[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TENN., OKLA., MONT., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 21




TENNESSEE:

Exhibit showcasing artwork based on life and death behind bars stops in 
Chattanooga


If you go

-- What: Diane Marek Visiting Artist Series featuring Amy Elkins

-- When: Daily through March 23

-- Where: Cress Gallery, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 752 Vine St.

-- Hours: 9:30 a.m.-7:30 p.m., Monday-Friday; 1-4 p.m., Saturday-Sunday

-- Admission: Free

-- Phone: 423-425-4600
-- Artist website: amyelkins.com

-- Gallery website: cressgallery.org

The title of Los Angeles-based artist Amy Elkins' "Black is the Day, Black is 
the Night" is a pretty forthright description of its emotional timbre.

The multimedia exhibit is comprised of real and composite images, drawings, 
letters and other memorabilia based on the photographer's 5-year correspondence 
with inmates serving out lifetime or death row sentences in complete isolation. 
Of the 7 men with whom she corresponded between 2009 and 2014, 2 have been 
executed and 2 were released.

Through her own research and their written exchanges, Elkins says her eyes were 
opened, not just to the inner workings of the American penal system and its 
application of capital punishment, but also to how inmates' perceptions of 
reality and their personalities were altered by their confinement. "Black is 
the Day, Black is the Night" is an attempt to depict the transformative nature 
of incarceration for men she only knew through their words and mugshots.

"I really became intrigued about this aspect of being completely removed from 
society but also just waiting slowly for your death," she says. "It's basically 
like a long-distance portrait that's constructed in the only way I was able.

"With each person, it was a painstaking amount of researching I had to do to 
create as much of a complete picture as I could. Even in that, I'm falling 
short because I can never really make a complete, realistic view of their 
lives."

In many cases, "Black is the Day, Black is the Night" display portraits of the 
inmates or composite photographs of places they remembered that have been 
artificially degrading using an algorithm based on the inmates' period of 
incarceration to reflect their fraying grip on reality.

Elkins is the latest featured artist in the University of Tennessee at 
Chattanooga's Diane Marek Visiting Artist Series. Through March 23, "Black is 
the Day, Black is the Night" will be on display at the Cress Gallery. It is 
exhibited alongside another one of Elkins' projects, "Parting Words," a "visual 
archive" of more than 500 inmates who have been executed in Texas in the 40 
years since the state's death penalty was reinstated. Instead of photographs, 
their mugshots are rendered using excerpts of their last written statements.

Elkins' work has been featured by numerous outlets, including Wired magazine 
and Huffington Post. In 2014, "Parting Words" was the recipient of the 
prestigious international Aperture Portfolio Prize, which "identif[ies] trends 
in contemporary photography and highlight[s] artists whose work deserves 
greater recognition."

A self-described obsessive, Elkins says she tends to deep-dive into whatever 
subject her artwork is centered upon. In the case of "Black is the Day" and 
"Parting Words," that occasionally meant experiencing moments of empathy that 
left her feeling "kind of hopeless or helpless," but she says she's pleased 
that the completed exhibits invite a discussion of topics many consider to be 
taboo.

"It was an enriching experience," Elkins says. "It just really opened up my 
sense of awareness about my own surroundings, my relationships with others, my 
own sense of freedom and how much a lot of us take for granted. It made me feel 
more appreciative for my life.

"I just really like this idea that you're presenting information from a very 
personal space and letting people have the room to have their own thoughts 
about the subject. Most people I know don't talk about these subjects on their 
own. But if you bring it up, it creates a strong, varying, emotional reaction 
from people."

(source: timesfreepress.com)






OKLAHOMA:

It's Debatable: Lethal injections stir questionable


This week, Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster debate Oklahom's style of lethal 
injection as a form of execution. Moster is a former litigation attorney in the 
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations who currently 
has offices in Lubbock and Amarillo. and Arnold is the George Killiam Professor 
of Law at Texas Tech University School of Law.

Arnold: 2 reasons for injections problem

In recent years in some states, it has become more difficult to ensure that 
person subject to execution can be executed painlessly. The question for debate 
is whether we should care. I believe that we should. To begin with, while the 
constitutional cruelty of intentionally inflicting death is a hotly debated 
topic among Supreme Court Justices, all agree that the intentional infliction 
of gratuitous pain is not permissible. Thus such medieval tortures as burning 
at the stake, hanging, drawing and quartering or disembowelment while living 
are clearly forbidden.

