[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----GA., FLA., IND., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 22



GEORGIA:

Legal Team Reflects on Path to Supreme Court Win in Georgia Death Penalty Case


When staff members of Atlanta's Southern Center for Human Rights began tracking 
down African-American jurors eliminated from the 1987 jury that convicted an 
18-year-old black teenager of a white woman's murder, they were struck to find 
that, 30 years later, two of them still remembered the disdain they had faced.

One African-American man recalled that he went home and told his wife that none 
of the blacks in the jury pool were going to be chosen, said Katie Chamblee, 
one of several lawyers who worked on Georgia death row inmate Timothy Foster's 
appeal. "He was devastated he wouldn't be part of the process just because he 
was black."

An African-American woman who was also eliminated from Foster's 1987 jury 
recalled her humiliation when questioned by prosecutors about why she worked 2 
jobs. Said Chamblee: "In a room filled with tons of people, she had to explain 
she was poor. ... It had a real impact on her."

On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 to reverse Foster's conviction and 
death penalty sentence and remand the case for a new trial. Chief Justice John 
Roberts' majority opinion in Foster v. Chatman called the "sheer number of 
references to race" in court files "arresting" and concluded that the Georgia 
prosecutors "were motivated in substantial part by race" in violation of the 
Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, wrote that the majority had not given 
enough deference to the trial judge and that "new evidence should not justify 
the relitigation of Batson claims."

Southern Center president and senior counsel Stephen Bright, staff attorneys 
Patrick Mulvaney and Chamblee, and investigator Kristen Samuels on Tuesday 
night spoke to the Georgia chapter of the American Constitution Society about 
Foster's death penalty conviction and how they came to believe that it had been 
grounded in racism.

The Southern Center lawyers said Tuesday night that the high court ruling 
likely saved Foster's life. Georgia has executed 12 people in the past two 
years. Bright said Foster's case will eventually be returned to the Rome 
judicial circuit where he expects Foster will be retried for the murder of a 
79-year-old Queen White, a retired schoolteacher who was sexually assaulted, 
bludgeoned and strangled.

Bright said the seminal Batson decision - which barred removal of potential 
jurors solely because of their race - was only a year old when Foster went to 
trial. But court transcripts showed that Foster's defense lawyers from the 
beginning warned the judge that prosecutors would still strike every 
African-American from the jury. "There was never any suggestion there would not 
be a Batson hearing," Bright said. "There was no question they would strike all 
the blacks. It was when they would have it."

Bright said at one point, prosecutors demanded that defense lawyers apologize 
to them personally and to the community for accusing them of racism. "Given 
what we found out later, that took a bit of audacity," he said.

Years later, when the Southern Center was appealing Foster's sentence, it 
obtained prosecutors' jury selection notes through a public records request. 
Those notes revealed the prosecutorial team had highlighted the names of every 
African-American member of the jury pool in green. To further make the point, 
Bright and Mulvaney said there was a key at the top of each page saying that 
names in green were African-Americans. A "B" also had been placed by the name 
of every black prospective juror, they said. The 5 black individuals among the 
prospective jurors eventually were struck. Those notes, Mulvaney said, "changed 
the whole picture."

When Mulvaney filed Foster's petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the 
case, he decided to embed images of those color-coded names in the brief and 
submit it to the high court in color "to show how outrageous it was," he said, 
"and that the Georgia courts had no problem with any of it."

(source: Daily Report)






FLORIDA:

Kimberly Lucas lawyers fight death penalty in daughter's death


The case of a Jupiter woman charged with drowning the 2-year-old daughter she 
shared with her estranged partner continued on Thursday to twist through the 
legal tangles surrounding Florida???s death penalty.

In a hearing for Kimberly Lucas, Circuit Judge Charles Burton granted a request 
from Lucas' lawyers to throw out paperwork prosecutors filed earlier this year 
announcing their intent to seek the death penalty against her.

Burton will allow prosecutors to refile a notice of their intent to seek 
sertain aggravating factors as a basis for their death penalty quest and give 
Lucas' defense a chance to respond before deciding whether to keep a possible 
death sentence in play. This all comes ahead of Lucas' expected January trial 
in the murder of Elliana Lucas-Jamason and the attempted murder of the former 
couple's 10-year-old son, Ethan.

The legal wrangling is all tied to a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this 
year declaring Florida's death penalty system unconstitutional because it 
limited a jury's power in requiring a simple majority to make a recommendation 
to a judge for a life or death sentence.

