[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, DEL., N.C., FLA., ALA.

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 9



TEXAS:

State Bar board affirms disbarment of prosecutor who sent innocent man to death 
row


The disciplinary board of the Texas State Bar on Monday affirmed the agency's 
decision to disbar Charles Sebesta, the former prosecutor who oversaw the 
wrongful death sentence of Anthony Graves.

Graves, who spent 18 years in prison, including 12 on death row, for a fiery 
multiple murder he did not commit, filed a complaint against Sebesta in January 
2014. He asked the Bar to hold Sebesta accountable for withholding critical 
evidence of his innocence.

"The bar stepped in to say that's not the way our criminal justice system 
should work," Graves said. "This is a good day for justice."

In June, the Texas State Bar revoked the former Burleson County district 
attorney's law license finding that he had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct 
in Graves' case.

Sebesta appealed that ruling, and last month his lawyers told the State Bar of 
Texas Board of Disciplinary Appeals that he should not be disbarred based on 
technicalities in the rules that govern lawyer discipline. They argued that in 
2007 the Bar had already ruled that there was no cause to disbar Sebesta and 
that the agency couldn't change its mind in response to a new complaint Graves 
filed.

But a lawyer for the commission for lawyer discipline at the State Bar argued, 
among other things, that lawmakers in 2013 had changed the statute of 
limitations governing prosecutor discipline specifically to allow the kind of 
sanction Sebesta faced. Under the new law, those who have been wrongly 
convicted have up to four years after their release to seek discipline against 
prosecutors who engage in conduct such as withholding evidence and eliciting 
false testimony.

Graves was sentenced to death in 1994 and close to execution twice. The U.S. 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Graves' conviction in 2010. The court 
found that Sebesta secured Graves' conviction through several instances of 
prosecutorial wrongdoing, including withholding key evidence and suborning 
false testimony.

In their ruling on the Sebesta's disbarment Monday, the disciplinary board 
called his conduct in the Graves case "egregious."

The board's decision on Sebesta's appeal is final.

(source: Dallas Morning News)






DELAWARE:

Moral Monday rallies target Delaware's death penalty


About 20 people stood outside Dover's Legislative Hall on Monday morning, 
chanting and holding signs that called for an end to the state's death penalty.

Organizers promised to hold more of the rallies, called Moral Monday protests, 
to try and pressure lawmakers into ending the punishment.

"Lawmakers cannot just reject our desire to repeal the death penalty at the 
outset of the legislative session and expect us to simply go away," said the 
Rev. Donald Morton, executive director of the Complexities of Color coalition. 
"We intend to be here every week making a lot of noise with old fashioned 
protests, speeches and rallies to remind the politicians that they can't keep 
ignoring these festering issues of basic human rights."

A bill to abolish the state's death penalty failed in the state House of 
Representatives last month, 23-16. Organizers said they plan to push lawmakers 
to listen to their constituents.

"This is a growing coalition. More folks are going to come," said Jeremy 
Collins, a member of Delaware Repeal Project. "There are going to be 
demonstrations all across the state, but we're going to occupy this space until 
the Delaware Legislature makes up their mind that they are going to do the 
right thing."

Kristin Froehlich, board president of the Delaware Citizens Opposed to the 
Death Penalty, said people should know that the death penalty does not bring 
the closure that lawmakers think. Because most death penalty cases linger in 
the court system for more than a decade, Froehlich said families of victims are 
often re-traumatized when the matter comes up for appeals.

Ending the death penalty brings legal finality and allows survivors to move 
forward, said Froehlich, whose brother was murdered in Connecticut in 1995.

"My Christian values support life," she said. "They don't support murder. They 
don't support killing."

While state lawmakers are not in session on Mondays, Morton explained that 
Moral Monday is a movement started in 2013 by the Rev. William Barber II, 
pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina, and 
president of the North Carolina NAACP.

The rallies, started in response to several actions by North Carolina's 
government, have been characterized by civil disobedience.

