[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., S.C., FLA., LA.

[Rick Halperin]

June 28



TEXAS:

How Anthony Graves Went from Death Row to Overseeing the Houston Crime Lab



A few weeks ago, Anthony Graves began hearing rumors that he was under 
consideration for a spot on the Houston Forensic Science Center's board of 
directors - a post that would put him in a position to help the city prevent 
wrongful convictions.

Wrongful convictions like the one that put him on death row.

The simple fact that he was being considered for the job was another form of 
vindication for Graves, who was exonerated in the murders of 6 people and 
released from a Texas prison 5 years ago.

Since then, Graves has been traveling the country telling his story, urging 
people to press for reforms to the criminal justice system - including the 
death penalty.

"I was excited about the opportunity because it lines up with the work I 
already do," Graves, 49, told NBC News.

That appointment, submitted by Houston Mayor Anise Parker, became official on 
Wednesday, when the Houston City Council voted to put him on the nine-member 
board, which has replaced the scandal-plagued Houston Crime Lab.

"Because I was wrongfully convicted, and I know how the system failed, this 
appointment allows me to bring a fresh perspective to the board, because I can 
tell you about the pitfalls," Graves said.

Graves spent 18 years in prison and was twice given an execution date. The 
state wanted to retry him, but the case fell apart, and in 2010 Graves was 
released - a free man at long last.

At the same time, the Houston Crime lab was reeling from revelations of 
systemic malfeasance. In 2013, Parker and the city council created the Houston 
Forensic Science Center, overseen by an independent board of directors, to take 
over the $24 million-a-year lab's operations.

The Houston Forensic Science Center, a government non-profit, is unusual in its 
makeup. It is insulated from the police department and City Hall, and its board 
includes Texas who have been cleared of violent crimes.

Graves will replace Anthony Robinson, who was pardoned in 2000 by then-Gov. 
George W. Bush after Robinson spent a decade behind bars for a rape he didn't 
commit.

Robinson went on to earn a law degree and became an entrepreneur. At his first 
board meeting in early 2014, he told his story, so that the other members would 
know what it's like to be wrongly convicted of a crime.

Graves was 26 when he was arrested for the 1992 murder in Somerville, Texas of 
45-year-old Bobbie Davis, her adult daughter, and her four grandchildren. His 
co-defendant, Robert Earl Carter, was executed in 2000, and on the eve of his 
death, he submitted a sworn statement saying he had lied when he said Graves 
had helped him kill the family.

Graves' appointment came days after the man who put him in prison, Burleson 
County District Attorney Charles Sebesta, was disbarred for prosecutorial 
misconduct.

Graves said he now looked forward to being reunited with the board's newly 
appointed chairman, Nicole Casarez. a lawyer and journalism professor who 
worked 8 years to free him.

"I'm more excited about the fact the the chairman is the lady who saved my 
life," Graves said.

Once again, he said, he would let Casarez "guide me."

Casarez told NBC News she was thrilled with Graves' appointment. Since his 
exoneration, Graves has become a national voice on criminal justice reform, a 
voice that now will be heard on the board.

"I wasn't surprised at all," Casarez said. "I was hoping it would happen. I 
didn't nominate him, but I was glad someone did."

(source: NBC news)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Another capital flaw



District attorneys who choose to bring capital charges often do so as an 
expression of the public's outrage over a heinous crime. But a new report 
suggests that putting a defendant on trial for his life also can involve 
another sort of outrage - the pursuit of flimsy cases at high cost to taxpayers 
and great damage to the accused.

The Center for Death Penalty Litigation looked at problems with cases from an 
unusual perspective. Instead of focusing on defendants who were wrongly 
convicted, the center studied 56 North Carolina capital cases brought between 
1989 and 2015 that ended with an acquittal or dismissal of all charges.

The finding of 56 cases is a high number over the past quarter-century given 
that the state's death row population is 148. But the report found shoddy cases 
derailed by serious errors or misconduct.

Pursuing these cases has cost taxpayers nearly $2.4 million, the report 
estimates. But dollars hardly measure the full cost. Defendants in these cases 
spent a total of 112 years in jail awaiting trial, more than half of them based 
on the testimony or statements of witnesses who were found to be unreliable.

This report adds another chapter to the evidence that the death penalty and the 
pursuit of it can border on being crimes in themselves. The record demands that 
the wrongs wrought by this pursuit of vengeance be ended by the pursuit of 
justice.