Florida lawmakers in March rewrote the law to require juries to agree 
unanimously on aggravating factors prosecutors must prove to get a death 
sentence and also required at least a 10-2 jury vote for death in order for a 
defendant to receive the penalty.

That too has been contested and is before Florida's Supreme Court, which 
recessed for the summer without issuing an opinion on the matter.

Jacquelyn Jamason, the children's mother and the woman who was Lucas' longtime 
partner, has in the past said that she is neither for or against the death 
penalty.

Jamason has, however, consistently expressed disappointment with the slow path 
that the May 2014 case hs taken through the system.

"It's frustrating. She would like to see the case get to trial," Jamason said 
Thursday through her attorney, Jim Eisenberg.

(source: Palm Beach Post)

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

Murder suspect who escaped Florida courthouse apprehended


A murder suspect who authorities say escaped from a South Florida courthouse 
with the help of 5 other people has been apprehended in a nearby county.

The Broward County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that the search for 
21-year-old Dayonte Resiles ended with his capture shortly before 11 p.m. 
Wednesday in Palm Beach County.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters early Thursday that Resiles 
surrendered at a Days Inn in West Palm Beach. Resiles, who was alone, obeyed 
orders from a SWAT team to come out of a room, Israel said. He lay on the 
ground and allowed himself to be handcuffed.

No force was necessary, the sheriff said.

There probably will be people eligible for the $50,000 reward that had been 
offered for information leading to his capture, Israel said.

Resiles bolted out of a Fort Lauderdale courtroom last Friday as he was 
awaiting a hearing, ran down several flights of stairs and got away with help 
from accomplices, authorities say. Five people have been arrested and charged 
with helping him flee.

Resiles is accused in the 2014 stabbing death of 59-year-old Jill Halliburton 
Su, whose family founded the Halliburton oil services company. Her body was 
found, bound at the hands and feet and stabbed multiple times, in the bathtub 
of her home in Davie, Florida, according to a police report.

Prosecutors say Resiles killed Su during an attempted burglary, and they filed 
papers earlier this year saying they planned to seek the death penalty. Resiles 
has pleaded not guilty and his attorney is trying to get the death penalty off 
the table.

Investigators say Friday's escape was carefully planned by Resiles and his 
accomplices.

Authorities search Dayonte Resiles after he escaped

Resiles was sitting in the jury box when he escaped his shackles, jumped a 
courtroom barrier and ran past bailiffs. A car was waiting near the courthouse 
with a change of clothes, authorities say.

Fellow jail inmate Walter M. Hart III, 22, on Wednesday became the 5th person 
charged in the escape. Courthouse video shows Hart, who is awaiting trial in a 
separate 2014 murder case, "work in concert with Resiles to begin to defeat the 
shackling system used to secure inmates," according to an arrest report.

With his back to the camera, the report says Hart "holds up the waist chain, 
which allows Resiles to begin manipulating the restraints," leading to his 
escape moments later.

Also charged are Resiles' 18-year-old girlfriend, LaQuay Stern, who authorities 
say was waiting outside in the car, and 3 others.

According to arrest documents, the escape was planned during several phone 
calls and visitations.

Sheriff Israel has said armed deputies, rather than unarmed bailiffs, will now 
accompany maximum-security inmates in the courtroom. The sheriff has promised 
an investigation into the circumstances of the escape.

(source: Associated Press)






INDIANA:

Former Judge Dennis Parry recalls the only death sentence handed down in the 
county's recent history


On Jan. 27, 2006, at 1:17 a.m. in Michigan City, the state of Indiana carried 
out a sentence that ended the life of Marvin Beighler through a lethal 
injection.

That morning marked the end of a process that took 17 years, a process that 
began in Howard County and hasn't been repeated in the area since.

25 years prior, in 1981, the route leading to Beighler's eventual death began. 
A known drug dealer, Beighler stood accused of murdering Tom and Kim Miller. 
Kim was pregnant at the time. As a result of these accusations, Beighler 
eventually was jailed and faced the first capital murder charge Howard County 
had seen. This caused his path to intersect with then Howard County Superior 
Court 1 Judge Dennis Parry. The memories of the trial, and the burden of 
sentencing a man to death, stick with Parry to this day.

"Morality and any punishment is a big issue," said Parry. "A judge is a human, 
and there are morals that we all have. Some are better than others. Some are 
different than others. But when you take somebody's freedom, it's important 
because freedom is so important in this country. All of us are entitled to due 
process and fair treatment and the legalities of it, but they could suffer 
punishment."

