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

[Rick Halperin]

July 21



NEBRASKA:

Lethal injection drugs still not here


The expected arrival date of 2 drugs to be used in executions has come and gone 
- a month ago.

But Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Director Scott Frakes said 
Monday he is still confident the state will get the sodium thiopental and 
pancuronium bromide that are 2 of 3 drugs in Nebraska's lethal injection 
protocol. It is taking time to make sure the order is done right, he said.

Frakes ordered the drugs - sodium thiopental makes an inmate unconscious and 
pancuronium bromide causes paralysis - in May from Harris Pharma, a company in 
India that has sold sodium thiopental to Nebraska in the past.

The state already has the 3rd drug, potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

In May, the department ordered 1,000 1-gram vials of sodium thiopental at a 
cost of $25 per vial and 1,000 ampules of 2 mg/2 ml of pancuronium bromide at 
$26 per ampule. Total cost was $54,000.

The drugs are paid for and the supplier has the money, Frakes said Monday.

"We're still working with the supplier," he said. "There are a number of 
different issues that needed to be addressed through various different agencies 
both in India and ... here in America."

That includes the right information and code numbers for the order, and making 
sure the correct importation forms are filled out.

The drug would be exported by Harris Pharma, coming from Kolkata, West Bengal, 
India. The Corrections Department is the importer.

A 2013 federal circuit court ruling determined lethal injection drugs are 
subject to U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight and importation rules 
and that states must obtain such drugs legally through licensed, inspected 
dealers.

Sodium thiopental is not an approved drug in the United States, according to 
the Food and Drug Administration.

"With very limited exceptions (such as for research use), which do not apply 
here, it is unlawful to import this drug and FDA would refuse its admission 
into the United States," FDA spokesman Jeff Ventura has said.

Federal Drug Enforcement Administration spokeswoman Barbara Carreno has said 
the DEA is in sync with the FDA on importing barbiturate anesthetics such as 
sodium thiopental from foreign companies.

"We allow their importation if they come from an FDA-approved source. 
Conversely, if the source is not FDA-approved, we will not allow their 
importation," she said.

Rather than move quickly and end up with a problem, Frakes said, he has chosen 
to take the time to ensure all the questions have been answered and he has 
correctly filled out all the required forms and addressed all concerns.

When he is confident the department has met all those needs, he'll ask that the 
drugs be shipped, he said.

"I remain confident that I will receive the products," Frakes said.

The Nebraska Legislature repealed the death penalty in May with an effective 
date at the end of August.

Meanwhile, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty is seeking signatures for an 
initiative petition to allow Nebraska voters to decide at the ballot box 
whether the state should retain the death penalty.

If the group gathers about 115,000 signatures from registered voters by Aug. 
27, the law repealing the death penalty won't take effect. If its group gathers 
about half that, the law would take effect, but in either case, the issue would 
go to voters in November 2016.

10 people sentenced to death for first-degree murder remain on Nebraska's death 
row.

(source: Journal Star)






COLORADO:

Death penalty trial begins in Denver bar killings


Opening statements began Monday in the murder trial of Dexter Lewis, who is 
charged with stabbing 5 people to death in a Denver bar, marking the start of a 
rare death penalty case in Denver.

It's the 1st time Denver prosecutors have tried a death penalty case since 
2001, and the 1st time District Attorney Mitch Morrissey has sought to execute 
a defendant since he was sworn in in 2005.

A jury was chosen last week out of a pool of nearly 600 people, the Denver Post 
reported (http://tinyurl.com/pqlnjlq ).

Lewis, 25, is charged with killing 5 people inside Fero's Bar & Grill on South 
Colorado Boulevard in October 2012. 2 co-defendants, brothers Lynell and Joseph 
Hill, pleaded guilty to the killings in July 2013.

Joseph Hill pleaded guilty to 5 counts of 1st-degree felony murder, and his 
brother pleaded guilty to 2 counts of 2nd-degree murder and arson.

The victims included 53-year-old Young Suk Fero, an Aurora woman who owned the 
bar; Daria M. Pohl, 21, of Denver; Kellene Fallon, 44, of Denver; Ross Richter, 
29, of Overland Park, Kansas; and Tereasa Beesley, 45, of Denver.

Lewis also is charged with trying to hire a former prison cellmate to kill 
several witnesses who were expected to testify against him.

The last time a Denver jury chose to execute someone was in 1986, when Frank 
Rodriguez was convicted in the rape and murder of Lorraine Martelli.

Colorado has 3 men on death row, but the state has not executed anyone since 
1997.

In 2013, Gov. John Hickenlooper granted an indefinite reprieve to death row 
inmate Nathan Dunlap, essentially putting a hold on executions while he is 
governor.