But what if the state knows or should know there is a substantial risk that a 
condemned man will feel excruciating pain just prior to his demise, like the 
chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake, and yet be so paralyzed by 
one of his drugs that he cannot even cry out in pain. It is at least arguable 
that Oklahoma's capital punishment procedure could do that. Yet a closely 
divided Supreme Court sustained Oklahoma's procedure, principally because it 
thought that the risk of receiving such pain was not that great.

So how did we get to this situation? For years, Oklahoma employed a three-drug 
cocktail which seemed to cause a painless death. Then one of the drugs, 
thiopental, became unavailable because its manufacturer refused to allow it to 
be used for the killing of human beings (although ironically it could still be 
used for the euthanizing of animals). Thereafter, Oklahoma substituted 
pentobarbitol for thiopental, and that seemed to work fine. But then that too 
became unavailable (although remarkably it is still available in Texas and 
other states). So, it substituted a drug called midazolam, and then the 
problems began.

The problem began when Oklahoma attempted to execute a man named Clayton 
Lockett. After being supposedly rendered insensate with 100 milligrams, Lockett 
was administered an exceedingly painful (if conscious) paralytic agent. 
Unfortunately the paralytic agent caused him to awake and he screamed that the 
drugs were not working. The state then stopped further administration. 
Fortunately Lockett died from the effects of midazolam 10 minutes later. This, 
and a similar case from Arizona, have convinced some (including 4 Supreme Court 
Justices) that this means of execution is cruel and unusual.

So, how did we get to this state where we can euthanize animals painlessly, but 
Oklahoma cannot execute human beings without risk of extraordinary pain? There 
are basically two reasons. First drug companies have made it difficult to 
obtain drugs that are used for execution (though it is not clear to me why 
Texas can obtain a safe drug and Oklahoma cannot). Second, either by law or 
because of the Hippocratic oath, doctors are not permitted to participate in 
executions.

I have 2 suggestions to ameliorate this problem. First if the government is 
free to kill people (which for purposes of this debate, I assume they are), it 
ought to be free to compel drugs, such as thiopental or pentobarbital to be 
sold to the state by their manufactures (although such a law might require 
federal intervention). After all, if Texas can get pentobarbital why can't 
Oklahoma? 2nd, doctors should be able to aid in the administration of the drug 
(or at least be on hand to make sure that nothing goes wrong). If they are on 
hand at the time of death, this no more contributes to the death than the 
doctor who administers morphine to a dying patient to make her death less 
painful.

If neither of these alternatives are feasible and Oklahoma insists on retaining 
capital punishment, then I would suggest, along with Chief Judge Kozinsky of 
the 9th Federal Circuit (and a proponent of capital punishment), that we at 
least give a condemned Oklahoman the option of painless death by firing squad.

Charles: Lethal injections should still be an option

As previously discussed in an earlier segment of It's Debatable, the Eighth 
Amendment of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Today's 
debate does not center upon capital punishment as a whole, but rather whether 
or not lethal injection as a specific form of capital punishment is 
constitutional and right. Within the context of capital punishment, the Supreme 
Court has outlined in its ruling in Baze v. Rees that prisoners can challenge a 
method of execution where they establish that the method "presents a risk that 
is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering, and 
gives rise to sufficiently imminent dangers." The prisoners should also 
demonstrate there is a feasible and readily implemented alternative method that 
significantly reduces the substantial risk of pain.

Today, lethal injection is the most common form of execution in the United 
States. Last year, the Supreme Court took on the question of whether or not 
lethal injection was constitutional in accordance with the Eighth Amendment. In 
Glossip v. Gross, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of keeping lethal 
injection as an option for those inmates condemned to the death penalty. The 
prisoners who brought on the action in court argued that midazolam, the 1st of 
3 drugs given during the administration of the lethal injection, does not 
adequately protect the inmates from pain. Once the 1st injection is 
administered, the next injection is usually a paralytic agent which paralyzes 
the inmate and stops all respiratory function. Finally, the 3rd injection 
induces cardiac arrest. The court ultimately found that the inmates did not 
establish a less painful alternative to lethal injection.