"We wanted to make sure that there is a consistent proverbial badgering of 
individuals who have consistently voted 'No' against repeal," Morton said. "And 
to let them know that not only is it us symbolically gathering like this, but 
it is also to let them know that for those that occupy those seats that have 
voted 'No' continually that we want to make sure that we want candidates that 
vote 'Yes.'"

(source: The News Journal)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Prosecutors to seek death penalty against Griffin


Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty against an Asheville man charged 
with murder in the deaths of 3 people, including 2 women whose disappearance 
sparked a week-long search of the French Broad River.

The office of Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams on Wednesday 
filed a request for a Rule 24 hearing in the case of Pierre Lamont Griffin II, 
23. The hearing is typically a formality, required when state prosecutors want 
to notify the court that they intend to seek capital punishment.

It is the 2nd time Williams has requested such a hearing since he assumed the 
office 13 months ago.

The hearing request comes days after a Buncombe County grand jury indicted 
Griffin on 3 counts of 1st-degree murder stemming from a series of Oct. 27 
shootings.

Officers allege that Griffin killed Tatianna Diz, 20, and Alexandra King, 22, 
before dumping their bodies in the French Broad. Their remains were found near 
a train trestle on Emma Road in the River Arts District more than a week later.

Shortly after those shootings, according to officials, Griffin went to the 
Pisgah View Apartments home of Uhon Trumanne Johnson, 31, fatally shooting him 
before leading police on a high-speed chase across three counties.

In addition to other charges related to the deaths and the chase, Griffin was 
also indicted in connection with the theft of three motorcycles in July 2015 
from a Candler man.

That man, Kenneth Cryderman, on Monday said Griffin was a sophomore at Reynolds 
High School when he became friends with Crydermans' oldest son, also in high 
school at the time. Griffin, well-liked and bright, soon became a fixture in 
the family, including accompanying them on a trip to Myrtle Beach.

"Pierre was a very, very smart kid, a beautiful kid," Cryderman said. The 
charges were a shock, he said.

Griffin, he said, had asked to borrow a truck to move furniture while the 
family was on vacation. When Cryderman returned and realized the small, 
2-stroke engine dirt bikes were missing, he confronted Griffin.

One had been taken to a pawn shop, where Buncombe County sheriff's deputies 
recovered it; two others had been ridden "full out, until the tops blew out of 
them," according to Cryderman, a general contractor.

"At that point, I cut him out of our lives," he said. In the previous several 
months, Griffin had sporadically worked for Cryderman's company doing odd jobs, 
but seemed like he was deteriorating.

"He would do anything from digging holes to building houses and he would do 
anything you asked him to do," Cryderman said. "But he was very erratic."

Cyderman said he feared Griffin was suffering from drug abuse. "He was 
struggling to just to get through the day."

(source: Asheville Citizen-Times)






FLORIDA:

A bill requiring a jury to have a unanimous verdict for recommending the death 
penalty is moving through the Florida Senate


The legislation (SB 7068) passed the Criminal Justice Committee on Monday.

Last week, the House passed a measure that requires only nine of 12 jurors to 
recommend capital punishment. Both chambers would prohibit a judge imposing the 
death penalty if the jury recommends life in prison without parole. A judge 
though could decide on life in prison, even if the jury recommends death.

Both chambers are tasked with revising Florida's sentencing process after the 
U.S. Supreme Court ruled the current method unconstitutional last month because 
it allowed a judge to decide independently whether there were necessary 
aggravating circumstances.

Sen. Greg Evers says he believes there are enough votes in the Senate for the 
bill to pass.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Bill requiring unanimous verdict for death penalty advances


Legislation requiring a unanimous verdict from the jury to recommend the death 
penalty will head to the state Senate floor after passing a committee vote 
Monday.

The Senate's Criminal Justice Committee passed its version of a bill (SB 7068) 
that would revise Florida's sentencing process for the death penalty.

The Legislature is tasked with rewriting how to sentence someone to death after 
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the current method unconstitutional. In an 8-1 
ruling last month in Hurst vs. Florida, the court said the sixth amendment was 
violated because state law allowed a judge to decide independently whether 
necessary aggravating circumstances exist.