(source: Editorial, News & Observer)








SOUTH CAROLINA:

The death penalty and South Carolina Capital cases involve many factors



The Death Penalty and South Carolina

S.C. death penalty facts----43 men, no women executed since 1976

45 inmates currently on death row

177 capital convictions since 1976

105 death sentences overturned since 1976

Last S.C. execution was in May 2011

Types of murders considered for death conviction: criminal sexual conduct 
(rape), in any degree kidnapping

trafficking in persons

burglary in any degree

robbery while armed with a deadly weapon

larceny with use of a deadly weapon

killing by poison

drug trafficking (circumstantial)

physical torture

dismemberment of a person

arson in the 1st degree (circumstantial)

by a convicted murdered

mass killing of people

murder for hire

killing of a child under age 11

killing of public officials

killing of public official's family in retaliation against the official

killing of case witnesses

killing by a known sexual predator

Just 2 days after 9 people, including a state senator, were gunned down at a 
historically black church in Charleston, Gov. Nikki Haley said accused gunman 
21-year-old Dylan Roof should "absolutely" get the death penalty.

State officials who deal with capital punishment law say the act of murder 
itself doesn't necessarily require the death penalty. However, state law 
includes mass murder, among other types of murder, as a sound circumstance for 
prosecutors to seek capital punishment.

Opponents of the death penalty say the state's laws are fraught with problems 
and a single death penalty case can cost taxpayers an average of $1.1 million 
more than a life-without-parole sentence.

Ed L. Clements III, solicitor for South Carolina's Twelfth Circuit, said 
seeking capital punishment isn't as easy, or as practical, as many people seem 
to think. He said the specific circumstances must be met, according to law, 
before death becomes an option.

"The scrutiny is heightened tremendously during these cases," he said. "There 
are so many strategic procedures that can be found ineffective that allow for 
appeals to be upheld and can get cases overturned. Then the entire lengthy 
process starts over again."

South Carolina law

According to SC code title 16, chapter 3, "statutory aggravating circumstances" 
are listed as crimes that prosecutors are allowed to consider for death penalty 
notices. Some of these include killing a child under age 11, mass murder, 
murder for hire and murder while trafficking humans, among others.

Even though an aggravating circumstance may be met, Clements explained, a host 
of mitigating factors such as age and intellectual handicap level must be 
considered as well.

"If a person commits the crime before they're 18 or if they're proven to be 
mentally impaired, we would not be able to seek the death penalty," Clements 
said. "The state or county provides a host of services for the defendant to 
utilize in each case."

Cost

According to data from the South Carolina Death Penalty Resource and Defense 
Center, a single death penalty case in the state, when carried through to 
execution, costs taxpayers an average of $1.1 million more than a 
life-without-parole sentence.

The same data suggest that a single death penalty trial costs South Carolinians 
around $415,000 more than a noncapital murder trial. Over 1/2 of all death 
cases in the state are reversed because of error at least once during the 
appellate process, the center says.

Clements attributed this to the commonality of death penalty convictions being 
overturned and retried numerous times, all at the taxpayers' expense. He said 
it's rare for a death penalty case to stand only 1 trial.

"When you seek the death penalty, the defendant is automatically entitled to 
two defense attorneys," he said. "They can go to a judge with an 'ex-parte' or 
1-party order for the hiring of whoever they feel necessary to hire who they 
need for their case. This can be social workers, investigators, mental health 
experts. That makes the cost for the state, as well as the county, extremely 
high.

He said that when deciding to seek the death penalty, prosecutors are aware of 
the county's financial status and jury makeup because they often determine if a 
death notice should be sought.

"The process takes a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of money 
from the county itself, so location plays a huge factor in making that decision 
as well," Clements said.

Appeals and Defense

Emily Paavola, executive director of the South Carolina Death Penalty Resource 
and Defense Center, said her office works with inmates who have been sentenced 
to death by representing them during the appeals process.

"We look back at the trial, everything that happened and identify if there were 
any errors that made the process unfair or unreliable for the defendant," 
Paavola said. "We have to make sure there were no violations of any federal or 
state constitutional rights."

She said over 60 % of death penalty convictions in South Carolina are reversed 
at least once.

Paavola said a reason for prolonged stays on death row - an average of 13 years 
in South Carolina - can be attributed to the lengthy process of appeals and 
litigation during death penalty trials.

"It's easy for people to look at an individual case and say 'give them the 
death penalty' but there's a much broader context to think about," Paavola 
said. "Like whether it's good to have a death penalty ... we have to ask if 
this is an efficient and wise way to use of our money, or is there a better way 
to use our tax dollars?"

