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

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 7



TEXAS:

With his last words, a killer apologized to his victim's widow. Could she 
forgive him?


On Sept. 17, 1998, Juan Martin Garcia fatally shot Hugo Solano during a 
robbery. Garcia was a 18-year-old gang member with a long rap sheet and a 
reputation for violence. Solano was a Christian missionary who had just moved 
from Mexico to Houston to raise his 2 children in the United States.

For killing a good man, Garcia garnered just $8. He was caught 11 days later, 
convicted of murder, and sentenced to die.

On Tuesday evening, the heinous crime came full circle.

Garcia, now 35, lay on a gurney in a Texas execution chamber and used his final 
words to try to make peace with what he had done.

As real tears rolled down over the teardrop tattoos already at the corner of 
his eyes, he spoke to Ana Solano, Hugo's widow, and her daughter.

"The harm that I did to your dad and husband - I hope this brings you closure," 
he said, his voice breaking, according to the Associated Press. "I never wanted 
to hurt any of you all."

For almost 2 decades, Garcia had made excuses for the murder. Now he was 
apologizing.

But could Ana forgive him?

15 years ago, the answer was unclear.

On Feb. 21, 2000, Ana Solano took the stand in a Houston courtroom. Days 
earlier, a jury had found Garcia guilty of murdering her husband. Jurors had 
heard how Garcia was a teenage gangster with a record of theft, trespassing and 
assault. As a student, he had made a "terroristic threat" against one of his 
teachers.

Jurors also heard how Garcia and fellow gang members went on a brazen robbery 
spree in weeks before the murder, terrorizing Houston residents and seriously 
injuring several victims.

And they heard how Garcia rapped on the glass of Solano's truck window with his 
gun, just as the missionary was on his way to work on Sept. 17, 1998.

What happened next has been disputed ever since. Prosecutors said Garcia 
demanded Solano's money. When he refused, Garcia shot him 3 times and took his 
wallet - with only $8 in it.

In a videotaped confession, Garcia said he didn't mean to shoot Solano but 
pulled the trigger in a moment of panic. He was scared, he told police 
officers, and so was Solano.

"When we were leaving he still kept on talking to me," Garcia said in his 
confession, according to a Houston Chronicle article on the trial. "He was 
asking for help in Spanish."

"I beg of you, please don't take my son away from me," Garcia's mother, Esther, 
tearfully asked jurors.

But when it was Ana Solano's time to testify as to what sentence her husband's 
killer should receive, the Christian missionary equivocated.

"I can't say," she said on the stand. "That is why the jury is here and there 
is established law. All I know is that my husband is not coming back here.

"My loved one ...," she began before trailing off into tears, according to the 
Houston Chronicle.

It was hard to question the testimony of a grieving widow. After all, Ana had 
lost so much. She and her husband and their 2 kids had moved to Houston with 
hopes of a better life just two months before Hugo's murder. The slaying had 
taken a terrible toll on her family.

"In the beginning, they didn't want to go out. They just wanted to be around 
me," she said of her then-teenage children. "We were an extremely loving 
family. They loved their father very much."

Ana also had been tested by her husband's murder.

"I went into an intense depression," she told the court, according to the 
Houston Chronicle. "I did not want to speak to my family or talk on the phone. 
I knew if I continued in the same way, my children would suffer more so."

In the hopes of persuading the jury to spare Garcia's life, defense attorney 
Stephanie Martin asked Ana if, as a Christian missionary, she would rather see 
Garcia serve life in prison than face the death penalty.

"I feel badly as well for him," she said. "But to forgive your enemies is very 
difficult."

Jurors gave Garcia the death sentence.

For the past 15 years, Garcia tried to evade his sentence. He launched several 
unsuccessful appeals. And in an interview with the AP last month, he gave still 
more reasons why he didn't deserve to die. He was "railroaded," he claimed. He 
was on drugs during the incident and thought the missionary was going to try to 
kill him.

On Friday, however, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected Garcia's 
final petition for clemency.