I agree with the Supreme Court in their recent decision, and support lethal 
injection as an available option for carrying out the death penalty. Crucially, 
lethal injection, as with all of the other recognized methods of execution, 
should be administered only after a thorough opportunity for the accused to 
prove his innocence. I support the death penalty as an option for the crimes 
that merit such a final administration of justice. While lethal injection is 
potentially painful to its subjects, it should still be an option. The Eighth 
Amendment does not ensure a completely painless punishment, nor does the Eight 
Amendment require it. Given that the death penalty in general is administered 
only in those instances where the worst crimes against humanity have been 
committed, if the prisoners suffer in the process of justice, then so be it. 
The purpose of the death penalty as a means for society to respond to criminal 
acts is not only an act of punishment, but that of retributive justice. 
Retributive justice is a concept that states that those who have committed the 
worst crimes deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment. I agree with this 
philosophy, again, only for those who truly deserve it because of the danger 
they pose to society.

The victims of the death row inmates surely suffered, as their families 
undoubtedly have as well. If, in the course of administering justice, the 
condemned suffer pain and discomfort, this is a just recompense for their 
crimes. So long as our punishments fit within the parameters of the Eight 
Amendment of the Constitution - such as the Supreme Court has found with lethal 
injections - then they should continue to be administered.

Arnold: Inability to get drug raises questions

Let's begin with a point of agreement. If capital punishment is constitutional, 
I agree that lethal injection is a permissible way to carry it out. Thus, 
lethal injection in Texas, which apparently is painless (save for the needle 
entering the condemned's veins), is not problematic.

But Texas uses pentobarbitol, which, so far as we know, renders the condemned 
insensate. Consequently, there is a very small risk that the condemned will 
suffer anything other than a painless death which is what his sentence says he 
should receive.

Oklahoma apparently has not figured out how to get pentobarbitol. I have a 
couple of suggestions. Perhaps it could pay Texas for some (since Texas seems 
able to get it). Alternatively, perhaps Oklahoma could pay Texas to execute a 
death row inmate by painless lethal injection.

What concerns me is that after the Supreme Court???s decision in Glossip, 
Oklahoma need not even try to ameliorate the problem. The risk of pain, while 
substantial, isn't substantial enough to require Oklahoma to do anything about 
it.

Going even further, Mr. Moster appears to advocate the propriety of inflicting 
pain for its own sake: "If in the course of administering justice the condemned 
suffer pain and discomfort, this is just recompense for their crimes." If he is 
saying with the Supreme Court that the risk of pain is not constitutionally 
intolerable then I would respectfully disagree so long as there were other 
alternatives such as buying the painless drug from Texas.

But, if he is saying that gratuitous infliction of pain is OK because of the 
pain he caused his victims, then I strongly disagree. If we posit a defendant 
whose cruelty included say burying his victim alive, it would not follow that 
we could do the same thing to him. Though many, including me, may have a part 
of himself who likes that idea, the Constitution, for good reasons, prohibits 
it.

Thus, the intentional infliction of cruelty, however deserved in a particular 
case, is not something that the state is free to do. The question is when is 
the risk tolerable. I substantially agree with the Supreme Court's analysis 
although I would not require that the risk be sure or very likely to inflict 
needless suffering. Rather, I would hold that so long as the condemned can show 
that there is a substantial risk of unnecessary pain, and there is a less 
painful method available, that should preclude employment of the riskier 
method.

Frankly, I have trouble believing that Oklahoma cannot get a drug that kills 
people painlessly. How on earth is it that we can kill animals painlessly, but 
not humans? Obviously one answer is the unwillingness of drug companies to 
supply such drugs because of their opposition to capital punishment.

When I first considered this question I did not think that there was a good 
argument against lethal injection other than general opposition to capital 
punishment (which I do have). But the more I studied this question, the clearer 
it became that in some states killing a person, deemed by the state to be no 
longer fit to live is not as humane as killing an animal that is no longer fit 
to live.

This is not something that a civilized society should have to accept, 
especially since it is so easy to fix.