Opposing death sentences

Ron Kaz, board chairman of South Carolinians Abolishing the Death Penalty, 
echoed the thought that South Carolina???s death penalty is functionally 
problematic and added that the system is flawed.

"You cannot solve problems by killing people," Kaz said. "Even if prosecutors 
are 100 % sure they have the right person, I still don???t think killing that 
person is any kind of solution to violent crime in this country."

Kaz believes the current system is fundamentally flawed and leaves too much 
room for error.

"I understand that sometimes mistakes are made and people get it wrong," he 
said. "But this isn't something you can get wrong that just causes a minor 
inconvenience; we're talking about a person's life here. A mistake can mean 
death."

Kaz also said the death penalty in South Carolina is systemically racist, 
citing the higher likelihood of African-Americans being sentenced to death as 
opposed to Caucasians.

"It's built into the system," Kaz said. "If someone kills a white person, 
they're 6 times more likely to face the death penalty than if the victim had 
been black."

Death penalty convictions

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, South Carolina has sentenced 
177 people to death, and 105 of those sentences have been reversed because of 
errors at least once on appeal. The last execution in South Carolina was in May 
2011.

45 inmates are on death row now in South Carolina, all are males.

South Carolina is one of 14 states that allow inmates a choice on how they will 
die, as long as the inmate makes that choice in writing at least 14 days prior 
to the execution date. Lethal injection and the electric chair are the only 2 
legal methods of execution in the state.

Causes of decreased executions in recent years are advances in DNA technology, 
legal rulings protecting inmates with mental disorders and, most recently, the 
inability of states executing by lethal injection to get proper dosage of drugs 
used in the process.

Paavola many of the drugs are produced by foreign countries that oppose the 
death penalty, and in turn, have refused to sell the drugs to states with 
capital punishment laws.

Officials from the Twelfth and Fourth circuits - courts serving the Pee Dee 
area-- didn't comment directly on the Charleston shooting case, citing Ninth 
Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson's expertise and leaving the decision to her 
office alone.

South Carolina's Fourth Circuit currently has 2 pending death penalty cases. 
Fourth Circuit officials couldn't speak on record about the open cases or any 
specific death penalty procedures.

(source: scnow.com)








FLORIDA:

Fla. death penalty faces scrutiny from Supreme Court



13 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, should 
decide death sentences, Florida stands alone in how its justice system imposes 
capital punishment.

"Florida's capital sentencing system is unique among all 33 American 
jurisdictions that permit capital punishment," the American Bar Association 
says in a brief filed before the nation's highest court. "Indeed, the Florida 
Supreme Court has characterized Florida as 'the outlier state.'"

Now the nation's highest court is poised to consider in its next term whether 
Florida needs to change its system for deciding whom to execute.

The issue concerns the role of juries in death penalty decisions. It's an 
aspect of the state's system of capital punishment that courts have struggled 
with for years.

In Florida, as in other states, when defendants are convicted of murder in a 
death penalty case, juries hear evidence regarding the existence of 
"aggravating factors," or aspects of the case that weigh in favor of a death 
sentence, as well as "mitigating factors," information that favors a sentence 
of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In recommending a sentence, a jury determines whether aggravating factors in a 
case outweigh the mitigating circumstances and justify the imposition of a 
death sentence.

But Florida juries, unlike most other states, are told their decisions are 
merely advisory, and that the judge will make the ultimate determination over 
whether to sentence a defendant to death. Trial judges in Florida are required 
to make their own, independent findings and are permitted to impose sentences 
different from jury recommendations.

Juries in Florida also are not required to reach unanimous decisions on the 
existence of specific aggravating factors or on whether to recommend a death 
sentence.

No other state allows the imposition of a death sentence without jurors either 
finding unanimously that a specific aggravating factor has been established or 
unanimously finding that capital punishment is appropriate.

The American Bar Association, which takes no position on the overall 
constitutionality of the death penalty, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to 
direct Florida to make changes and require jurors to specify which aggravating 
factors they have unanimously found to be present. The association wants the 
high court to require jurors to unanimously agree on the imposition of death 
sentences.

The American Bar Association reviewed the state's death penalty system in 2006 
and found the need to improve its fairness and accuracy.

Among the findings was that there was significant confusion among jurors in 
capital cases. "Research establishes that many Florida capital jurors do not 
understand their role and responsibilities when deciding whether to impose a 
death sentence," the association's report stated.

