[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----UTAH, ARIZ., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 6



UTAH:

Attorneys argue over inmate's alleged murder confession letters----A prison 
inmate who faces a potential death penalty if convicted of killing his 
cellmate, allegedly wrote a letter to the Sanpete County Attorney's Office 
confessing his crime.


A prison inmate who faces a potential death penalty if convicted of killing his 
cellmate, allegedly wrote a letter to the Sanpete County Attorney's Office 
confessing his crime.

But attorneys for Steven Crutcher, 34, are now trying to have that confession 
thrown out before his trial, which is scheduled to begin in April.

On April 20, 2013, Rolando Cardona-Gueton, 62, was found dead in his cell at 
the Central Utah Correctional Facility in Gunnison. Officials weren't sure 
initially if his death was a homicide or a suicide.

After several months of investigation, Crutcher was charged in Manti's 6th 
District Court with aggravated murder, a capital offense. In July of 2014, 
prosecutors filed notice of their intent to seek the death penalty.

On July 24, 2013, Crutcher handed a letter to the officer investigating the 
death. The letter was addressed to the Sanpete County attorney. The next day, 
Crutcher was asked to write on the envelope specifically who the letter was 
intended for so there would be no confusion. He wrote Sanpete County Attorney 
Brody Keisel's name, according to court documents filed in September. Crutcher 
was charged with aggravated murder 2 months later.

Crutcher's attorney, Ed Brass, wants the letter thrown out. He argued in court 
documents that his client should have been appointed an attorney immediately 
after Cardona-Gueton was found dead. He also contends that Crutcher's statement 
was coerced.

"A lawyer should have been appointed for Mr. Crutcher when he asked for a 
lawyer. Because that did not happen, his statements and letters subsequent to 
the request must be suppressed. He could not have knowingly and intelligently 
waived his Miranda rights without first being given access to an attorney to 
consult on the matter. Independently of this issue, his statements must be 
suppressed because they are the product of coercion by the state," Brass wrote 
in court documents.

The Sanpete County Attorney's Office, however, argued that because it was 
originally a suicide investigation, Crutcher didn't need an attorney present.

"Defendant was not being investigated for a homicide when he invoked his 
Miranda rights, and thus his analysis of death penalty precedent is irrelevant. 
Further, attaching a right to counsel prior to charges being filed would be in 
direct conflict with existing case law and with the distinction recognized by 
the Utah Supreme Court between investigation and charging. In addition, 
defendant's testimony showed no sign of being coerced," according to documents 
filed by the Utah Attorney General's Office on Sept. 30.

Oral arguments were given by both sides in court on Friday. Crutcher's next 
court hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

Although Crutcher's alleged letter of confession has been sealed in court, 
documents filed in September in 6th District Court note that "Crutcher's 
confession and explanation of how the murder took place" includes "statements 
that the murder was performed with a ligature he removed from the crime scene."

Cardona-Gueton, a native Cuban, was in prison on a conviction of drug 
possession.

Race is believed to be a motivating factor in the killing.

A 2nd letter allegedly confessing to the murder was also intercepted by the 
Department of Corrections. According to a motion filed by the state in April to 
have Crutcher's confession admitted in court: "The state has filed a motion 
asking the court to take judicial notice that Adolf Hitler's date of birth is 
April 20. April 20 is the day that defendant murdered Cardona-Gueton after 
months of sharing a cell with him. The motion ... and the date of the murder 
reinforce the probative value of the 2 written confessions because they contain 
racial epithets and white supremacist slang and defendant's description of 
himself as a 'neo-Nazi skinhead.'"

Prosecutors also said that in Crutcher's letter, he also wrote that he killed 
Cardona-Gueton to get his "bolts." "At trial the state will argue that 'the 
bolts' are 'Schutzstaffel bolts,' which white supremacist gang members use to 
identify themselves. Thus, the very language of the 2 written confessions and 
the significance of the date of the murder are relevant to the proof of the 
crime and probative of defendant???s guilt," according to the state's motion.