Charles: Lethal injections best choice available

Each U.S. state has a variety of different execution methods on the books, from 
electrocution to the firing squad. Without question the most painless and 
humane is lethal injection. This is not a debate about the death penalty, but 
rather one type of execution method. Because it is not a debate about the death 
penalty, really it is a discussion about the merits of the method, and how it 
measures against other established methods. Within the context of this specific 
discussion, lethal injection is clearly the best choice available to carry out 
this important state function of execution while avoiding the constitutional 
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Lethal injection itself is a nebulous term that has included a variety of 
chemicals over the years. The philosophy of the process is to provide the end 
result - the end of the convicted criminal's life - as painlessly as possible. 
Lethal injection attempts to be humane while also being efficient. This has 
caused some complications as states have tried to meet the demands for humane 
process with less than preferred concoctions. This is made worse as sedative 
manufacturers are harassed into no longer making the preferred drug, which 
worsens the shortage. Thus the argument regarding the composition of the lethal 
cocktail is one that is not only fabricated by those opposed to the death 
penalty, it is in fact caused by the very same people.

Oklahoma was using midazolam when the Supreme Court heard the arguments in 
Glossip. A 500 milligram dosage of midazolam would induce a coma, and at that 
dosage would, by itself, cause death through respiratory arrest within an hour. 
Further, the state has safeguards in place during the execution process which 
is meant to minimize discomfort. Some of these safeguards include a primary and 
back-up IV, monitoring the inmate's consciousness, and training and preparation 
of the execution team. Keep in mind that Glossip, one of the parties who 
brought his case forward before the Supreme Court, was convicted of hiring 
another man to kill his boss - the killer entered the room where Glossip's boss 
was sleeping and beat him to death with a baseball bat. Should we attempt to 
make Glossip's departure from this earth as humane as possible? Yes. However, 
society should not be held to a standard of providing people like Glossip a 
guaranteed painless experience. Society must be able to protect itself, first 
and foremost - through the death penalty if need be.

Having accepted the constitutionality of the death penalty the question becomes 
how it should be carried out. What is a more humane choice? Clearly some risk 
of pain is inherent in any method of execution - the Constitution does not 
require a pain-free death for death row inmates. If it did, the death penalty 
would be unconstitutional altogether. Given the choices these inmates made, 
lethal injection is the best choice available.

(source; Lubbock Avalanche-Journal)






MONTANA:

Death penalty is troubling to evangnelicals


This past fall, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) adopted a new 
position on capital punishment, which points out troubling flaws in its 
application. The NAE had supported the death penalty for more than 40 years, 
but it now recognizes that there are also legitimate theological reasons for 
opposing it.

As the Montana district superintendent of the Assemblies of God - a member 
denomination of the NAE - I applaud the NAE for taking this new position. It 
reflects a growing shift among evangelical Christians on this important issue - 
a shift I've witnessed in my own life.

I used to be a staunch supporter of capital punishment. In fact, a little over 
5 years ago I submitted testimony urging the Montana Legislature to maintain 
the death penalty. A fellow Christian challenged me to find support for my 
position in Scripture, which prompted me to prayerfully study those biblical 
passages relevant to the death penalty. I discovered that the biblical case for 
the death penalty is much weaker than I had thought.

Often proponents of the death penalty cite passages such as Exodus 21:12-25 and 
Leviticus 24:13-21, which specify the death penalty for certain crimes. 
Inevitably, however, death penalty proponents rely on selective readings of 
these passages to justify their position.

These passages call for the death penalty for a broad range of offenses beyond 
just murder - for example, blasphemy and cursing one's parents. Another Old 
Testament passage, Exodus 31:14, lists death as the punishment for not keeping 
the Sabbath. I have yet to meet someone who supports the death penalty but is 
willing to apply the rest of those verses equally. Such selective use of 
Scripture is hardly persuasive.

In the New Testament, specifically Matthew 5, Jesus lets us know that we are 
now held to a higher law. We are to love our enemies, forgive them, and 
recognize the possibility of redemption in everyone.

If we apply the teachings of Jesus, we acknowledge that sin must have 
consequences, but that the purpose of these consequences is to correct and 
restore, not kill. I have difficulty squaring Christ's message with a 
punishment that takes the life of those made in God???s image and can cut short 
the process of redemption, especially when the condemned are already 
incarcerated and no longer a threat to society.

In addition to these scriptural considerations, it is important that injustices 
in the current application of the death penalty also inform our thinking on the 
issue. I am deeply troubled by "the alarming frequency of post-conviction 
exonerations," as the NAE's new resolution on capital punishment puts it.