And so it was that guards wheeled Garcia into a Huntsville prison's execution 
chamber on Tuesday night.

This time, Garcia didn't make any excuses. And Ana Solano didn't equivocate.

As the convict apologized for killing her husband, Ana and her daughter sobbed 
and said that they loved Garcia.

As pentobarbital flowed into the inmate's veins, Garcia winced, shook his head, 
gurgled and then stopped moving, according to the AP. Meanwhile, Ana and her 
daughter raised their arms in apparent prayer in a nearby witness room.

Afterward, Ana left no doubt that she had come to oppose the execution. Even 
murderers deserve to live so that they can teach others to avoid their 
mistakes, she said. "It's about God," she told the AP. "It's about Jesus."

As for the killer's apology, Ana said she had accepted it because it came "from 
his heart."

Garcia had not been granted the clemency he desperately sought, but he had 
received forgiveness.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Texas executes Juan Martin Garcia for murder in $8 robbery ---- Condemned man 
apologizes to victim's family before being killed by lethal injection, having 
filed no late appeals


A convicted killer in Texas was executed on Tuesday for fatally shooting 
another man in a robbery that yielded just $8.

No late appeals were filed for Juan Martin Garcia, who was lethally injected 
for the September 1998 killing and robbery of Hugo Solano in Houston. Solano, a 
Christian missionary from Guadalajara, Mexico, had moved his family to the city 
just weeks earlier so his children could be educated in the US.

Garcia, 35, apologized to Solano's relatives in Spanish ahead of the execution. 
Solano's wife and daughter sobbed and told the inmate they loved him. "The harm 
that I did to your dad and husband I hope this brings you closure," he said. "I 
never wanted to hurt any of you all."

He told his sister and several friends in English that he loved them. "No 
matter what, remember my promise," Garcia said. "No matter what, I will always 
be with you."

As the dose of pentobarbital began, he winced, raised his head and then shook 
it. He gurgled once and snored once before his movement stopped. He was 
pronounced dead 12 minutes later, at 6.26pm CDT.

In an interview with the Associated Press last month, Garcia acknowledged he 
shot Solano but denied the robbery, an accompanying felony that made it a 
capital case.

Garcia, who was linked to at least 8 aggravated robberies and two attempted 
murders in the weeks before and after Solano's death, also insisted jurors had 
unfairly penalized him because he didn't take the witness stand in his own 
defense at trial.

The US supreme court refused to review Garcia's case in March. The Texas pardon 
and parole board, in a 5-2 vote, refused a clemency request from Garcia last 
week.

The execution was the 11th this year in Texas, which carries out capital 
punishment more than any other US state.

Evidence at the 2000 trial and testimony from a companion identified Garcia, 
who was 18 at the time of the killing and a street gang member, as the 
ringleader of 4 men involved in Solano's shooting and robbery. The slaying and 
string of other violent crimes tied to Garcia convinced a Harris county jury he 
should be put to death.

3 more Texas inmates are scheduled for executions in upcoming weeks.

(source: The Guardian)

***********

Jury hears from Gabriel Hall's bunkmate in final testimony before closing 
arguments, deliberation


Attorneys rested their cases in Gabriel Hall's capital murder trial Tuesday, 
approaching the end of almost 4 1/2 weeks of court testimony from more than 100 
witnesses.

Both sides will have 90 minutes today to deliver closing arguments after the 
judge reads the jury's instructions. The jury will then begin deliberations.

Hall faces life in prison without parole or the death penalty for killing Edwin 
Shaar by stabbing and shooting him in his garage, and seriously injuring 
Shaar's wife, Linda, in October 2011.

Early in the day's testimony, a district attorney investigator shared his 
report from an interview with Brazos County inmate Justin Williamson, who was 
bunkmates with Hall in jail.

Williamson refused to testify. When he took the stand, he asked to be held in 
contempt of court. He said he didn't want to be a snitch and he felt like he 
had been tricked by the DA investigator.