At the time of the killing, Crutcher was serving a 10-years-to-life sentence 
for kidnapping an Iron County Jail officer. On July 1, 2009, Crutcher had just 
finished talking to someone in the jail's visiting area and was walking back to 
his cell when he grabbed a female corrections officer and pulled her into a 
port area between the main facility and a secondary lobby. As he grabbed the 
officer, he pulled a device out from under his shirt that appeared to be a pipe 
bomb and ordered the officer to open the door.

The escape attempt failed and the bomb turned out to be fake.

(source: Deseret News)






ARIZONA:

2 more sentenced in 2010 death of local Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry


More than a year after the 1st man was convicted in the 2010 slaying of U.S. 
Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, 2 more men were convicted for their part in 
the murder. That brings the total to 4 men held accountable for his death.

Terry, 40, was killed Dec. 14, 2010, during a gunfight in southern Arizona near 
the U.S.-Mexico border. He was part of an elite tactical unit investigating 
weapons' smuggling by Mexican drug cartels.

The operation, called "Fast and Furious" by federal authorities, allowed guns 
to be sold to criminals so they could be tracked back across the border.

Prior to joining the Border Patrol, Terry, a Flat Rock native, worked for the 
Lincoln Park and Ecorse police departments.

Jesus Leonel Sanchez-Meza, also known as Lionel Portillo-Meza, and Ivan 
Soto-Barraza were convicted for belonging to a crew that was planning to rob 
drug smugglers when they encountered Terry and other agents.

Defense attorneys tried to claim that the men were not there to commit a 
robbery and that the shooting was done in self-defense. They were both 
convicted despite those claims.

The 2 men could face the death penalty once sentenced.

Earlier this year another member of the crew, Rosario Rafael Burboa-Alvarez, 
pleaded guilty for his role in the firefight. In exchange for his admission, he 
was sentenced to 30 years in prison, allowing him to avoid the death penalty.

Last year, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder to avoid 
the death penalty. He will be deported to Mexico after he serves his sentence 
in a federal prison.

Terry's family filed a $25 million wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2012, saying he was 
killed because of the failed operation. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

According to the lawsuit: "The murder of Agent Terry and other acts of violent 
crimes were the natural consequences of ATF's decision to let dangerous weapons 
'walk' into the hands of violent drug-trafficking gangs."

In 2013, the Border Patrol named a boat in Terry's honor during a ceremony at 
the Elizabeth Park Marina in Trenton. Earlier this year, a statue was erected 
in his honor at the Border Patrol base in Bisbee, Ariz., also renamed in his 
honor.

The statue depicts Terry carrying a fellow soldier on his shoulders and is 
based off a photo that family members called "iconic" in nature.

(source: The News-Herald)





OREGON:

Gov. Brown, will you enforce the death penalty?


Now that Gov. Kate Brown has made it official that she'll be a candidate in 
2016 for the state's highest office, the pressure will be mounting on her to 
address a question that her predecessor, John Kitzhaber, managed to duck: Where 
will she stand if it comes time to enforce Oregon's death penalty?

A recent story in The Oregonian reminded us of one of Brown's earliest promises 
when she assumed office in the wake of Kitzhaber's February resignation: She 
said she would convene a small group of advisers to help her think through the 
issue. The important thing, she said, was for voters to have a clear sense of 
her position in the event she stood for election in 2016.

Well, now one of those shoes has officially dropped, although it didn't exactly 
qualify as a surprise: Brown confirmed last week that she'll be running next 
year.

So what's the status of the other shoe? Brown's office told The Oregonian that 
it's just getting started now on its study of the issue. Brown spokeswoman 
Kristen Grainger told the newspaper that office attorney Ben Souede will lead 
an effort to get "legal advice on the practical aspects related to capital 
punishment in Oregon."

Sounds good so far. But here's the catch: Grainger said the goal is to have 
recommendations in place before the fall of 2016 - which means those 
recommendations could come after the election.

Which means voters may be casting ballots without any much of a sense where 
Brown stands on the issue.

You'll recall that Kitzhaber imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in 
Oregon in 2011, saying that he believed capital punishment had "devolved into 
an unworkable system that fails to meet the basic standards of justice. . I am 
still convinced that we can find a better solution that holds offenders 
accountable and keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their 
families and reflects Oregon values."

