[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.H., ARIZ.

[Rick Halperin]

June 28



TEXAS:

Texas' death penalty beyond repair so think about ending it, judge says


We welcome Judge Elsa Alcala's frank - and courageous - assessment of the Texas 
death penalty, not for what people wish the state's capital punishment system 
to be, but for what it is: Discriminatory, inefficient and immoral.

That assessment coming from an experienced judge on the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals - the state's highest court in criminal matters - is not easily 
dismissed.

It's true that many Texans support the death penalty as a tough, fair and 
painless way to punish those convicted of certain heinous crimes. That category 
includes crimes in which more than one person was murdered, a law enforcement 
officer was killed, or circumstances that involve murder and another aggravated 
felony. An example of the latter would be fatally shooting a store clerk during 
the course of a robbery, or killing someone during a sexual assault or 
kidnapping.

To be sure, those are horrible crimes that warrant the toughest punishment on 
the books. The problem with the death penalty is that it is final. Once done, 
it cannot be undone. As such, it requires a perfect system in which to operate 
justly and morally. An imperfect system means a killer gets away, while an 
innocent is imprisoned or executed.

It's no wonder that Alcala has growing discomfort with the Texas death penalty 
system, riddled with imperfections. She wrote about them in a recent opinion 
regarding the case of Julius Jerome Murphy, sentenced to die for the 1997 
shooting death of a man whose car had broken down along Interstate 30 in 
Texarkana.

"I think there are, as I said in that opinion, significant problems with the 
death penalty," Alcala told the American-Statesman's Chuck Lindell. "There are 
lots of problems, and I think the public is not aware of the problems."

Alcala wrote that Texas courts should study whether the death penalty is 
unconstitutional because it is arbitrarily imposed by race, disproportionately 
affecting minorities, and whether excessive delays in imposing the ultimate 
sentence results in cruel and unusual punishment because inmates are held in 
solitary confinement for years, if not decades. Those inequities are reflected 
in state figures that show 71 % of those awaiting execution in Texas are 
African American or Latino.

Alcala came to the bench in 2011, when then-Gov. Rick Perry tapped her to fill 
a vacancy. Her doubts and concerns regarding the system have been sown by cases 
that came before her, including:

-- Bobby James Moore: Alcala wrote that her court's reliance on a decades-old 
standard to measure intellectual disability, which is no longer used by medical 
professionals, "is constitutionally unacceptable."

-- Duane Buck: Alcala sharply criticized rulings allowing Buck to be executed 
despite trial testimony that he was a future danger to society because he is 
black.

Such concerns grabbed the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier 
this month, announced it would examine the constitutionality of the death 
sentences given to Moore and Buck.

Pointing out the flaws in the state's death penalty system takes political 
guts, given the wide support it enjoys in Texas, topping 70 % on a recent 
Gallup poll. That kind of courage has been in short supply since judge Tom 
Price left the state Court of Criminal Appeals in 2014. Before his departure, 
Price called for an end to the death penalty, saying he was haunted by a 
growing fear that Texas will execute an innocent inmate, if it hadn't already. 
He worried aloud whether he had participated in executing an innocent person.

As a long-time judge on the court, Price was part of a body with a dubious 
history in death penalty matters. The court still is plagued by its unfortunate 
"sleeping lawyer" ruling more than a decade ago refusing to halt an execution 
of a death row inmate whose attorney had snoozed through major portions of his 
capital murder trial.

Following that embarrassment, there was the "we close at 5" incident in a 2007 
case.

Presiding Judge Sharon Keller closed the court clerk's office at 5 p.m., 
preventing attorneys from filing a last-minute appeal for twice-convicted 
killer Michael Richard, who ultimately was executed without his final appeal 
being heard in court. That prompted the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to 
issue a public warning to Keller, but the rebuke was later dismissed on a 
technicality after Keller appealed.

Aside from the court's well-documented missteps, there are other signs of the 
system's imperfections in the wave of exonerations of Texans, such as Michael 
Morton, who were wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for many years, while 
the true criminals went free. Oftentimes, the guilty go on to commit more 
crimes, which was true in the Morton case in which the person who murdered 
Morton's wife, went on to kill another woman.

It's worth noting that Texas led the nation in the number of people wrongly 
convicted of crimes, who were exonerated in 2015, according to figures compiled 
by the National Registry of Exonerations. In all, 54 people were exonerated for 
mostly homicide and drug cases going back to 2004. New York was second with 17. 
False identifications by witnesses, misconduct by police or prosecutors, errors 
by crime labs or defense attorneys, all are among the things that can and do go 
wrong.