Judge Bryan gave Williamson an additional 6 months in jail.

Greg Silber, the investigator, testified immediately after Williamson.

Silber said he interviewed Williamson in the jail twice, and both times he 
agreed to talk.

Silber said before the 2nd meeting, he showed Williamson the report from the 
1st interview and asked him to read it and make sure everything looked OK.

He said Williamson looked over the report and told him it was accurate. Silber 
said he did not try to trick Williamson.

Silber said Williamson told him Hall talked about standing with a gun over 
Karen Hall one night while she slept. He said Williamson also told him Hall 
requested a favor. Hall asked that once Williamson was out of jail, he go the 
Halls' lake house -- Hall gave him directions -- and said to break in and find 
a shotgun.

Silber said Hall asked Williamson to throw the shotgun into the lake as far as 
he could. After he got rid of the gun, Hall told him he was free to take what 
he wanted and burn the place down, according to Silber.

Silber said he does not know the significance of the shotgun.

Defense attorneys asked Silber if Williamson got a sense that Hall was just 
saying these things to try to look tough. Silber said he didn't get that 
impression from Williamson.

According to Silber, Hall also told Williamson what he thought about Karen 
Hall. Hall told him Karen Hall hated her children and deserved to be in jail 
for child abuse, Silber said.

Hall asked Williamson to do whatever he could to destroy Karen Hall through the 
media when he got out of jail.

Williamson said Hall was stronger than he looked. Hall stands at 5-feet 
6-inches tall and weighs about 120 pounds. Williamson said he would play-fight 
with Hall in the rec yard and said Hall knew how to perform "roundhouse kicks" 
and self-defense techniques.

Jurors also heard from Tim Proctor, a psychologist who interviewed Hall in jail 
and had differing opinions from the defense team's expert witnesses.

Proctor said he didn't observe any evidence in Hall that supported Bethany 
Brand's opinion that Hall had dissociative identity disorder.

Brand testified Hall would seem to shift personalities, and sometimes refer to 
another personality that he called "The Other Guy" or "The Sneering Guy."

Proctor said he never observed Hall do this. He pointed out one of the other 
expert witnesses who testified for the defense was also unsure about 
dissociative identity disorder.

Proctor said he believes Hall had some type of personality disorder, but no 
serious mental disorder.

He also said he didn't observe signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in Hall, 
saying not everyone who experiences trauma develops PTSD.

Defense Attorney John Wright asked Proctor if he was aware that the detectives 
who interviewed Hall described a change in his personality when he was talking 
about the crime.

Proctor said he was not.

One of the detectives testified in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial that 
Hall seemed timid at the start of his confession, but when he opened up about 
his crime, his demeanor changed and he seemed "happy to explain what he did."

Sequester is in effect, which means the jury will be taken to a hotel tonight 
if they haven't reached a verdict.

Judge Travis Bryan III said the jurors can deliberate for as long as they want 
before they decide to end for the night. He said he's waited at the courthouse 
until midnight with some juries.

(source: The Eagle)

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

Prosecution may seek death penalty in capital murder case


Ronald Jackson could face the death penalty if convicted.Ronald Jackson could 
face the death penalty if convicted.

Prosecutors will announce whether they'll seek the death penalty against the 
man accused of killing his girlfriend.

Ronald Jackson is accused of beating 38-year-old Jennifer Herrera to death last 
September. Jackson was charged with capital murder.

Her body was found inside a Westside home.

Charges were upgraded because prosecutors say Jackson kidnapped her with the 
intention of killing her.

He's scheduled to go to trial November 16th.

(source: KRIS TV news)






VIRGINIA:

Timing of execution raises concern


Not even Gov. Terry McAuliffe objected to last week's execution of Alfredo R. 
Prieto, having determined that carrying out the death penalty against the 
multiple murderer would create no miscarriage of justice.

And even death penalty critics acknowledge that no violation of law or policy 
occurred at execution.

But a question over timing deserves to be debated. State protocols may need to 
be tightened to prevent a future miscarriage of justice.