According to Parry, the trial itself called for many special circumstances, of 
which he was primarily required to handle. He elected to send out 150 jury 
notifications for the trial's jury selection. That number eclipsed the typical 
30, as did the requirement of a 12-person jury for a capital murder trial. 
Normally, he said, 6 were selected at the time for trials. 3 alternates also 
were selected.

The process, he said, was arduous, lasting three weeks as potential jurors were 
vetted by the defense counsel and prosecutors in the case.

And the housing of the jury, once it was selected, also called for special 
circumstances. A concern existed during the trial not only of outside contact 
influencing the jurors, but also potential retribution from Beighler's mafia 
contacts also was feared.

"They were going to be sequestered," said Parry. "I had gone to the Ramada 
through one of the sheriff's officers, and we reserved one whole third floor of 
the Ramada in one wing. Even though we didn't need it all, we reserved it all. 
We put cameras on each end of the hallway and in the middle was a room that was 
the security office with monitors so they could monitor the hallways at all 
times. We had intelligence and information that the big people in his group, 
probably out of Chicago or Detroit, were going to try to influence the jury, 
taint them, prejudice them, and cause real problems."

Beginning the trial

With the jury selected, the trial moved forward. The defense and prosecution 
made their cases, both of which Parry said he recalls in detail.

For the prosecution, the primary witness was Scott Brook, a bodyguard for 
Beighler. According to Brook's testimony, drug dealers working for Beighler had 
been arrested ,and Brook's boss became convinced that the Millers had snitched.

"He became convinced that they were the ones," said Parry. "He and Scotty Brook 
had been somewhere north in Cass County drinking and doing drugs, and they got 
really agitated. For days they had been target practicing with a pistol down 
around New London, out in the country. They had the pistol with them, and they 
got convinced the Millers did it.

"Marvin stormed out of the bar and got in his car, and Brook joined him. They 
drove to Russiaville where the Millers lived in a trailer with their 
2-year-old. (Kim) was pregnant. Scotty Brook delayed getting out of the car, 
according to him, and was right behind Marvin by about 10 steps or so. Marvin 
busted in the trailer, and the Millers were in bed. They went back into the 
bedroom, evidently ordered them to get on the floor, and shot each of them 
while they laid on the floor. Brook saw that from the hallway. He saw him 
pointing a gun, then put dimes on the floor."

The dimes, according to Parry, were an indication of gang retribution. Beighler 
and Brook were arrested the next day because they were known associates of the 
Millers.

During the trial the prosecution also obtained a ballistic match between the 
rounds fired through the Millers and bullets retrieved from a tree used for 
target practice by Brook and Beighler. Brook showed the area to investigators.

The defense, on the other hand, worked to discredit Brook, who received a plea 
deal as part of his testimony in the case. Charlie Scruggs was appointed to 
Beighler's defense, along with another attorney because the law required 2 
defense attorneys.

Brook's testimony lasted 3 days.

"He testified to their drinking and all that, the target practice, and how 
Biegler talked about killing the Millers several days before it happened," said 
Parry. "He talked about their night of drinking and drugs in Cass County, how 
they went to the trailer that night, and everything he saw at the trailer and 
afterwards. That was his major case. The jury here had to believe him or 
disbelieve him. Of course, the defense tried to impeach him, saying he lied 
because he got a deal. The told the jury what the deal was. It wasn't something 
they didn't know. The jury knew he was getting a deal to testify. That's always 
a sticking point. 1 or 2 jurors might think it's a lie because he's getting 
something to do this."

The jurors

At the heart of the trial was, of course, the jurors. During the trial's 
roughly month-long process they were kept at the local Ramada Inn. Each day 
their needs were cared for by the county, with Parry arranging for everything 
from meals - with jurors eating at the hotel for breakfast, at the court for 
lunch, and dinner at a location of their choosing with an allowance for a 
single cocktail during dinner - to even barbers and hairdressers as was needed. 
The absence from normality took a toll on the 15 jurors.

"Probably in the 5th week of the jury, one of the juror's husbands got very 
upset because he hadn't seen his wife in 4 1/2 weeks," said Parry. "He used to 
come to the Ramada, stand in the parking lot, and wave at her. She'd wave out 
the window. That's the only contact they had.

"One evening he came in and tried to get down the hallway to see his wife. He 
was totally upset, disheveled and hadn't shaved. He said he had not been out of 
her presence since they were in high school, and he had never been this long 
without his wife around. He was really upset. They took him to jail. They 
actually wrestled him to the floor in the hotel because he was so upset. I went 
out to the jail and talked to him. He was afraid they would be months, and I 
said, 'No, no, no, give us another week, and we'll be done.' And we were."