It's no wonder Alcala is uncomfortable remaining silent. Doing so perpetuates 
the fallacy that the state's death penalty is carried out fairly and justly. 
That might be what many wish it to be, but it is not the reality.

(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)






NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Marchand backs legal weed, getting inmate off death row


Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Marchand is calling for marijuana 
legalization and saying he'd consider commuting the death sentence of New 
Hampshire's only person on death row.

In the 3-way Democratic primary, these positions set Marchand apart - and mark 
a shift from the views of the 3 Democratic governors who've led New Hampshire 
for 18 of the past 20 years. Among them, none supported legalizing marijuana 
and only current Gov. Maggie Hassan has backed death penalty repeal, but only 
if it doesn't change the death sentence of convicted cop killer Michael 
Addison.

Marchand believes he's in line with voters.

"I don't think I'm outside the mainstream of where New Hampshire residents are 
on these and other issues," he said Monday.

Marchand's Democratic opponents are Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern and 
former state securities regulator Mark Connolly. Both entered the race earlier 
than Marchand, gaining a head start on voter outreach and fundraising. Viewed 
by many as the underdog, Marchand - the former mayor of Portsmouth - calls 
himself the "most progressive" candidate in the race, but also someone who can 
appeal to civil libertarians. Some Democrats question his progressive 
credentials.

The primary is Sept. 13.

60 % of New Hampshire voters support legalizing weed, according to the 
University of New Hampshire Survey Center, but Marchand is alone in offering 
full-throated support. Connolly is "open to" legalization after evaluating how 
it's worked in other states, his campaign said. Van Ostern's campaign said he 
is "not opposed" to legalization if it is supported by health care 
professionals and law enforcement, a group that staunchly opposes it now.

"There was a time not so long ago where somebody who was in favor of marijuana 
legislation would've just been laughed off the stage," said Wayne Lesperance, a 
political science professor at New England College. "We're not there anymore,"

All 3 Democrats support decriminalization for possessing small amounts of pot; 
New Hampshire is the only New England state without such a law.

Marchand's death penalty position is likely less popular. About half of New 
Hampshire voters prefer the death penalty for convicted murderers, and 
Addison's 2006 murder of Manchester police officer Michael Briggs sparked 
statewide outrage.

Like Marchand, Connolly and Van Ostern favor repeal but don't go so far as 
advocating a change in Addison's sentence. That's the same position Hassan took 
in 2014 when a repeal bill nearly made it through the Legislature.

New Hampshire remains the only New England state with the death penalty.

State law gives the governor, with advice of the executive council, power to 
commute a death sentence. Marchand says he'd prefer legislative repeal but 
would be open to reducing Addison's sentence to life in prison without parole 
through executive means. He called Addison's crime "heinous" and said there is 
"no question" of his guilt, but Marchand says his rivals are morally 
inconsistent if they want repeal to only apply to future crimes.

"It isn't just immoral in the future, it is also immoral in the present," he 
said.

Marchand's stance on both issues shows that he's not worried about being 
"cautious," said Andy Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center.

"Despite the success of Democratic candidates for governor, there's a feeling, 
a perception, that they haven't implemented policies that activist Democrats 
really want," Smith said.

But not all Democrats see Marchand as the progressive he's claiming to be, 
pointing to his past involvement with centrist political groups. Kathy 
Sullivan, a former state Democratic party chair who is backing Van Ostern, is a 
long-time critic of the group "No Labels," where Marchand was recently state 
director. The group has backed Republicans and called Donald Trump a "problem 
solver" candidate earlier this year. Marchand left shortly after.

"It was like he was no labels on Tuesday and I'm a progressive on Wednesday," 
she said. "No, that doesn't work."

(source: Associated Press)






ARIZONA:

Group wants to appeal decision in lawsuit over death penalty


The First Amendment Coalition of Arizona has asked a judge to clear the way for 
it to appeal a ruling last month that dismissed the group from a lawsuit 
protesting the way the state carries out the death penalty.

The group had joined death-row inmates in the lawsuit and alleged the state 
violated the coalition's First Amendment right of access to governmental 
proceeding by deliberately concealing information about executions from the 
public.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake has dismissed the coalition from the case, but 
allowed some claims brought by the inmates to continue.

The group is now asking Wake to issue a judgment so it can appeal the decision.

Otherwise, the group must wait until the case concludes.

Executions in Arizona remain on hold until the lawsuit is resolved.

(source: Associated Press)