Every few weeks or months, we hear of another innocent individual released from 
death row. A recent study estimated that 4 % of those sentenced to death are 
innocent. For those who value life, it is unconscionable that our government 
continues to pursue a policy that puts innocent life at such grave risk.

The death penalty's high cost also should concern us. Studies around the 
country consistently find that the death penalty costs states more than life in 
prison without parole, often millions of dollars more, because of the complex 
legal process in capital cases. States spend all this money despite the lack of 
evidence that the death penalty has any effect in deterring crime.

Given this reality, it's hard to think of a better example of misplaced 
priorities than the death penalty. As a case in point, Nebraska recently spent 
close to $55,000 trying to illegally obtain lethal injection drugs from India 
that it never received. The state may never recover this money. When there are 
so many needs in society, it makes little sense for governments to throw away 
money in often futile attempts to execute those already in prison.

I hope that Montana will not exhibit such poor judgment, but instead will end 
its death penalty and focus on more important priorities. As a Christian, I for 
one will continue to advocate for policies that promote life and redemption, 
not death.

(source: The Rev. Alan Warneke, who lives in Billings, is the Montana district 
superintendent for the Assemblies of God Church----The Billings Gazette)






CALIFORNIA:

California eyes 1-drug executions amid debate


Californians face a watershed year as they prepare to decide whether to resume 
executions that stopped a decade ago or end them entirely.

While advocates jockey to put both choices before voters this fall, officials 
overseeing the 746 condemned inmates on the nation's largest death row are 
pushing ahead with plans to use a single lethal drug to meet legal requirements 
amid a nationwide shortage of execution drugs.

Supporters said at a public hearing on Friday that crime victims have waited 
too long for justice as the state dragged its heels in adopting a new method of 
execution.

"The family members of the victims are dying before the murderers," said 
Michele Hanisee, vice president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys 
of Los Angeles County. "Meanwhile, ironically, the state of California moves 
ahead with an assisted suicide law that would allow doctors to prescribe the 
same drugs for suicide that death penalty opponents will call inhumane when 
used for executions."

Opponents said at the hearing that the state risks botching death sentences if 
it moves too quickly in making the change.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will consider 
nearly 2-dozen comments from the hearing and written comments from about 12,000 
people as it develops its final regulations. Any changes would require a new 
round of public comments.

The state is proposing to let corrections officials choose from four types of 
powerful barbiturates to execute prisoners, depending on which drug is 
available.

The single injection would replace the series of three drugs used in 2006 to 
execute 76-year-old Clarence Ray Allen for ordering a triple murder.

2 of the 4 drugs have never before been used in executions, and it's not clear 
whether the state has enough safeguards in place to obtain safe, effective 
drugs, said Ana Zamora, criminal justice policy director of the American Civil 
Liberties Union of Northern California.

"Some of these executions using drugs obtained from questionable sources have 
resulted in gruesome, botched executions" in other states, she warned.

The corrections department also failed to properly consider that ending 
executions entirely could save state and local governments $150 million a year, 
she said, referring to an estimate involving 1 of the pending ballot measures.

A recent Field Poll showed an almost even split among voters on the death 
penalty, with 48 % wanting to speed up the legal process leading to executions 
and 47 % seeking to replace executions with life sentences without the 
possibility of parole.

"This could be the year when it comes to a head in the public vote on a very 
interesting pair of initiatives," Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said. "I 
don't think anyone can forecast how it will turn out."

In 2012, voters rejected ending the death penalty by 4 % points, but DiCamillo 
said frustration with the seemingly endless delays and mounting expenses are 
driving more people to favor doing away with it entirely.

The proposed single-drug injection process is the latest attempt to resume 
executions after a federal judge halted executions in 2006 and ordered prison 
officials to improve execution procedures.

5 years later, a Marin County judge rejected the state's newly developed 3-drug 
lethal injection regulations.

8 states already have used a single drug for executions and there is no reason 
the courts shouldn't quickly approve California's new regulations once the 
procedure is adopted, said Michael Rushford, president of the Sacramento-based 
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

The group sued to force California to adopt the method suggested by state and 
federal judges in ongoing cases, and Rushford predicted executions could resume 
this year if the rules are finalized soon.

Death penalty opponents said they will keep challenging the regulations.