The ABA also concluded that not requiring jurors to be unanimous "reduces the 
jury's deliberation time and thus may diminish the thoroughness of the 
deliberations."

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 threw out Arizona's system of capital 
punishment, ruling it was unconstitutional because judges, not juries, 
determined the existence of aggravating factors and sentenced defendants to 
death.

Months later, the Florida Supreme Court left intact the state's system of 
capital punishment, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court had repeatedly 
reviewed it and found it constitutional.

The state's high court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear 
the appeal of one of the Florida defendants challenging the state system, even 
after it made the Arizona decision.

That Florida appeal involved Amos Lee King, who was later executed for the 1977 
murder of Natalie "Tillie" Brady inside her Tarpon Springs home. Brady was 
raped, stabbed and beaten while King was in a nearby prison work-release 
program.

The state Supreme Court called in 2005 for the state Legislature to make 
changes to the state's death penalty law to require unanimity in jury 
recommendations. But state lawmakers didn't act.

In the ensuing years, the state Supreme Court continued to hold that the 
state's death penalty system is constitutional. One of those rulings came in 
the Escambia County case of Timothy Lee Hurst, convicted of murdering coworker 
Cynthia Harrison in a robbery at Popeye's restaurant on May 2, 1998.

The state Supreme Court initially upheld Hurst's conviction and death sentence 
but later granted him a new penalty phase hearing on the grounds his original 
defense lawyer failed to properly present and investigate mitigating evidence 
relating to his borderline intelligence and possible brain damage. At the 
conclusion of the 2nd sentencing hearing, jurors returned a verdict of 7-5 in 
favor of death.

Hurst appealed again to the state Supreme Court, which upheld his death 
sentence, rejecting arguments that included assertions the jury should have 
been required to unanimously find a specific aggravating circumstance and 
unanimously decide his sentence.

The state Supreme Court noted in its Hurst ruling that it has previously 
concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Arizona case did not 
require juries to make specific findings of aggravating factors or to make 
unanimous decisions regarding death sentences. The Florida court refused to 
revisit its prior rulings.

Hurst also argued the jury should have been required to determine whether he 
was mentally disabled, a finding that would have barred the implementation of 
the death penalty. After hearing testimony from witnesses and experts, the 
trial judge ruled that Hurst was not mentally disabled.

The state Supreme Court ruled that although some states require such findings 
be made by juries, Florida is not one of those states, and the U.S. Supreme 
Court has not mandated that procedure.

Hurst appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in its 
next term, which begins in October.

(source: Tampa Bay Tribune)








LOUISIANA:

Reasoning in ruling wrong



The U.S. Supreme Court justices have done it again. They say Louisiana cannot 
execute the convicted murderer Kevan Brumfield because he is insane. I assume 
they applied what I consider the most asinine ruling ever made by that court. 
That ruling said that a State cannot execute a person who is incapable of 
knowing why he/she is being executed; their theory being that because such a 
person will not know why he/she is being executed the sentence has lost its 
"retributive value."

This ruling first came to my attention when, as an ADA in the early '90s, I 
handled a motion to stay the execution of Winthrop Earl Eaton, the murderer of 
the Rev. Lea Joyner. The motion said that although Eaton was sane when he 
killed Joyner and was sane when he was tried and convicted, he had since become 
insane and, because of the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling, he could not be 
executed.

The trial court decided that Eaton was in fact sane and denied the motion. The 
denial was upheld by the state Supreme Court and a new execution date was set. 
Eaton's attorney then filed a motion in the U.S. District Court, alleging that 
after the state court denied the motion to stay the exeuction, Eaton had became 
insane and could not be executed.

Other ADAs handled the new motion and I don't know the outcome. I have, 
however, searched the Internet and find that Eaton was not executed and is 
still housed by the Department of Corrections.

The reason I say the Supreme Court's ruling is asinine is that the 
"retribution" sought by the death penalty imposed on a murderer hasn't a thing 
to do with the his/her state of mind or feelings. Retribution is for the 
victim's friends, family and the public.

The death penalty's importance is in assuring the public that it is being 
adequately protected by the government and fulfills the public's need for 
vengeance. Not carrying out the penalty to avoid hurting the condemned person's 
feelings defeats these purposes and makes no sense.

Following the court's reasoning to its ridiculous conclusion, all criminals who 
become insane after sentencing should be released because they don't understand 
why they are being punished.

John Spires

West Monroe

(source: Letter to the Editor, The News Star)