At the time of Mr. Prieto's execution, his attorneys had just filed a motion 
for a stay of execution with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's not at all clear that state officials even knew about the last-ditch 
request. But in any case, the question of timing is critical.

Mr. Prieto's execution was scheduled for 9:05 p.m. on Oct. 2.

At around 8:52 p.m., he was led into the execution area at the Greensville 
Correctional Center.

Just hours earlier his attorneys had sought a stay of execution from the 4th 
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The answer came back at 9 p.m.: The request was denied. The execution could 
move forward.

At 9:05, Mr. Prieto's lawyers sought a stay of execution from the Supreme 
Court. That was precisely the moment the execution was to have begun.

And begin it did. Mr. Prieto was injected with drugs at 9:06, and was 
pronounced dead at 9:17 p.m.

The final request for a stay overlapped the schedule for execution.

Lawyers say the state was notified at 9:13 p.m. that the Supreme Court had 
accepted - although not ruled on - their follow-up request for a stay. The 
governor's office says it received no such notification. But at 9:13, the 
lethal drugs already had been in Mr. Prieto's body for more than 10 minutes. In 
another 4 minutes, he would be dead.

The question now being asked by some is whether more time should have been 
allowed for a last-minute intervention.

In some states, prisoners are not even taken to the execution area until all 
legal options have been exhausted. In those states, Mr. Prieto would not have 
been led to the execution room until after the Supreme Court's decision; 
instead, he was ushered into the death chamber even while the Court of Appeals 
was considering his stay of execution.

Had that kind of delay occurred in Virginia, lawyers would have had time for 
their request to be docketed by the Supreme Court; there would have been no 
frantic concern about the few minutes' difference between life and death.

We do not mourn the execution of Alfred Prieto, who was convicted of rape and 
murder in 2 states and linked by DNA to still other atrocities.

But the tight schedule pursued by the state permits a disturbing margin of 
error. In matters of life and death, we must be certain we are right. Allowing 
time for all forms of legal intercession to be completed is the right thing to 
do.

(source: Editorial, The Daily Progress)

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

Matthew's defense requesting separate judge, secrecy and funds


The man accused of murdering a Virginia Tech and University of Virginia student 
will appear in court Wednesday.

Defense Lawyers for Jesse Matthew Jr., 33, want a separate judge to review 
funding requests for defense experts behind closed doors.

Matthew is facing a capital murder charge for allegedly abducting and killing 
18-year-old Hannah Graham at the Charlottesville's Downtown Mall in September 
2014.

This means he could potentially get the death penalty if he's convicted on that 
charge.

Court documents show Matthew's capital defender is seeking experts or services 
that would be a significant factor for the defendant.

Albemarle Co. Commonwealth's Attorney Denise Lunsford opposes the motion, 
saying a need for secrecy has not been demonstrated.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. Wednesday, Oct.7 at Albemarle 
County Circuit Court.

(source: WSLS news)






SOUTH CAROLINA:

Prosecutors Will Seek Death Penalty For Racist South Carolina Church Shooter 
Dylann Roof


The 21-year-old racist gunman who heartlessly took the lives of 9 Emmanuel AME 
Church members during a South Carolina bible study could possibly face the 
death penalty for his actions.

Trial prosecutors revealed Tuesday night that they plan to request the death 
penalty for murderer Dylann Roof on the grounds that he intentionally murdered 
more than 2 people while the putting the lives of countless others at risk, 
according to ABC News.

Survivors of the massacre along with the 9 victims' family members were also 
cited as having input on the decision of prosecutors to seek capital 
punishment, although some of them reportedly oppose the death penalty because 
of their religious beliefs and concern that the death penalty is too easy a 
punishment for the horrific nature of the crime committed.

Dylan Roof's trial date is currently set for sometime in July 2016.

(source: The Urban Daily)






FLORIDA----new execution date

Gov. Rick Scott orders 1st execution in 9 months


Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday approved the execution of Jerry Correll in late 
October, the 1st inmate in the state to be put to death in 9 months and 1st 
since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for Florida to continue its 
lethal injections.