(source: Associated Press)






UTAH:

Case against man accused in girl's death to go forward


The Utah Supreme Court has cleared the way for the trial of a Utah man accused 
of raping and killing a 6-year-old girl.

The high court decided Friday that it isn't necessary to remove Judge Mark 
Kouris in the case of Terry Lee Black over allegations of bias because he's 
already been transferred

An attorney for 43-year-old defendant says the judge ridiculed and mocked 
Black's lawyers during a 9-minute diatribe after they asked for a delay to 
determine whether Black is mentally competent to stand trial.

Prosecutors denied the allegations of bias against Black, who is accused of 
abducting Sierra Newbold from her home in June 2012. Police say he beat, raped 
and strangled her before throwing her in the canal, where she drowned.

Black could face the death penalty if convicted.

(source: Associated Press)






ARIZONA:

Jury to decide if man who killed Phoenix police officer deserves death penalty


A man who was convicted of killing a Phoenix police officer may be sentenced to 
death.

But first, a jury must decide if the crime was heinous enough.

An aggravation hearing will begin on Tuesday morning to determine if Danny 
Martinez should be eligible for the death penalty for shooting and killing a 
Phoenix police officer 5 years ago.

Last week, Martinez was convicted of 1st-degree murder for killing Officer 
Travis Murphy.

The officer confronted Martinez in 2010 after receiving a call of shots fired 
near 19th Avenue and Indian School.

Martinez shot Officer Murphy 10 times with an AR-15 rifle, killing him.

Officer Murphy was 29-years-old and had been on the force for 4 years.

He left behind a wife, a 2-year-old daughter and a 2-week-old son.

The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

The jury will take another look at the case on Tuesday to see if the crime has 
aggravating factors that would warrant the death penalty.

(source: KSAZ news)






CALIFORNIA:

Commute Kevin Cooper's Death Sentence


https://act.amnestyusa.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1839&ea.campaign.id=40574&ea.tracking.id=Country_USA~MessagingCategory_DeathPenalty~MessagingCategory_PrisonersandPeopleatRisk

(source: Amnesty International USA)






USA:

Yes, some will escape prison, but that's no reason to push the death penalty


Re "Prison escapes prove we can't just 'lock 'em up and throw away the key'" by 
Jeff Jacoby (Opinion, July 16): Probably no prison will ever be escape-proof, 
because prisons are run and staffed by humans. However, the answer to that is 
not to make greater use of the death penalty. Surely we can conceive other 
alternatives.

Let's put aside facts about the ridiculous costs of imposing the death penalty 
and the botched executions, and the fact that as many as 4.1 % of those who are 
sentenced to die are innocent, according to a study published in the 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The overwhelming argument against the death penalty is ethical.

With that penalty, 1 person must instruct others to kill someone, a human, who 
at the time of the killing is confined and subdued. Such a demand is morally 
reprehensible.

That such a barbarous ritual is state-sanctioned, in your name and mine, 
magnifies our society's rejection of its humanity and assures our children that 
extreme violence is allowable.

Maureen Doyle, Weymouth

(source: Letter to the Editor, Boston Globe)

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

The U.S. court system is criminally unjust----How your weight and the time of 
day can decide the outcome of your court case


We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the 
wisdom of the Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our 
peers.

Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the 
psychology of courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, 
unconscious biases about race, gender and appearance, and even the time of day 
play a more important role in outcomes than the actual law.

Adam Benforado, a professor of law at Drexel University, describes these 
unsettling problems with the justice system in the recently published book 
"Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice." The book uses psychology and 
neuroscience to examine and expose the illogical and unfair ways that judges, 
jurors, attorneys and others in the legal system make decisions about who is 
sent to prison, and who walks free.

Benforado's research shows that mistakes in the criminal justice system are 
more common than we like to think, and that our personal biases play a 
disturbingly strong role. He also argues that there are clear and easy steps 
that we could follow to limit these injustices, if we care to take them. This 
interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Your research looks at applying cognitive psychology to law. Why is that 
important?

Our criminal justice system has been built up over centuries and really 
millennia. Unfortunately when we look at the scientific evidence, we find that 
a lot of the underlying assumptions are not backed up by science. A lot of our 
legal system is based on incorrect assumptions about human behavior.

Can you give us an example of a case where assumptions made in the courtroom 
led to a verdict that was clearly wrong?

The one that stopped me in my tracks was a case involving John Jerome White. 
This was a brutal rape case from 1979 in Meriwether County, Georgia. We have 
the image from the line-up that was conducted in this case. The victim was 
brought in. She looked at these 5 men and she picked out the 1 in the middle. 
John Jerome White said he didn't rape the woman, but he was sentenced and ended 
up spending a couple decades in prison.