The Senate and House bills are mostly similar except for one key matter: what 
it takes for the jury to agree to the death penalty. The Senate bill (SB 7068) 
requires a unanimous decision of all 12 jurors, but the House measure (PCB CRJS 
16-07) requires only 9. Current Florida law requires a simple majority of 7.

"We're going to move our bill forward, because we believe that is what the 
Supreme Court says and that we are not an outlier with the other states," said 
Sen. Greg Evers, who is committee chairman.

According to data compiled by the Florida Supreme Court's Clerk's office, only 
69 of 330 death penalty cases - 21 % - in the past 15 years had unanimous jury 
verdicts. The Senate committee said in its analysis of the bill that a decline 
in death penalty sentences was likely, but the level is undetermined based on 
the data because only a simple majority was needed in previous cases.

Both chambers are similar on other key points, including notifying defendants 
in sufficient time that prosecutors will seek the death penalty at the 
arraignment (45 days for Senate, 30 days for House), a jury having to 
unanimously agree on all aggravating factors and a judge not being able to 
override the jury's recommendation of life without parole by imposing the death 
penalty.

Florida was the only state remaining that called for a simple majority to find 
the presence of a sufficient number of aggravating factors. Now, if it isn't 
unanimous, life without parole can be the only sentence.

Public defenders support the Senate version while state attorneys are opposed 
because of unanimity. The prosecutors do agree with the House version.

Mark Schlakman, the senior program director of Florida State University's 
Center for the Advancement of Human Rights, said he believes the Senate bill is 
stronger because it responds to the Hurst vs. Florida ruling in a stronger way.

"If the Legislature in an effort to reconcile goes on the lowest common 
denominator (9-3 or 10-2, like Alabama) that doesn't insulate Florida from 
constitutional scrutiny," he said.

Evers said there is the possibility of some negotiations with the House but he 
believes that the Senate's bill has enough votes to pass.

Rep. Carlos Trujillo, who oversaw the House bill that passed committee last 
week, said the process is far from finished. The Legislature must agree by the 
end of session March 11. Florida has 389 inmates on death row, 157 of which 
have been there for more than 20 years. Florida is second to California in 
inmates sentenced to death.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Hillsborough prosecutors continue to seek death penalty amid statewide 
confusion


In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Florida's death 
penalty sentencing statute, Hillsborough County prosecutors are proceeding as 
if nothing has changed.

On Monday, prosecutors announced their intention to seek the death penalty 
against a 30-year-old woman accused of murdering her parents-in-law in their 
Riverview home last November. Marisol Best, who has pleaded not guilty to two 
counts of 1st-degree murder, is the latest to join the list of defendants who 
could face the death penalty in Hillsborough.

Currently, there are at least 17 such cases, the oldest of which has been 
awaiting trial for more than 5 years.

Prosecutors did not elaborate on their decision, but since the Supreme Court's 
ruling last month in a case called Hurst vs. Florida, prosecutors statewide 
have argued forcefully that the court's decision requires minor adjustments to 
state law and should not prevent death penalty cases from going forward.

This line of reasoning is only beginning to be tested in the courts. A Pinellas 
County circuit judge recently ruled the state can't seek the death penalty in a 
1st-degree murder case that was scheduled for trial this month.

"This court concludes that there currently exists no death penalty in the State 
of Florida in that there is no procedure in place," wrote judge Michael 
Andrews.

In the Hurst decision, the Supreme Court said Florida's unusual sentencing 
procedure is unconstitutional because it does not give enough authority to 
jurors, who play an advisory role in recommending life or death. Judges must 
consider the jury's vote, but they can act independently, sentencing defendants 
to life or death regardless of the jury's opinion.

Since the Hurst decision came out, Hillsborough prosecutors have filed notices 
to seek the death penalty 3 times. Other than Best, the state's recent targets 
include a 46-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a homeless woman and 
killing her and her male companion, as well as a 21-year-old man who 
authorities say beat an elderly woman to death during a robbery. He made off 
with $30.

Hillsborough public defenders are pushing back, using the court's decision as a 
cudgel against what they see as an alarmingly high number of capital cases. 
Last month, they filed a motion asking a judge to bar prosecutors from seeking 
the death penalty against Carlos Ruben Rivas, 52, who has been charged with 
killing a homeless man in Tampa in 2012.

