in this country have not been 
killers at all. Indeed, one of those men was cited by Scalia in an earlier 
legal case as proof of the need for capital punishment:

Henry McCollum was convicted and sentenced to death in North Carolina for the 
murder and rape of a young girl ... McCollum was exonerated in 2014 ... But in 
1986, 2 years after McCollum was convicted and sentenced, Justice Antonin 
Scalia held him up in a separate Supreme Court decision as the kind of person 
who demonstrates the need for the death penalty.

McCollum is hardly an isolated case. One paper published in Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences by Samuel R. Gross of the University of Michigan 
and Barbara O'Brien of Michigan State University found that at least 4 % of 
people who get sentenced to death would ultimately be exonerated if their cases 
were closely examined over the next 21 years. That said, the ultimate number of 
people sent to die for crimes they didn't commit is, in Gross's own words, "not 
merely unknown but unknowable."

Of course, considering that more than 150 prisoners on death row have been 
exonerated since 1973, the number is potentially staggering.

3) Lethal injection isn't cruel and unusual punishment

Although Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Glossip v. Gross argued that "the 
District Court did not establish that Oklahoma's use of a massive dose of 
midazolam in its execution protocol entails a substantial risk of severe pain," 
there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The creator of the 3-drug cocktail used in lethal injections today, Dr. Jay 
Chapman, told CNN in 2007 that it is cruel and unusual, that the guillotine 
would actually be more humane ("The person's head is cut off and that's the end 
of it"), and observing that "we kill animals more humanely than we kill 
people."

Recent events have reinforced Dr. Chapman's reservations, including 3 
high-profile cases in 2014: Dennis McGuire of Ohio, who took nearly 25 minutes 
to die after choking and struggling throughout the procedure; Clayton Lockett 
ofOklahoma, whose execution was halted 20 minutes into the procedure due to an 
issue with his vein, began writhing on the gurney, and took 43 minutes in total 
to die; and Joseph Wood of Arizona, who gasped and snorted for nearly 2 hours 
before his lethal injection finally ended his life.

Despite these developments, lethal injection remains the most common form of 
execution used in the United States, with over 1,000 prisoners in this country 
meeting their end through that method since it was first implemented in 1982.

Although a growing number of states have moved to ban capital punishment, the 
best hope for ending the death penalty lies in spreading awareness of the issue 
to the general public. In the wake of the SCOTUS decision on lethal injection, 
the Internet is starting an overdue discussion on America's culture of death. 
Last week's decision may have been a setback, but the future of the issue 
depends the information age finally setting the record straight.

(source: Matthew Rozsa is a Ph.D. student in history at Lehigh University as 
well as a political columnist. His editorials have been published in "The 
Morning Call," "The Express-Times," "The Newark Star-Ledger," "The Baltimore 
Sun," and various college newspapers and blogs----Salon.com

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

Poll Results: Death Penalty


These are the topline results of a YouGov/Huffington Post survey of 1000 US 
adults interviewed June 30-July 2, 2015 on death penalty. The margin of error 
is -4.0%.

Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for people convicted of murder?

Strongly favor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%

Somewhat favor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Somewhat oppose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%

Strongly oppose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%

Which of the following do you think should be the MAIN goal of the death 
penalty?

Asked of those who favor the death penalty

To punish the person being executed . . . . . . ..18%

To make sure the person being executed never breaks the law again . . . 14%

To deter other people from breaking the law . . . 20%

To give closure to victims' families . . . . . . ..9%

To ensure justice is served . . . . . . . . . . . .33%

Something else . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Which of the following comes closest to your opinion about execution methods 
that should be allowed?

Asked of those who favor the death penalty

They should be as quick and painless as possible . . . . .51%

Being quick and painless should not be a priority . . . . .41%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%

Do you think a state's use of the death penalty could be considered "cruel and 
unusual punishment"?

It always is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%

It could be, depending on the method of execution used . . . 42%

It never is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Oklahoma may continue to use a 
controversial lethal injection drug that could make some executions severely 
painful. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?

Strongly approve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%

Somewhat approve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%

Somewhat disapprove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%

Strongly disapprove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%

(source: yougov.com)

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

Theater Shooting Trial; Aurora theater shooting gunman was psychotic at the 
time, doctor says----Day 44 of the Aurora theater shooting trial


It was just a thought.

But what began as a fleeting idea churned in his mind and silently tormented 
the Aurora theater gunman for a decade. By the time he walked into the Century 
Aurora 16 theater, the thought had morphed into a "call to action" and was the 
driving force behind the psychotic spiral that had engulfed James Holmes, a 
defense psychiatrist testified on Tuesday.

On the 44th day of the Aurora theater shooting trial, Dr. Raquel Gur gave the 
defense's most powerful argument for why Holmes was insane when he killed 12 
people on July 20, 2012.