Finally, the DNA from the rape case was tested - we didn't have the capability 
back in 1979, but a couple decades later we did. And John Jerome White was not 
the attacker.

What really startled me about this particular image was the actual perpetrator 
was in that line-up. He was actually locked up for another offense, and they 
pulled him in at the last minute. What this shows is that this victim looked 
eye to eye with the man who attacked her and picked out the man standing next 
to him.

That shows that good people who have every incentive to get things right can 
make terrible, terrible errors which are extremely costly. They are costly not 
just to the person who is wrongly convicted, but to the victim -- not only 
have you suffered this horrible crime, but you are now responsible for putting 
an innocent person in prison. And, in this particular case, that actual 
perpetrator ended up going off and raping another woman in the intervening 
decades.

For me, that really summed up what this entire book was all about - the fact 
that the dangers to our community are not evil, greedy, malicious people, 
they're our friends and neighbors. Those are the people who are ultimately 
responsible for some of the terrible injustice that is happening.

In 1979, we didn't have DNA testing. Wasn't this line-up the best option? Was 
there a better solution?

In that case, there were a number of things that were problematic. The woman 
had already looked at a set of images of potential suspects a few weeks 
earlier. One question is, was she remembering the person who raped her, or was 
she just remembering this image that she had seen? We know from laboratory 
research that just seeing someone's image on Facebook can cause a person to be 
more likely to pick that suspect out of a line-up.

It's also quite possible that some of the things the police were doing were 
highly suggestive. The woman's initial description was of a man who was round 
faced with a stocky build. John Jerome White is rail thin. The only man who 
fits the description of the perpetrator is the actual perpetrator.

The lesson is clearly that we should rely on eye witness identification a lot 
less than we do. We know that tens of thousands of people are charged with 
crimes after being identified by eye witnesses. And we also know that a third 
of the time, eye witnesses in real identification pick out one of those 
innocent fillers. That's a terribly high error rate, and that suggests we have 
to find other ways to identify perpetrators.

Research suggests that both the race of the victim and of the defendant 
influence sentencing. One study by researchers at Cornell found that defendants 
with more stereotypically "black features" were more likely to be sentenced to 
death. What do you think of that research?

That was a really powerful study. We've known that race was a problem with the 
death penalty for a long time. Far more people on death row are African 
American than would be predicted. And studies suggest that the factors that are 
meant to predict whether someone receives the death penalty don't predict that 
- people who commit the worst crimes are not the ones who receive the death 
penalty.

What was so fascinating about this study is it showed that it's not just if 
you???re black or white, it's how black you are. So people with thicker lips, 
wider noses and darker skin were more likely than other African-Americans with 
less stereotypically African-American features to receive the death penalty. In 
my mind, even if you would otherwise support the death penalty, this is just 
proof that we are not able to administer it in a way that is fair and just 
under the rules of the constitution.

And it's not just race, right -- thinness and attractiveness affect our 
judgments, too?

All interpersonal differences, which are not meant to have any impact on any 
aspect of trial, end up shaping how things go for defendants. With respect to 
witnesses, we know that attractive witnesses are more likely to be believed. We 
also know that weight has an impact. In one study, women who were overweight or 
obese were treated much more harshly by mock jurors than people who were thin.

A very important point is that a lot of these biases are operating beyond 
people's awareness or control. So when it comes to implicit racial bias, for 
example, it's not that judges who end up giving African Americans higher bail 
hate black people or are secret bigots. It appears that they are just 
susceptible and have been exposed to the same negative stereotypes linking 
blackness and violence or crime that we all have been exposed to.

Those damaging stereotypes end up having an impact on real-world behavior. 
There's interesting research that doctors offer different medical interventions 
based on the color of people's skin. We know that recruiters look at a resume 
differently if it has an African-American name or a white name. In all these 
cases, the people that are engaging in this discriminatory behavior, it 
appears, are not doing so out of racial animus. They are doing it because they 
are engaging in automatic behavior which has been engrained over a lifetime of 
being exposed to a culture in which African American lives are devalued and 
blackness is coded with a lot of negative imagery.

What are other measures that we could take to improve decisions? I know that 
you mention "virtual trials" - what are those?

One of the things that I suggest in the book is that we need to control biasing 
factors. In essence, if we know that jurors and justices can be swayed by the 
attractiveness of witnesses, or we know that jurors place a lot of weight on 
whether the defendant is making eye contact, or his hands are shaking on the 
witness stand - if we know from research that that is not a good way to tell 
whether someone is lying, it makes sense to begin to control for those factors.