The ACLU is suing to obtain at least 79,000 corrections department documents 
related to lethal injections that it says are needed to show if safeguards are 
in place to prevent the state from using backdoor ways to obtain execution 
drugs that manufacturers say were not intended for that purpose.

Department of corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton said the documents the 
department used to develop the proposed regulations are already available to 
the public. The department plans to create the drugs in its own or other 
compounding pharmacies.

Much of the testimony on Friday opposed the death penalty no matter how it is 
carried out.

"It is likely in the future that if we do the grisly, horrible thing of 
starting to execute people, that we will find out after someone has been 
executed that they were innocent," Sacramento attorney Norman Hile said.

He said he represents an innocent man who is awaiting execution on death row.

(source: Associated Press)






USA:

Notorious prison gang targets New Mexico corrections officials


The reigning leader of the prison gang Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico is serving a 
life sentence for killing another inmate in a dispute over a bottle of 
vitamins.

Court records show "hits" on fellow inmates are nothing new for the home-grown 
SNM, but Anthony "Pup" Ray Baca and 2 other convicted murderers in the gang 
hierarchy decided to up the ante beginning in 2013, a federal indictment 
alleges.

They are accused of hatching a plot to kill New Mexico Corrections Secretary 
Gregg Marcantel and a top corrections department intelligence chief.

The alleged conspiracy turned deadly serious last March when the FBI got word 
that the 2 officials' lives were in danger.

To carry out the hit, the SNM trio of inmates allegedly planned to rely on a 
fellow gang member who was back on the streets after serving federal prison 
time on a firearms charge, according to records obtained by the Journal.

Neither Marcantel nor Dwayne Santiestevan, who oversees corrections' Security 
Threat Intelligence Unit, would comment about the alleged plot, referring 
questions to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque. A spokeswoman there 
declined to answer questions about the alleged plot.

Baca, 52, Roy Paul Martinez, 43, Robert Martinez, 51, and Christopher Garcia - 
all indicted on charges of conspiring to murder Marcantel - have pleaded not 
guilty to the charges. Garcia, 40, isn't charged in the conspiracy to kill 
Santiestevan.

Defense attorneys say they plan to "vigorously litigate" the case, but complain 
that the government hasn't yet produced much pretrial discovery.

Documents obtained by the Journal show that the information received last year 
by the FBI spurred a multiagency criminal investigation that has upended the 
notorious gang that formed in the aftermath of the deadly New Mexico state 
penitentiary riot in 1980.

Some 25 people alleged to be SNM gang members were indicted on federal 
racketeering charges last December, accused of committing violent acts to 
achieve the objectives of their enterprise. Of those, 19 are charged with death 
penalty-eligible offenses.

Another 10 people, including suspected SNM associates and allies, have been 
indicted on federal narcotics and weapons charges after undercover 
investigators made an estimated 50 drug buys and firearms purchases, also 
intercepting wire communications, according to a 41-page FBI search warrant 
affidavit.

The investigation also turned up new SNM gang links to more than 20 homicides 
in New Mexico. Some are cold cases that have gone unsolved for years and are 
now under renewed investigation.

Never before has there been such a sweeping, concerted federally led effort to 
disrupt what's been described as New Mexico's largest and most violent prison 
gang, say law enforcement officials.

"Although the SNM Gang has historically been on law enforcement radar, the 
current investigation began in early 2015 when leaders of the SNM Gang called 
for the murder of two-high ranking administrators," states the FBI affidavit.

SNM was described in the affidavit as a violent gang "with a history of 
murderous activities," assaults on police officers, reprisals against rivals, 
countersurveillance against law enforcement, and ongoing and repeated criminal 
activity and firearms possession.

SNM members committed such acts "for the purpose of gaining entrance to and 
maintaining and increasing position" in the gang, the indictment alleges.

In an email response to Journal questions, Corrections Secretary Marcantel said 
the federal attention "in this case sets an important foundation for inmate 
accountability within our prisons."

"Given our recidivism and the reality that almost everyone sentenced to prison 
will eventually return to our neighborhoods, what happens in prison matters to 
our neighborhoods. That is exactly why the value of our collaboration with the 
FBI and (the U.S. Attorney's Office) in this case can't be underestimated."

Who runs the prisons?

SNM in recent years has been featured in 2 hard-hitting reality television 
shows in which gang members have boasted that they run the state's prisons - 
rather than the corrections officers or administrators.