Here's the problem with invoking Oregon values in this case: The last time 
voters weighed in on the issue, they supported the death penalty. It's true 
that 3 decades have passed since that vote, and it may be that voters' values 
have changed since then. But we don't know for sure (a 2012 poll suggested that 
57 % of Oregonians still support the death penalty), and neither Kitzhaber nor 
Brown has seemed eager to push the issue.

Brown has said she personally opposes the death penalty. But she has declined 
to rule out reinstating executions, as she tries to find a balance between her 
views and her duty to enforce the laws of the state. She's raised questions 
about the logistics of capital punishment, which suggests she may be looking to 
find a safe harbor from which to maintain the state's moratorium.

She appears to have the luxury of time: None of the state's 35 death row 
inmates is facing execution any time soon. But as she hits the campaign trail 
next year, voters should press Brown to explain exactly how she intends to deal 
with the death penalty, which, after all, remains the law of the state.

(source: The Statesman Journal)






USA:

What's wrong with executions? Breyer offers opinions; 6 capital convictions to 
be reviewed


Justice Stephen G. Breyer has a couple reasons why he wants to hear arguments 
from both sides on the constitutionality of capital punishment.

Breyer called for briefing on the issue in a dissent, joined by Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg, in a June decision that upheld the use of the execution drug 
midazolam. In an interview with MSNBC, Breyer explained why he's ready to 
examine the issue.

Sometimes the wrong person is convicted in a capital case, he said, and 
sometimes the person executed isn't the most deserving of the death penalty. 
"Often it's very arbitrary as to who gets executed - it's not the worst of the 
worst, very often," he said.

"The risk of arbitrariness is so great, and the risk of the risk of the wrong 
person is enough, and the length of time [between conviction and execution] is 
so long, it's like being hit by lightning 40 years later," he said. "And all 
that put together convinced me that there is a good case to be made under the 
constitutional provision, is it a cruel and unusual punishment."

The Supreme Court has so far agreed to hear capital punishment cases involving 
six defendants in the term that begins on Monday, the Wall Street Journal (sub. 
req.) reports.

"None of the death penalty cases scheduled so far represents a full-on assault 
on capital punishment," according to the Wall Street Journal. "Instead the 
court has taken cases that give them the opportunity to calibrate capital 
punishment, as it has done in fits and starts since reaffirming the death 
penalty as constitutional in 1976."

2 Kansas cases reach the Supreme Court on Wednesday. At issue in 1 case is 
whether 2 brothers convicted in the deaths of 5 people should have received 
separate sentencing hearings. At issue in that case and a 2nd Kansas case is 
whether a trial judge should have instructed jurors that mitigating factors in 
the death penalty determination need not be found beyond reasonable doubt.

In October, the court will consider whether Florida judges have too much 
discretion in capital sentencing. In November the court will hear a case 
involving peremptory strikes of prospective black jurors. Another pending case, 
granted last Thursday, considers whether a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice 
should have recused himself in a death penalty case because he approved the 
capital prosecution when he was district attorney.

(source: ABA Journal)

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

The Supreme Court's 2015 Term: Inside the Key Cases and Big Issues


ISSUE TO WATCH

The death penalty.

At the end of last term, 2 justices - Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 
announced in their dissenting opinion in Glossip v. Gross that they had 
concluded that the death penalty was most likely unconstitutional as a general 
matter. This is a very significant development - since the court reinstated the 
death penalty in 1976 (between 1972 and 1976 the court imposed a de facto 
moratorium on the death penalty, finding that the arbitrariness of its 
imposition rendered it unconstitutional), very few justices have concluded that 
the death penalty is unconstitutional.

The Glossip dissent changed that. And, although justices Elena Kagan and Sonia 
Sotomayor did not join the Breyer/Ginsburg opinion, their separate opinion was 
deeply troubled by the court's rejection of the petitioner's 
method-of-execution claim. They wrote that the majority opinion "leaves 
petitioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned 
at the stake." And Justice Antonin Scalia said at an event last month that 
there were 4 votes on the court right now to hold the death penalty 
unconstitutional.

The court has a number of death penalty cases on its docket this term, and it 
may yet take more. None of these cases squarely raises the question of the 
constitutionality of the death penalty. But there may be an appetite for 
engaging with the question, for the first time in quite some time.