"The Supreme Court's ruling in Hurst basically eliminated the State's authority 
to impose death as a sentencing option," wrote Hillsborough Assistant Public 
Defender Theda James.

Prosecutors responded by arguing that the court's decision didn't invalidate 
the death penalty, but merely a facet of the state's sentencing scheme. With 
Rivas' trial scheduled for April, lawmakers would have plenty of time to amend 
the statute, they said.

Simply filing a notice to seek the death penalty does not mean prosecutors 
ultimately will.

Last week, without explanation, Hillsborough prosecutors withdrew the threat of 
the death penalty from the case of Rubin Jay Brooks, a man accused of a double 
homicide in Plant City. They did the same in 2014 to Julie Schenecker, who was 
convicted of fatally shooting her two teenage children. Shortly before her 
high-profile trial, prosecutors decided her mental health issues were so severe 
that the state Supreme Court would likely reject a future death sentence.

But as defense attorneys are quick to note, prosecutors' decision to seek the 
death penalty colors everything about a case, from how slowly it moves through 
the court system, to the experience required of the attorneys who work on it, 
to the final bill shouldered by taxpayers.

"If I've got over a dozen of these cases pending and I've got 4 or 5 lawyers 
that are death-qualified, it could reasonably take us 5 or 6 years to try those 
cases," Hillsborough Public Defender Julianne Holt said in an interview last 
month.

"I would venture to say that everyone is feeling the pressure of the number of 
cases we have," she said.

(source: Tampa Bay Times)

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

Florida's death penalty is shameful


Judge, jury and executioner: Although this idiom is meant to refer to someone 
having ultimate power and authority over one's fate, the legal system of the 
U.S. is designed in such a way that these 3 functions are meant to remain 
relatively distinct and act with a measure of independence from one another. 
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court found 2 of these roles to be a little too 
close for its liking in the case of Hurst v. Florida.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court found that Florida's methodology for imposing the 
death penalty was unconstitutional, violating the Sixth Amendment's stipulation 
that a defendant have the right to an impartial jury. The ruling was predicated 
on the premise that far too much power is allotted to Floridian judges when 
considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances (factors that, 
respectively, increase or decrease the severity of a sentence) that would 
qualify a defendant for the death penalty. In the eyes of the court, the Sixth 
Amendment requires "Florida to base Timothy Hurst's death sentence on a jury's 
verdict, not a judge's factfinding," according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who 
delivered the majority opinion.

The opinion continues: "Florida's sentencing scheme, which required the judge 
alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore 
unconstitutional." The case was reversed and remanded, meaning that it was now 
the Florida Supreme Court's responsibility to adjust Floridian law in 
accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.

Although the decision was issued Jan. 12, it would not be until last Tuesday, 
Feb. 2, that the ruling in Hurst v. Florida would have a discernible impact on 
our states legal proceedings. As reported in these very pages, the Florida 
Supreme Court delayed the execution of Cary Michael Lambrix. Lambrix, who was 
convicted of the murders of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant in 1983, had been 
scheduled to die by lethal injection this Thursday.

After hearing arguments for and against applying the Hurst ruling retroactively 
- which would most likely result in Lambrix and others on Florida's death row 
having their sentences reduced to life in prison, rather than execution - it is 
now up to the justices on Florida's highest court to decide whether to go ahead 
with the execution of Lambrix and the 388 others languishing on death row. 
Concurrently, members of the Florida House of Representatives are working to 
draft a bill that would bring our state's death penalty statute in line with 
those of other states and the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. 
Constitution.

It should surprise few that we strongly believe this should never have been an 
issue to begin with. The death penalty is a barbaric punishment fit only for 
barbaric societies: It is morally presumptuous, a drain on our tax dollars, a 
prominent blemish on our democracy and, here in the U.S., tinged with a 
considerable degree of racism and classism. For a country that so emphatically 
prides itself on being a pluralistic, self-determining society, the U.S. seems 
all too comfortable in the same company as China, Iran and North Korea when it 
comes to murdering its own citizens.