"Hey, when I get out, I'm joining ISIS. I'm representing ISIS in here," inmate 
Jerry Montoya laughingly told a television crew filming the A&E TV series 
"Behind Bars: Rookie Year," which aired last fall about rookie New Mexico 
correction officers' 1st year on the job.

With a prior murder conviction, Montoya told the film crew he was being housed 
in a high-security area "strictly with my gang. We're all here for each other."

Montoya's defense attorney last year sought to keep his televised remarks from 
a jury that was to decide whether he was guilty in another murder: the killing 
of SNM gang member Javier Molina in March 2014. The defense argued his 
statements were edited and taken out of context.

Molina and co-defendant Jerry Armenta were charged with stabbing Molina more 
than 40 times around his heart at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility 
outside Las Cruces.

A week before trial last November, the state charges were dismissed in 
anticipation of Montoya and Armenta being indicted in the federal racketeering 
case. They - and 5 additional alleged SNM gang members - are now facing federal 
conspiracy and murder charges related to Molina's death.

The A&E show quoted one rookie corrections officer as saying, "The No. 1 most 
important part about prison gangs is 'mess with them and God only knows what 
will happen.'"

He added that he hoped someday to get promoted to the prison intelligence unit 
run by Santiestevan, where the work might not be so dangerous.

"I know a lot of these guys, they have the ability to reach out and touch 
somebody," he told the television crew. "They have the ability to go after my 
family when I'm not there."

Scrutiny not effective

The FBI says SNM has had as many as 500 members since the early 1980s. 
Currently, about 109, excluding the federal defendants, are among the 7,300 
incarcerated in New Mexico prisons.

But SNM's grip extends beyond prison walls. Continued allegiance and contact 
with the gang is required even after SNM members are released from prison, 
according to a 2011 FBI report.

As evidence: Nearly 1/2 of the people the FBI sought to search for evidence 
last December were out on the streets, some on parole or probation. Four were 
out on bond facing other criminal charges.

One familiar SNM face who was indicted - 3-time convicted killer Gerald "Stix" 
Archuleta - is now grayer than when he made headlines in 2009 after allegedly 
offering $20,000 to anyone who would kill then-Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren 
White.

White had used Armenta as a poster boy to push for a tougher three-strikes law 
in New Mexico.

Armenta was not charged in that alleged threat. But years after leaving New 
Mexico in 2011 and resettling in Tennessee, where he served a 1-year parole, 
Archuleta's alleged ties to SNM have resurfaced.

The federal racketeering indictment alleges that Archuleta was among 3 SNM 
members who conspired to severely beat 56-year-old inmate Julian Romero last 
year at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility.

Romero was attacked within five hours of SNM gang members being let out of a 
16-month prison lockdown instituted after Molina's murder.

The federal charge against Archuleta, once the ranking leader of SNM, contends 
the conspiracy to harm Romero was 12 years in the making. Also charged in the 
conspiracy is Baca, aka "Pup," who back in 1989 claimed self-defense in the 
fatal stabbing of inmate Luis Valasquez days after he took Valasquez's 
vitamins, court records state.

According to the FBI affidavit, the recent investigation "has yielded evidence 
of SNM gang members participating in more than 2 dozen homicides, numerous 
attempted murders and aggravated assaults, as well as armed robbery, drug 
trafficking and other felony crimes that are being investigated ... ."

For instance, the affidavit revealed that law enforcement officials now believe 
they have solved the 15-year-old murder of 2 Southern New Mexico Correctional 
Facility inmates who were strangled within hours of each other. Their deaths in 
2001 were investigated by State Police, but no charges were ever filed. Another 
SNM gang member is now a suspect in a 2012 homicide in Socorro County in which 
the victim was shot multiple times and placed inside a vehicle that was then 
set on fire, the affidavit stated.

"Despite being imprisoned and closely scrutinized by prison officials, SMN gang 
leaders still manage to convey their orders to gang members and associates 
throughout the prison system and outside the prison system through a variety of 
means, including contraband cell phones, secret notes called 'kites' or 
'welas,' coded letters and messages conveyed by complicit visitors," states the 
search warrant affidavit.

The affidavit sought, in part, a federal magistrate's permission to take photos 
of suspects' bodies for evidence of tattoos that would establish membership in 
the SNM gang.

(source: Albuquerque Journal)