The jury's decision was difficult, with its members returning to the judge 
multiple times to ask questions before delivering a verdict of guilty in the 
trial. However, the process wasn't over. After a decision had been reached 
concerning Beighler's guilt, his punishment had to be decided by the jury.

"We finished that, and then I told them, 'Now we have a 2nd trial,'" said 
Parry. "Up to that point they did not know. They had a 2nd trial on the penalty 
portion. The jury is allowed to hear evidence on whether or not he dies or gets 
life in prison. That took a couple days. Then they went back in, and they 
deliberated that because they make a recommendation as a jury to the judge. 
They can come back and recommend death or recommend life. The judge is not 
bound by their recommendation, but they make that recommendation."

Life or death

A recommendation of death was decided, and then the burden fell upon Parry's 
shoulders to decide if Beighler lived or died while the jury was excused.

"We'd been together for 6 weeks, and after the room was empty, several of them 
were crying. They were exhausted, emotional, and I'm getting that way now," 
said Parry. "I was too. After all, I'm just a man. There had never been, as far 
as I know, a capital murder trial in this county, so I wanted to do it right 
because I didn't want to do it twice. I worked long hours for 60 days, 5 days a 
week, for 2 months. That wasn't where I stopped."

It's at this time, the 30 days allotted for Parry to decide on Beighler's 
punishment, that the judge seemed to feel the weight of the situation.

He sought council with his wife daily and spoke with his father and minister. 
The Bible, he said, served as a source of guidance.

"Every night when I got home I'm with my wife, of course, and we'd go to bed 
every night, and every night we'd talk about it," said Parry. "It was just 
general conversations, just trying to relax and get it off my mind, which I 
didn't very well. I was trying to get it off my mind during the whole trial. 
During the whole trial I went down in my basement, and I remodeled the whole 
thing. I don't know the a** end of a hammer from the head of a hammer, but I 
needed to do something to get my mind off of what was going on during the day. 
I remodeled the whole basement in that 6 weeks."

Parry's opinion shifted multiple times, drafting three different sentencing 
orders before settling on a decision.

"I struggled with this, and in the last week I had pretty much made up my mind 
what I was going to do," said Parry. "But in a capital murder case you have to 
do a written sentencing order. Most sentencing orders are a page or 2 pages 
long. I wrote the sentencing order 3 times. It was at 30 pages or more each 
time. One time it was death. I changed it to life. Then I went back to death, 
and I was satisfied with that one. I wrote that order 3 times in the last week. 
I did nothing else for that entire month. I did no cases. I just did that case.

"Came the day of sentencing, he was expecting it. He showed no emotion. I did. 
A lot of people in the gallery did too. Miller had several family and friends, 
his mother in particularly. I sentenced him to death."

Parry's decision didn't end the case. It went through multiple appeals and a 
post-conviction relief request from Beighler's legal counsel.

Beighler's eventual execution was even delayed by 30 minute the night it was 
scheduled, with the U.S. Supreme Court eventually announcing a 6-3 decision to 
overturn a federal appeals court ruling. But on Jan. 26, 2006, Beighler was 
pronounced dead at 1:17 a.m. in Michigan City after the lethal injection he 
received did its work. To the end, Beighler maintained his innocence, with his 
last words being, "Let's get it over with."

A lasting effect

Just like the bombing of the Howard County Courthouse in 1987, which had a 
lasting effect on the judge's hearing, Parry believes the events surrounding 
Beighler's case are forgotten. In speaking with him, it's clear through his 
show of emotion the trial left a lasting impact.

"I was talking to somebody about my ear thing from when I got hurt when the 
bomb went off, and they said, 'What bomb?' After a while these things don't 
have an effect," said Parry. "I can't say if it had an effect on the community 
while it was going on other than the fact that everybody was abhorred when the 
baby was killed. That was a bad thing.

"I think it's a fallacy to say the death penalty causes people to think twice. 
I firmly believe that except for lying-in-wait murders like the 5 cops in 
Dallas. That was a spur of the moment, immediate situation. He didn't think 
about how he was going to die. He was so mad he did what he did. Most burglars 
think like that. You're in a house, you get surprised by the owner, and you 
shoot him. It's a reaction to being surprised. That's murder. Capital 
punishment isn't going to defer people from murder."