Whether Lambrix and others are granted a permanent reprieve, we have no doubts 
that the Florida Legislature will find a way to ensure future sentences legally 
satiate their bloodlust.

(source: The Independent Florida Alligator)

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

Denise Amber Lee's murderer files appeal of death sentence


The man convicted of abducting and killing a 21-year-old mother and wife is 
appealing his death sentence as part of the ripple-effect felt by a U.S. 
Supreme Court ruling Florida's sentencing is unconstitutional.

Denise Amber Lee was taken from her family's North Port home in 2008. 
Investigators said she did everything she could think of to save her life 
fighting her attacker to the very end.

The void in her husband, Nathan Lee's heart is too deep to ever be filled. It 
has been that way for 8 long years.

"It is hard every day. Waking up, Denise isn't there," he said. "The boys wake 
up and they don't have their mom."

A jury found Michael King guilty of her murder and sentenced him to death.

Now, cases like King's are being reviewed because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 
Florida's death penalty sentencing process is unconstitutional. It said the 
method gives too much power to judges who are not bound by the jury's vote.

"Initially, I wasn't concerned because it was such a clear-cut case with a 
unanimous jury verdict. It seemed the trial was run so well," said Nathan.

During a scheduled hearing on another issue, King's lawyer appealed the death 
sentence, saying it should be changed to life without parole. The court did not 
rule on that, leaving Lee's family at a standstill.

"I don't think he deserves all these rights, but that's not the way the system 
works. I think about what Denise went through and what he did to her. It's 
really tough, but I understand there is a system in place. We have to respect 
that and hope it works," said Nathan.

(source: Fox News)

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

Woman accused of drowning ex-partner's daughter appears in court


A trial is now likely early next year for a woman charged with killing the 
daughter of her ex-girlfriend.

Kimberly Lucas appeared in court Monday.

She's charged with drowning 2-year-old Elliana Jamason and trying to kill the 
girl's 10-year-old brother.

This happened in Jupiter nearly 2 years ago.

The woman's attorneys are fighting attempts by prosecutors to seek the death 
penalty in the case.

There'a hearing on that matter set in March.

(source: CBS news)

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

UWF to host lecture with lead prosecutor of Ted Bundy case


The University of West Florida will host George R. Dekle Sr. on Feb. 10, 2016, 
at 6 p.m. as he discusses the investigation, prosecution and execution of Ted 
Bundy. The lecture will take place in the Music Hall of the Center for Fine and 
Performing Arts, Building 82, on the UWF Pensacola Campus.

Dekle, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, served as 
the lead prosecutor in the late 1979 case, where Bundy stood trial for the 
kidnapping and murder of an 8th grade student. Bundy was captured in Pensacola 
on Feb. 15, 1978 - 5 days after being added to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted 
Fugitives list. He was convicted in February 1980 and received his 3rd death 
penalty sentence. Dekle also was integrally involved in the post-conviction 
defense of the judgment and death warrant and served as an official witness to 
Bundy's execution at Florida State Prison on Jan. 24, 1989.

Currently, Dekle serves as the director of the Criminal Prosecution Clinic at 
the University of Florida's Levin College of Law. Additionally, he is the 
assistant director of the Criminal Justice Center and a master lecturer for the 
College of Law, where he teaches prosecutorial ethics, Florida criminal 
procedure, and criminal clinic - prosecution. A member of the Florida Bar for 
43 years, Dekle has authored a number of books and professional publications 
including, "The Last Murder: The Investigation, Prosecution, and Execution of 
Ted Bundy." Before joining the faculty at the Levin College of Law, Dekle was 1 
of Florida's most distinguished prosecutors from 1975-2005, with a 2-year stint 
as an assistant public defender prior to that.

The event is free and open to the public. For more information, contact the UWF 
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at justice at uwf.edu.

(source: Univ. West Florida news)






ALABAMA:

Executions hardly an exact science


Federal defenders in Alabama wanted one attorney to be allowed to observe the 
placement of intravenous lines used to administer a lethal injection that 
killed their client, Christopher Brooks, on Jan. 21 at Holman Prison in Atmore.