Correll's execution was originally scheduled for February but was put on hold 
by the Florida Supreme Court. The justices worried that one of the drugs used 
by the state in executions might be ruled as unconstitutional "cruel and 
unusual punishment" by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This summer, however, the federal justices ruled that the drug midazolam - used 
by Florida and a few other states to paralyze inmates so their deaths are 
painless - is constitutional.

Critics said the drug might not be working as intended and suggested that 
people could be unable to move but still be conscious and in a great deal of 
pain during the execution.

After the higher court's decision, Correll and his lawyers made another 
unsuccessful appeal. Correll was convicted and sentenced to death for stabbing 
4 people in Orlando in 1985. All 4 died, including his ex-wife and 5-year-old 
daughter.

The Florida Supreme Court decided four days ago to lift the stay on his 
execution. Correll, 59, has exhausted all of his appeals.

Under Scott's order, Correll is scheduled to be executed at 6 p.m. Oct. 29.

His will be the 1st execution in Florida since Johnny Kormondy - convicted of 
fatally shooting a Pensacola banker in 1993 and raping his wife - was put to 
death Jan. 15. This marks one of the longest periods between executions since 
Scott became governor in 2011.

In recent years, the death penalty has been used less frequently nationwide, 
but Scott has bucked that trend. As governor, he has signed more death warrants 
than any of his predecessors since the death penalty came back into use in 
1977.

Jeb Bush, who ordered 21 executions during his 8 years in office, held the 
record until Scott came along. Correll will be the 22nd person executed under 
Scott.

"Signing death warrants is one of the governor's most solemn duties," Scott 
spokeswoman Jeri Bustamante said in a statement. "His foremost concerns are the 
families of the victims and the finality of judgments."

Critics like Mark Elliott, executive director of Floridians for Alternatives to 
the Death Penalty, say that the state should not continue executions because a 
person who has been wrongly put to death cannot be exonerated.

"Florida leads the nation with 25 people exonerated off our death row," Elliott 
said Tuesday in a statement. "Killing locked-up people is too dangerous, too 
expensive, and absolutely unnecessary."

(source: Miami Herald)

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

Death penalty trials weigh heavy on judges


In his 1st death penalty trial, Circuit Judge Jalal Harb faces a difficult 
decision.

The former prosecutor received little guidance from the jury after it narrowly 
recommended 7-5 that Terrence Barnett should die. Barnett, 34, was found guilty 
of felony murder in September in the fatal injury of Polk sheriff's Sgt. Ronnie 
Brown in 2009. Barnett pushed Brown against a wall, causing him to severely 
injure his back. Brown died in Winter Haven Hospital about a week after the 
incident.

Brown was well-liked and popular within the Sheriff's Office. Many of the 
bailiffs in the courthouse knew Brown and his wife, Albertina, who is a former 
detention deputy.

Polk Sheriff Grady Judd said Harb should sentence Barnett to die for his 
actions in the South County Jail cell.

"He planned it, he knew he was going to fight, and at the end of the day he 
deserves it," Judd said. "We will respect the judge's decision but he should 
die for killing Ronnie Brown."

Retired Seminole County Judge O.H. Eaton said any decision by a trial judge to 
send a defendant to death row after a 7-5 recommendation will likely be 
overturned.

Eaton, a death penalty expert who for years taught a week-long class for judges 
on how to try death penalty cases, said the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to 
hear arguments Oct. 13 on Hurst, Timothy v. Florida in which a man was 
sentenced to death for killing a co-worker at a Popeye's restaurant in 
Pensacola in 1998. Hurst robbed the store and stabbed a woman numerous times 
with a box cutter.

The jury voted 7-5 to recommend Hurst should be executed. That recommendation 
then went to a judge, who sentenced Hurst to death.

The appeal focuses on Florida's lack of requirement for unanimous jury 
decisions for the death penalty. Florida is the only state in the nation that 
allows seven votes for a recommendation of death.