(source: kokomoperspective.com)






CALIFORNIA:

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter express support for anti-death penalty proposition


Former President Jimmy Carter and First Lady Rosalynn Carter on Thursday 
endorsed a November ballot measure that would abolish the death penalty in 
California.

Proposition 62 would replace capital punishment for 1st-degree murder with life 
in prison without the possibility of parole. It is 1 of 2 competing measures on 
the future of the death penalty that voters will weigh on Nov. 8.

"We believe that the attempt to administer the death penalty in a fair and 
efficient manner has failed, and note that a number of states have chosen to 
abandon this policy for this reason," the couple said in a statement. "It is 
our hope that California will also lead the nation in adopting a more effective 
and fiscally responsible law enforcement approach."

(source: Lios Angeles Times)

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

Poll: Don't repeal California's death penalty


A majority of respondents to a recent Argus-Courier online poll said they would 
not vote to repeal the death penalty in California, when the question comes up 
on the November ballot. About 2/3 of respondents said they would vote "no" on 
the measure, while 1/3 said they would vote to end the death penalty.

Here are some comments:

-------

"Absolutely not. If an individual is convicted of murder, they deserve the 
death penalty. Our tax dollars should not be spent taking care of these people 
while they sit comfortably in prison getting free health care and other 
ridiculous rights. Get rid of them."

-------

"Criminals have no fear, so they commit crimes, knowing they will live a 
sheltered life in prison. Texas doesn't keep the criminals accused and found 
guilty in a major crime around long. They're executed. California should follow 
their plan. How many are on death row now?"

-------

"I say keep it. But the process needs to be cleaned up drastically."

-------

"Might as well. Those people just sit there on death row for years and years, 
waiting to die. It seems like they're never going to execute them anyway."

-------

"My first instinct is to say that the death penalty is wrong. But if I imagine 
one of my family members being murdered, I would wish the death penalty for 
that killer. I don't think I can help feeling that."

-------

"The boundary between life and death is sacred. I'll save a moth if I possibly 
can and certainly can't condone government taking a life, no matter how evil 
the criminal."

-------

"We are one of the few civilized nations in the world to have the death 
penalty. It's time to abolish the death penalty nationwide, which will save the 
tax payers billions of dollars in time-consuming appeals. More death row 
inmates are dying of old age rather than by lethal injection."

-------

"We just need to use it. The AG not enforcing the law is the problem."

-------

"It should be enforced. Too many criminals are not punished, it should show 
them it's not OK to commit crimes. California gives them another 20-plus years 
of life with free housing, food, medical, etc., so currently the 'alleged' 
death penalty is a moot point."

-------

"It's not a fair system at all, and we shouldn't be in the business of 
executing people."

(source: petaluma360.com)






USA:

Defense asks to add another death penalty attorney to Dylann Roof's federal 
case


The accused Emanuel AME shooter's defense team is looking to add another 
attorney to battle a possible death penalty.

In pro hac vice paperwork filed Thursday, Roof's team asked to add North 
Carolina attorney Kimberly Stevens. Stevens has been involved in nearly three 
dozen death penalty cases, including United States v. Demario James Atwater and 
United States v. Gary Michael Hilton where she convinced juries to levy life 
sentences instead of the death penalty in both cases.

Atwater was convicted of killing Eve Carson, the student body president at the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2008. Hilton was convicted of 
killing Charleston native Meredith Emerson while she was hiking trails near the 
Appalachian Trail in Georgia.

Since 2014, Stevens has been a member of the Federal Death Penalty Resource 
Counsel Project, and is currently a member of the Capital Resource Counsel 
Project.

If the court grants her application, Stevens will join Sarah Gannett, whose 
application to join the defense team was approved earlier this month.

Already, Gannett has had an impact on Roof's federal case, successfully having 
several pieces of evidence sealed as recently as Thursday morning.

The defense team seems to be focusing a lot of its time and energy on sparing 
Roof from a lethal injection, even offering a guilty plea in exchange for a 
life sentence.

The defense is expected to use mental evaluation reports showing Roof suffers 
from a mental illness to defend against a death penalty during the trial's 
sentencing phase.

The trial is set to begin on Nov. 7 with final jury selection, which could take 
a week or more. Attorneys estimate the trial will take as many as 8 weeks to 
argue. With the holidays scattered along the trial schedule, that could push 
the sentencing phase into January - right up against the newly proposed start 
of jury selection for Roof's state murder trial.

The solicitor in his murder trial is also seeking the death penalty.

(source: WCIV news)