They also requested access to a cellphone or landline during the execution in 
case something went wrong and they had to quickly call the judge because of a 
botch.

Phone access was a concern to them because Alabama used the drug "midazolam," 
which was also used in the ghoulish execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 
2014, during which Lockett "writhed, groaned and convulsed" for 43 minutes 
before eventually dying of a heart attack in the execution chamber. Midazolam 
has also been used in 2 other cases that went awry.

Brooks' lawyers argued that, without access to a phone, their client would be 
"without meaningful access to the courts during his execution, as his only 
witnesses ... will be unable to contact the courts and seek intervention if 
something arises during his execution that warrants seeking a stay or other 
appropriate relief."

They pointed out that in the 2000 execution of Robert Glenn Coe by lethal 
injection in Tennessee, a federal district judge, Aleta Trauger, ordered just 
what they were requesting. Trauger based her order on Coe's First and 
Fourteenth Amendment rights to meaningful access to the courts and his Eighth 
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Instead of extending to Brooks' lawyers the same kind of phone access, 
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Govan Jr., on behalf of the Alabama Attorney 
General's Office, said no. Specifically, Govan wrote to Brooks' attorneys:

"These requests are overbroad, unprecedented and are not relevant to any claim 
in any current litigation. Moreover, these requests appear to be premised on 
speculative concerns based on executions from other states involving different 
execution protocols. Finally, your requests could disrupt and interfere with 
the Department's ability to perform their duties and responsibilities in 
carrying out Brooks' execution."

Let's break that down.

Overbroad? No, the 2 requests were specific. Brooks' attorneys wanted to be 
able to see the executioner stick the IV in their client, and they wanted 
access to a phone in case something went wrong and they needed to get the judge 
involved quickly.

Unprecedented? As it concerns the phone request, no. The Coe case in Tennessee 
is one example of an attorney being allowed access to a phone during an 
execution - the gruesome execution of Joseph Wood in Arizona is another.

Relevant? It is hard to see why the request for a phone to call the judge in 
case of a botch would be irrelevant.

Speculative concerns? Midazolam was used in both Joseph Wood's execution in 
Arizona and Clayton Lockett's in Oklahoma, and it was used in Brooks' 
execution, too. What is there about Joseph Wood's 660 gasps, or Lockett's 
43-minute execution as he "writhed, groaned and convulsed" on the gurney that 
is speculative?

Disrupt and interfere with the carrying out of the execution? Isn't it 
difficult to imagine a federal public defender (and officer of the court) who 
is observing a needle being inserted and happens to have a phone handy in case 
it goes bad being "disruptive" and "interfering" with the execution? Who does 
the Alabama Attorney General's Office think they are kidding?

Nevertheless, Chief Judge Keith Watkins of the United States District Court for 
the Middle District of Alabama denied both requests by Brooks' lawyers.

Press reports noted that the execution went as "smoothly" as killing a 
reasonably healthy 43-year-old man can go. In any event, it appears there was 
no visible evidence Brooks suffered bodily distress as the lethal drugs were 
administered. This prompted Alabama Prison Commissioner Jeff Dunn to say that 
the execution with the controversial sedative drug midazolam went ":exactly as 
planned."

Perhaps.

Or, perhaps Alabama just got lucky this time? Hard to say, isn't it? As 
executions around the country demonstrate, killing another human being, even 
when done by the state, is hardly an exact science. But, in hindsight, in case 
it hadn't worked "smoothly" - like in the McGuire, Lockett, and Wood cases - 
wouldn't it have been prudent, and fairer, to allow 1 defense attorney to bring 
in a cellphone? You know ... just in case?

181 men and 5 women remain on Alabama's death row. If their executions go 
forward, shouldn't they be fair in every respect? And if a death row inmate in 
Alabama can't get the same basic rights as a death row inmate in Tennessee, 
shouldn't we abandon this dastardly practice, the death penalty, altogether?

(source: Column; Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender and worked, 
for 3 years, as an assistant federal public defender in the Middle District of 
Alabama - employed by the same office that represented Christopher 
Brooks-----Montgomery Advertiser)