The defendant's skin color shouldn't make a difference in the outcome. The 
prosecutor's mannerisms or bombastic style shouldn't make a difference. And yet 
from research we know that all these things are biasing factors. So why not 
control for these things by eliminating judge's and jurors abilities to see the 
color of the defendant's skin, or the mannerisms of the prosecutor?

The technology to do this actually already exists. We conduct business 
transactions in virtual space. We can do heart surgery without being in the 
same room as the patient. So why not think about the potential of virtual 
adjudication for the future?

In terms of benefits, it's not just that this would prevent judges and jurors 
from biased determinations. It would also change the behavior of attorneys. One 
of the big problems we have in the way we conduct trials is we allow attorneys 
to strike jurors. In some parts of the country, black jurors are commonly kept 
off death penalty juries. A virtual space where attorneys didn't know the race 
of the jurors would prevent that from happening.

I also think it would significantly reduce the psychological strain entailed in 
providing in-court testimony. One of the reasons that rape prosecution are so 
difficult is that victims refuse to testify in court because they don't want to 
be in the same room as their attacker. And with virtual space, that would lead 
them to feel less intimidated and nervous.

You also argue that virtual trials could include a time delay in presenting 
information to the jury. What's the purpose of that?

Frequently, evidence or testimony is presented in court and then subsequently 
objected to. So under cross-examination, a prosecutor asks a defendant on the 
stand, "Were you convicted of assault earlier this year?" The defendant 
answers, the defense objects to that, and the trial judge instructs the jurors, 
I'm sustaining that objection, disregard what you just heard.

But we know from experimental evidence that jurors can't do that. Inevitably, 
evidence that they've been told to disregard then influences their later 
determination. So in a controlled setting, we could institute a time delay that 
would prevent that evidence from ever coming before the decision makers.

In the shorter run, are there other things we could do to improve our 
courtrooms? Let's start by looking at judges.

In the U.S., we think there are 2 kinds of judges: activist judges and umpire 
judges. Essentially, a person decides whether they want to be an objective, 
neutral judge who just calls balls and strikes, or an activist judge who 
follows their own agenda. But what the research from psychology says is that 
actually all judges are biased, and they are often biased in ways that are 
beyond their conscious awareness or control.

One of my favorite experiments in the book looks at whether a judge grants a 
person parole or not. You would think that the things that determine parole are 
the crime the person committed, and whether the person reformed themselves in 
prison.

But in fact, researchers found that the major factor was the time of day that 
the person came before the parole board. If you appeared 1st thing in the 
morning, you were more likely to get parole. Right before the 1st break in the 
day was the worst time. There is a clear disjunction between what the law says 
and what is actually determining outcomes.

I think most judges are extremely well-intentioned people who believe that they 
act objectively, to the best of their abilities. I think one of the best ways 
to change the system -- a system that we know does include quite a lot of 
judicial bias -- is simply to bring to judge???s attention the wealth of data 
that exists on what is going on. We know that African-American men receive 
higher bails. We know that certain people end up being sentenced to longer 
sentences based on demographic factors. Judges aren't aware of those things 
until they look at the data.

And what about with juries?

Jurors are supposed to decide cases based on the facts and the law, and often 
times that's not the case. Research shows that the jurors' different background 
and experiences - what they bring to the jury panel - matter far more than 
differences in the legal code. It's not supposed to matter what particular 
juror you happen to draw. But that is what we believe is driving a lot of 
outcomes in the criminal justice system.

There are actually de-biasing techniques that are being studied by 
psychologists as we speak. The challenge is to figure out ways to disrupt these 
stereotypes, by, for example, exposing people to counter-stereotypes - positive 
images of African-Americans, like Martin Luther King, Jr., and negative images 
of white Americans, like Jeffrey Dahmer. That has been shown to be effective at 
undermining these implicit biases.

More broadly, I think we need to think about as a society how we get rid of 
damaging racial associations. That has to do with depictions of 
African-Americans on prime-time television. It has to do with the stories that 
are reported on the 5 o'clock news. That's where these biases come from.

Secondly, we need to think about ways to establish more diverse juries and more 
diverse judicial benches. The worst thing that we can possibly have is a jury 
or a court where all the people share the same set of biases. It's much better 
if everyone is biased in different ways. Our benches and our juries are 
disproportionately white, male and older. That's a problem, particularly 
because our legal rules themselves have been developed by white, older men over 
the centuries. To the extent that we cannot de-bias the population, diversity 
is a good 2nd-best approach.

(source: Ana Swanson is a reporter for Wonkblog specializing in business, 
economics, data visualization and China; Washington Post)