(source: ABC news)

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

Why the American death penalty system is broken


In late September, the Supreme Court refused to stay the execution of Richard 
Glossip, whose conviction on a charge of murder has been strongly called into 
question. However, his execution was stayed at the last minute by Oklahoma Gov. 
Mary Fallin. Glossip's fate remains unclear, but we can be certain of one 
thing: The American death penalty system is irretrievably broken.

This was not the first time Glossip's case has come before the Supreme Court. 
In its most recent term, a bare majority of the court decided that Oklahoma's 
death penalty protocol did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," even 
though its lethal injection procedure entailed a substantial risk of death by 
torture. The logic of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion was chilling. 
Essentially, by definition, Oklahoma must have the capacity to execute people, 
even if private individuals and organizations do not wish to collaborate. So 
torturing people to death isn't "cruel and unusual punishment" if it's the 
state's only option.

In the latest stay, the protocol was again at issue. The state did not, of 
course, decide that the risk of torturing people to death per se was 
unacceptable. However, the state was unable to procure 1 of the drugs necessary 
for its lethal injection cocktail, forcing it to suspend all executions to get 
the problem sorted out. The Keystone Kops nature of Oklahoma's machinery of 
death would be comic if its goals were not so immoral and inhumane.

Glossip - who prior to the stay was in his cell, wearing only his underwear, 
believing he was less than 5 minutes away from being escorted to his death - 
has been on an ugly mental funhouse ride. He has faced multiple execution 
dates, and remains uncertain about when and if a possibly painful death awaits 
him. As Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in June observes, the uncertainty that 
prevails over the death penalty system is in itself a form of cruelty that 
should be forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.

All of this comes on top of the fact that the state's case against Glossip is 
very weak. Glossip did not kill Barry Van Trees, and the state's theory that he 
conspired with Justin Sneed to do so rests almost entirely on Sneed's 
uncorroborated testimony. And at least 2 fellow inmates - who, unlike Sneed, 
have nothing to gain by lying - have said that Sneed boasted about setting 
Glossip up to save himself from the death penalty.

This is, in other words, not exactly a rock-solid conviction. There is a very 
substantial possibility that if Oklahoma eventually decides to go ahead, it 
will be torturing an innocent man to death.

And yet, only Justice Breyer dissented from the Supreme Court's refusal to 
grant a stay. How could it be possible that even three relatively liberal 
justices would allow this execution to proceed?

The problem is that even though Glossip's moral case is strong, his legal case 
is much less so. For better or worse, appellate courts place great weight on 
the "finality of judgment." Even if a judge disagrees with Justice Antonin 
Scalia's view that it does not violate due process for the state to execute a 
factually innocent person who was given a procedurally fair trial, Glossip 
represents a trickier case. He does not have, say, exonerating DNA evidence and 
an unshakeable alibi affirmatively demonstrating his innocence. The state does 
not have a very good case that he is guilty, but we do not know for a fact that 
he is innocent.

Appellate courts are therefore not well equipped to deal with this kind of gray 
area. This is where governors need to step in with their powers to commute the 
sentences and/or pardon people convicted of crimes. At the very least, Fallin 
should ensure that Glossip is not executed. But public officials who are 
inclined to support the death penalty, particularly in red states where they 
also face electoral pressure to be extra-tough on crime, cannot be trusted to 
do the right thing.

This is the reality of the death penalty. A division of labor is set up in 
which numerous officials, operating within their formal legal authority, act in 
concert to produce a flagrantly unjust outcome for which no one person is 
responsible. As the legal scholar Mark Graber puts it, "Richard Glossip is 
likely to be executed because capital punishment enhances prosecutorial power 
to secure unreliable and arbitrary death sentences."

This is simply not a system that can be defended. It is becoming increasingly 
difficult to disagree with Justice Breyer's conclusion in June that the death 
penalty is categorically unconstitutional. Even if the death penalty could pass 
constitutional muster in the abstract, in practice it cannot be applied without 
violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Glossip's case is merely one 
example of far too many.

(source: Opinion, Scott Lemieux; The Week)