[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----S.C., FLA., ALA., KY.

Fri Jul 31 10:13:26 CDT 2015

July 31

SOUTH CAROLINA:

New ruling could give South Carolina more leeway for carrying out executions

A new ruling from South Carolina's attorney general could give the state more 
leeway to execute convicted killers.

As WIS reported in an investigation back in February, South Carolina has not 
carried out an execution since 2011.

But opponents of capital punishment have lost ground in the past few weeks.

Earlier in the year, those who think we should be the 20th state to abolish the 
death penalty felt they had achieved a small victory by managing to stall an 
effort to maintain secrecy around companies or pharmacies that could supply 
lethal injection drugs.

South Carolina and others have had problems obtaining those drugs in this 
country and overseas and that has slowed the pace of executions.

But the South Carolina Attorney General's Office issued an opinion this week 
saying existing state law already allows state government to keep that drug 
source information secret.

There are also bills in both the House and Senate aimed at maintaining that 
confidentiality.

Attorney General opinions are non-binding and Corrections Director Bryan 
Stirling has indicated he supports the legislation.

Then late last month, the US Supreme Court dealt another setback to capital 
punishment critics.

The high court said in a 5-4 decision that use of one particular drug called 
midazolam does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual 
punishment.

Midazolam came under fire in Oklahoma last year after the botched execution of 
inmate Clayton Lockett.

South Carolina has not used midazolam, but the ruling now appears to leave that 
option open for any state looking for execution drugs.

(source: WIS TV news)

FLORIDA:

U.S. Supreme Court to consider Florida death penalty sentencing

The U.S. Supreme Court this fall will hear arguments in a challenge to the way 
Florida sentences people to death - a challenge backed by 3 former Florida 
Supreme Court justices and the American Bar Association.

The case, which stems from the 1998 murder of an Escambia County fast-food 
worker, focuses on the role that juries play in recommending death sentences, 
which ultimately are imposed by judges.

Attorneys representing Death Row inmate Timothy Lee Hurst, including former 
U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, contend that Florida's unique sentencing 
system is unconstitutional. Supporting that position in friend-of-the-court 
briefs are former Florida Supreme Court justices Harry Lee Anstead, Rosemary 
Barkett and Gerald Kogan, along with the American Bar Association and 7 former 
Florida circuit judges.

Part of the argument centers on what are known as "aggravating" circumstances 
that must be found before defendants can be sentenced to death. Hurst's 
attorneys argue, in part, that a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires that 
determination of such aggravating circumstances be "entrusted" to juries, not 
to judges.

Also, they take issue with Florida not requiring unanimous jury recommendations 
in death-penalty cases. A judge sentenced Hurst to death after receiving a 7-5 
jury recommendation.

"Florida juries play only an advisory role," Hurst's attorneys wrote in a May 
brief. "The jury recommends a sentence of life or death based on its assessment 
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but that recommendation has no 
binding effect. Moreover, the jury renders its advisory verdict under 
procedures that degrade the integrity of the jury???s function. Unanimity, and 
the deliberation often needed to achieve it, is not necessary; only a bare 
majority vote is required to recommend a death sentence."

But in an earlier brief, attorneys for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme 
Court and the Florida Supreme Court have repeatedly denied challenges to the 
sentencing process, including the Florida Supreme Court rejecting Hurst's 
challenge. The state attorneys argued that a jury, in recommending the death 
penalty, has found facts that support at least 1 aggravating factor - which can 
be the basis for sentencing a defendant to death.

"Therefore, because the jury returned a recommendation of death, this court may 
infer the jury did find at least 1 aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable 
doubt," state attorneys wrote in a January brief in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week scheduled oral arguments in the case for Oct. 
13, according to an online docket. The court agreed in March to take up the 
case.

Hurst, now 36, was convicted in the 1998 murder of Cynthia Lee Harrison, who 
was an assistant manager at a Popeye's Fried Chicken restaurant where Hurst 
worked. Harrison's body was discovered bound in a freezer, and money was 
missing from a safe, according to a brief in the case.

In sentencing Hurst to death, a judge found 2 aggravating circumstances - that 
the murder was committed during a robbery and that it was "especially heinous, 
atrocious or cruel," according to the brief filed by Hurst's attorneys. That 
brief, along with others in the case, were posted on an American Bar 
Association website and on SCOTUSblog, which closely tracks U.S. Supreme Court 
proceedings.

Much of the October hearing could focus on how to apply the 2002 U.S. Supreme 
Court decision - a major case known as Ring v. Arizona - to the Florida law. 
Hurst's attorneys contend that the 2002 decision held that "findings of fact 
necessary to authorize a death sentence may not be entrusted to the judge." 
They said Florida's system undermines the juries' constitutional "functions as 
responsible fact-finder and voice of the community's moral judgment."

The brief filed on behalf of Anstead, Barkett and Kogan raised similar 
arguments and said there is "no assurance that Florida death sentences are 
premised on a particular aggravating circumstance found by the jury."

"And because jury unanimity is not mandated during the sentencing process, 
there is no assurance that a Florida jury's death recommendation represents a 
reliable consensus of the community," the brief said. "As a consequence, (the 
former justices) believe that the jury's role is impermissibly denigrated and 
that there is an unacceptable risk that Florida death sentences are erroneously 
imposed, in violation of the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States."

(source: Palm Beach Post)

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

Case targets death penalty sentencing in murder of Escambia County woman

The U.S. Supreme Court this fall will hear arguments in a challenge to the way 
Florida sentences people to death - a challenge backed by 3 former Florida 
Supreme Court justices and the American Bar Association.

The case, which stems from the 1998 murder of an Escambia County fast-food 
worker, focuses on the role that juries play in recommending death sentences, 
which ultimately are imposed by judges.