In Florida, the jury is selected for a penalty phase to decide the question of 
whether a defendant should receive life imprisonment or the death penalty. 
Prosecutors argue specific statutory requirements, called aggravating 
circumstances, for a death sentence.

The jury makes a recommendation to a judge, who is required to give the jury's 
recommendation "great weight," according to Florida law.

Eaton said that jury recommendations of death are "essentially meaningless" to 
judges because they don't provide specifics about "aggravators" that may 
justify a death sentence.

"We don't get information from it," Eaton said. "The judge is supposed to give 
great weight, whatever that means."

Eaton predicts the Supreme Court will overturn the state's guidelines, 
particularly the non-unanimous verdict. That would leave Barnett with a life 
sentence.

Every death sentence by a trial judge goes before the Florida Supreme Court. 
Those justices ultimately determine if the punishment fits the crime in a 
proportionality review, Chief Judge Donald Jacobsen said. For example, justices 
may investigate if Barnett intended to murder Brown.

Bob Norgard, a lawyer for Barnett, has argued that Brown's death was not 
premeditated.

"No one had any reason to believe it was going to happen," Norgard told jurors 
in September.

But Hope Pattey, assistant state attorney, has said that Barnett had a plan to 
injure any guard in the South County Jail. Months before he pushed Brown, 
Barnett told a detention deputy that he would "hurt any officer I can get my 
hands on."

DECISIONS WEIGH ON JUDGES

Jury recommendations for death are often dicey for judges.

Retired Circuit Judge Michael Hunter sentenced 4 people to die and presided 
over 37 murder trials during his time on the bench.

Hunter overruled a 7-5 recommendation for death in 2010 in the case of Eric 
Rodriguez, who was found guilty in the slaying of 17-year-old Angelia "Angel" 
Headrick.

"It made me really nervous," Hunter said of the 7-5 ruling. "He's got a tough 
decision to make," Hunter said of Harb's decision.

While researching the case, Hunter said he learned numerous 7-5 recommendations 
for death in the state had been reversed by the Supreme Court.

He said he couldn't determine why justices affirmed some decisions then 
reversed other 7-5 recommendations. "I didn't see a clear cut answer," Hunter 
said.

And Hunter said that was before the Florida Supreme Court voiced support for a 
unanimous vote during the sentencing phase of the death penalty and urged state 
lawmakers to change the law.

Harb, 58, declined comment for this story. He replaced Jacobsen this summer as 
the primary judge for murder cases in Polk, Highlands and Hardee counties. The 
2 judges have spoken in general terms about the Barnett case, Jacobsen said.

"I've been staying abreast of it," Jacobsen said of the Barnett case.

Jacobsen had a 9-3 recommendation for the death of Roy Phillip Ballard reversed 
by the Florida Supreme Court.

"The state had proven the murder occurred and the aggravators outweighed the 
mitigators," Jacobsen said. "I was duty bound under the law."

In a 13-page opinion, a majority of Supreme Court justices by a vote of 5-2 
agreed there was "competent, substantial evidence" to support Ballard's 
conviction for 1st-degree murder. However, the justices felt the death penalty 
was too harsh a punishment when compared with other murder cases.

Ballard was convicted of killing his stepdaughter in a complex plan that 
included making her body disappear. Her body has never been found.

The Barnett case likely has a couple of months before Harb makes a decision. 
Norgard, who did not return a phone message, will have the opportunity to 
present additional evidence to Harb to help save Barnett's life.

Byron Hileman, a lawyer who has worked on dozens of death penalty cases, said 
it is typically a time when a defense lawyer may present more complex evidence, 
such as psychiatric testimony, that may have a greater impact on a judge rather 
than a jury.

The 7-5 decision clearly indicates there was disagreement over the validity of 
some evidence. But Hileman said it's unlikely and rare a judge will overturn a 
jury recommendation.

"It has to be clear cut," Hileman said.

(source: The Ledger)