"Mr. Holmes, at the time of committing the crime, he suffered from severe 
mental illness, mental defect, that impacted his behavior during the act," Gur 
said. "He was not able to distinguish right from wrong."

Gur diagnosed Holmes, who has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, with 
schizophrenia and said he was psychotic during the attack that also injured 70. 
Holmes, who faces the death penalty, continues to believe his bizarre theory 
that killing others will increase his self-worth, Gur said.

"The delusions persist," Gur said.

Holmes' intrusive thoughts about killing himself and others began long before 
the attack, Gur said. His coping mechanisms - playing video games and focusing 
on academics - disintegrated after he started a neuroscience graduate program 
at the University of Colorado.

Gur is a psychiatrist who teaches and conducts research on schizophrenia at the 
University of Pennsylvania.

The 1st 3 hours of Gur's testimony more closely resembled a college lecture 
than a direct examination during a murder trial. At times, Gur was so eager to 
explain the intricacies of schizophrenia she repeatedly spoke over defense 
attorney Dan King before he was done asking his questions.

She scolded people in the gallery for laughing when she used the example of an 
attorney to demonstrate the difficulties that come with recognizing psychotic 
symptoms.

Gur, who was the 4th psychiatrist to testify about Holmes' sanity, spent a 
total of 28 hours with him during 6 interviews.

2 state-ordered exams by other psychiatrists have found Holmes sane. In June 
2013, Gur issued the 1st of 3 reports finding Holmes was legally insane at the 
time of the attack and diagnosing him with schizophrenia.

Gur said Holmes answered her questions with short, nondescript answers. He 
avoided making eye contact and struggled to elaborate.

But for the 1st time, the jury on Tuesday heard a description of Holmes none of 
the other doctors said they witnessed.

"What were you afraid of?" Gur asked Holmes.

He didn't answer.

She never saw him react that way again.

When Gur asked Holmes why he didn't shoot himself instead of others, his 
answers were flat.

"He considered it. But he couldn't do it," Gur said.

As Gur described Holmes' answers, Sandy Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica 
Ghawi, died in the attack, wiped away tears. Phillips stared at the floor as 
Gur described the look of surprise on Holmes' face when she told him the people 
in the theater didn't want to die.

"He was shocked that different people will have a reaction at all," Gur said. 
"It was something he did not consider - the reaction of people and family 
members."

But Gur's most heated testimony came during the last hour of Tuesday's hearing, 
as District Attorney George Brauchler began an aggressive cross-examination. 
What appeared to be overzealous answers to King's questions quickly turned into 
forceful interjections during Brauchler's characterizations.

Gur added long explanations to yes or no questions Brauchler posed. At times, 
she apologized for being "harsh" when she told Brauchler that he was incorrect.

Brauchler pointed out a sentence she wrote in a book chapter concerning witness 
bias.

"Do you agree with the sentence or not?" Brauchler asked.

"You have not presented the context," Gur said. "It's incorrect."

Leaning back on his heels, Brauchler asked if Gur had anything else to add.

"I've said enough."

"Agreed," he said.

(source: Denver Post)

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

George Ryan creates death penalty abolition group


Former Gov. George Ryan, who declared a statewide moratorium on executions in 
2000, is honing his death penalty ax once again.

Sneed is told Ryan, whose moratorium laid the groundwork for ending the death 
penalty in Illinois during Gov. Pat Quinn's administration, has formed a 
not-for-profit organization called Abolition Now to battle executions 
nationwide.

"I was falsely accused by critics years ago of using my fight against the death 
penalty to divert attention away from the federal investigation against me," 
said Ryan, who was released from federal prison in 2013 after serving more than 
5 years for corruption.

"Life is what gets thrown at you. You just have to deal with it and move on," 
he added.

"But I always planned to fight the death penalty, and we just got tax-exemption 
approval from the state for Abolition Now, which will help create policy to end 
executions," he said. "We are now awaiting federal approval."

Ryan, who addressed Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty in St. 
Louis, Mo., last month, tells Sneed: "Former Gov. Jim Thompson and Rob Warden, 
the former executive director of Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful 
Convictions, is on board - as well as Jennifer Linzer," said Ryan, who tells 
Sneed he plans to address the Florida Public Defender Association in September.

Meanwhile, Ryan - who was released from federal prison in July 2013 - spent the 
4th of July holiday with 30 members of his family in Springfield.

"I am now a great-grandfather and spend a lot of time with my family; have got 
my house in Kankakee in fairly good shape and am almost done with my book, 
which is a biography of sorts - but deals primarily with my time in office and 
my trial," he said.

"Life is good," he said. "But it should also be fair."

(source: Michael Sneed, Chicago Sun-Times)