Attorneys representing Death Row inmate Timothy Lee Hurst, including former 
U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, contend that Florida???s unique sentencing 
system is unconstitutional. Supporting that position in friend-of-the-court 
briefs are former Florida Supreme Court justices Harry Lee Anstead, Rosemary 
Barkett and Gerald Kogan, along with the American Bar Association and 7 former 
Florida circuit judges.

Part of the argument centers on what are known as "aggravating" circumstances 
that must be found before defendants can be sentenced to death. Hurst's 
attorneys argue, in part, that a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires that 
determination of such aggravating circumstances be "entrusted" to juries, not 
to judges.

Also, they take issue with Florida not requiring unanimous jury recommendations 
in death-penalty cases. A judge sentenced Hurst to death after receiving a 7-5 
jury recommendation.

"Florida juries play only an advisory role," Hurst's attorneys wrote in a May 
brief. "The jury recommends a sentence of life or death based on its assessment 
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but that recommendation has no 
binding effect. Moreover, the jury renders its advisory verdict under 
procedures that degrade the integrity of the jury's function. Unanimity, and 
the deliberation often needed to achieve it, is not necessary; only a bare 
majority vote is required to recommend a death sentence."

But in an earlier brief, attorneys for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme 
Court and the Florida Supreme Court have repeatedly denied challenges to the 
sentencing process, including the Florida Supreme Court rejecting Hurst's 
challenge. The state attorneys argued that a jury, in recommending the death 
penalty, has found facts that support at least 1 aggravating factor - which can 
be the basis for sentencing a defendant to death.

"Therefore, because the jury returned a recommendation of death, this court may 
infer the jury did find at least 1 aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable 
doubt," state attorneys wrote in a January brief in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week scheduled oral arguments in the case for Oct. 
13, according to an online docket. The court agreed in March to take up the 
case.

Hurst, now 36, was convicted in the 1998 murder of Cynthia Lee Harrison, who 
was an assistant manager at a Popeye's Fried Chicken restaurant where Hurst 
worked. Harrison's body was discovered bound in a freezer, and money was 
missing from a safe, according to a brief in the case.

In sentencing Hurst to death, a judge found 2 aggravating circumstances - that 
the murder was committed during a robbery and that it was "especially heinous, 
atrocious or cruel," according to the brief filed by Hurst???s attorneys.

Much of the October hearing could focus on how to apply the 2002 U.S. Supreme 
Court decision - a major case known as Ring v. Arizona - to the Florida law. 
Hurst's attorneys contend that the 2002 decision held that "findings of fact 
necessary to authorize a death sentence may not be entrusted to the judge." 
They said Florida's system undermines the juries' constitutional "functions as 
responsible fact-finder and voice of the community's moral judgment."

The brief filed on behalf of Anstead, Barkett and Kogan raised similar 
arguments and said there is "no assurance that Florida death sentences are 
premised on a particular aggravating circumstance found by the jury."

(source: Tallahassee Democrat)

ALABAMA:

Death row inmate Tommy Arthur wants Alabama to disclose lethal injection 
details

Lawyers for a death row inmate said Alabama should be forced to disclose more 
information about lethal injection procedures before resuming executions.

Attorneys for inmate Tommy Arthur in a Wednesday court filing said the state 
needs to disclose information including how the drugs are delivered, how inmate 
consciousness is monitored and the expiration dates of drugs in hand.

The state is seeking to resume executions after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld 
Oklahoma's use of the sedative midazolam, the same drug that Alabama plans to 
begin using.

A federal judge must decide what to do with Arthur's challenge to the use of 
the drug as cruel and unusual punishment.

The Alabama attorney general's office said that the drug has been ruled legal. 
Arthur's lawyer says Alabama's protocol is different from Oklahoma's.

(source: Associated Press)

KENTKUCKY:

McManus Family: We Want the Death Penalty

He murdered his family.

Now 15 years after being sentenced to death, Paul McManus might get a 2nd 
chance.

This comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned McManus' death sentence 
in February.

It's a big blow to the family of Melissa McManus, 8 year-old Lindsay, and 23 
month-old Shelby.

They say this unexpected development opens them up to more pain.

Marcie Doty is Melissa's sister, and she doesn't mince words. "We don't want 
him living the rest of his life, we want him to get the death penalty."

Their message is strong, but confidence in getting what they want is fading.

Melissa's mother, Marsha Shanks, chokes back tears, saying they are "fighting 
for our girls," trying to get the death penalty once more.

"I've never hated anybody like I hate him for what he did to us," says Shanks.

Mindy Barnes is Melissa's other sister. She says the family has waited 14 years 
for a phone call to say "he's going to be executed."

That phone call that never came.

In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals found McManus was forced to appear 
before the jury in a "drug induced stupor," and McManus would have his sentence 
overturned.

Now his case could go to trial again.

Nick Hermann, the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor, says there are 2 options for 
McManus.

"Whether that be a trial with a verdict, whether that be a plea agreement, but 
it's something that is going to have to happen in court."

The family believes Hermann won't ask for the death penalty in a retrial; only 
life without parole.

However Hermann isn't confirming that.

"At this point we don't have any announcement to make, nothing's been 
finalized."

McManus will be in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court on August 6 for a progress 
hearing. It's there the family tells us McManus will be charged again with 
murder.

That essentially would be starting the whole trial process over again.

"To me it's a joke," says Shanks, "It's just one big joke. My daughter and 2 
granddaughters were not given a 2nd opportunity at life," she says.

Holding on to what's left, while remembering what's lost.

United, they hope for justice.

"If the roles were reversed in any way she'd do the same thing for us," Doty 
adds.

"We have to fight for her, that's just all there is to it."

(source: tristatehomepage.com)