[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., OHIO, NEB., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 1



TEXAS:

Man accused of slaughtering '3 generations out of one family'


This article contains graphic description.

Amos Joseph Wells kept his head down as video of the carnage he is accused of 
causing flashed across a courtroom screen Monday morning.

As the victims' family members cried - some so distraught that they left the 
courtroom - jurors watched as emergency crews worked desperately to save the 
lives of Wells' estranged 22-year-old pregnant girlfriend, Chanice Reed, her 
10-year-old brother, Eddie McCuin Jr., inside the family's east Fort Worth 
house.

The video was shot by a police sergeant's body camera.

Outside the home, other paramedics tended to the wounded pair's mother, Annette 
Reed, who had been crying for help when officers first arrived - despite a 
gunshot wound to the face.

Despite their efforts, all 3 would die, as well as Chanice Reed's unborn son.

"This defendant slaughtered 3 generations out of 1 family," Lloyd Whelchel, who 
is prosecuting the case along with Kevin Rousseau, told jurors in opening 
statements Monday. "He took 4 innocent lives that day."

Tarrant County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Wells.

He has been jailed since shortly after the July 1, 2013 slayings, when he 
walked into the Forest Hill Police Department and announced, "I've done 
something bad."

Though Wells is on trial for the deaths of Chanice Reed and her mother, Annette 
Reed, jurors also learned about the 2 other lives lost that day.

Reed's unborn son would be 3 today had he lived, Whelchel told jurors, likely 
getting ready to go trick or treating with his cousins.

McCuin would have been 13 and in the 7th grade, his life still wide open before 
him. Instead, the 10-year-old boy was chased down by Wells and executed inside 
the house after first witnessing his sister being shot, Whelchel told jurors.

Wells' defense attorneys, Bill Ray and Steve Gordon, did not give an opening 
statement Monday.

'They're dying'

In an emotional day of testimony, jurors heard from those who heard or 
witnessed Chanice Reed and Wells arguing moments before the triple shooting 
occurred.

They also heard Annette Reed's own voice as she called 911, asking for 
assistance at the home in the 2900 block of Pate Drive, in a chaotic call 
drowned out by screams and the shouts of "No!" and "Stop!" in the background.

Annette Reed later updates the call taker that "He's going to his truck" 
followed by more screams of "No!" before the call abruptly ends.

Joylene Parsons, Annette Reed's aunt, testified she had also heard shouting in 
the background when her clearly troubled niece called, asking her to come over 
and explaining that Chanice Reed and her boyfriend were arguing.

Esqual Martinez said he was working 2 houses down, patching up a driveway, when 
he saw and heard a man and woman arguing in the nearby front yard.

He said it sounded as if the man wanted to the woman to come with him, but she 
kept yelling no and telling the man to go.

Martinez said the man walked to the driver side of a Tahoe parked on the street 
in front of the home.

"At first I thought he was leaving but he came back with a gun in his hand," 
Martinez testified.

Martinez said he watched as the man shot the woman he had been arguing with 
multiple times.

He said he then saw the man approach an older woman with the gun. He said the 
older woman was trying to bat the gun away but the man kept repositioning it 
toward her until shooting her too.

Scared, Martinez said he grabbed a shovel and hid in a corner of the house he 
was working at for fear that the gunman might come after him next.

"I heard some more shots," Martinez testified. "I didn't know what was going 
on."

'Just pray for her'

Before emergency crews could arrive, another of Annette Reed's son arrived at 
the home after his own worrisome conversation with his mother.

Kenneth Speed, 21, testified he had called his mother to seek permission to go 
swimming but heard his sister, Chanice Reed, arguing with Wells loudly in the 
background. He said he and other relatives and friends rushed to his home after 
hearing his mother curse at Wells and the call ending.

He said they arrived to see the home's front door and screen door open and a 
neighbor standing in the yard.

"I opened the door and said, 'What's going on?'" Williams recalled. "He said, 
'Someone got shot.'"

Williams testified he looked to the left and saw his mother on the ground.

"I ran up. She was choking on her own blood," Williams testified. "I looked to 
the left and I saw my sister in the doorway with a hole in the head."

After seeing bullet holes inside the home's walls, Williams said he headed down 
toward the hall to find his little brother.

"I looked down the hallway. He was on the ground," Williams testified. "I 
rolled him over. He had 3 bullets in his chest."

By the time Parsons arrived at her niece's home, police cars already packed the 
street and she was prevented from going close to the house, she testified.

Parsons said she remembered a female officer approaching her, calling her by 
name and wrapping her in an embrace.

"She grabbed me and held me and she told me what happened," Parsons recalled. 
"I think I fainted."

She said the officer had told her that Chanice, her baby and "little Eddie" was 
already gone but that Annette Reed "is fighting for her life."

"She said, 'We don't think she's going to make it but just pray for her," 
Parsons testified.

'A lot of rage'

Defense attorneys declined to discuss their defense Monday during a courtroom 
break.

But while questioning Fort Worth police Sgt. Scott Sikes, whose bodycam video 
was shown to jurors Monday, Ray questioned the sergeant whether the scene - 
particularly the shooting of the 10-year-old boy - was indicative that the 
shooter was filled with "a lot of rage."

"It looked like someone that was very upset," Sikes said. "I'm not sure what 
the situation was."

Rousseau countered by asking Sikes about a live round that he had earlier 
testified about that was found among the shell casing inside the house, 
indicative that the gun used had "stove-topped" or jammed with a round that was 
not fully ejected, requiring that the gun be cleared before it could be fired 
again.

Rousseau asked Sikes if the live round indicated that the shooter was calm, 
cool and collected enough to clear the jammed handgun - to which Sikes agreed

Testimony will continue Tuesday in the 432nd District Court before State 
District Judge Ruben Gonzalez.

(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

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

Death row inmate sues state's highest criminal court over DNA testing----Inmate 
says Court of Criminal Appeals has deprived him of the right to prove his 
innocence.


A death row inmate has sued the state's highest criminal court and its 9 
judges, arguing that they have deprived him of the opportunity to prove his 
innocence.

Lawyers for death row inmate Larry Swearingen argue that the Court of Criminal 
Appeals adopted a flawed and unconstitutional interpretation of a state law 
intended to allow inmates to seek DNA tests, particularly if modern testing 
techniques were not available when they were convicted.

In a federal lawsuit filed Friday and served on the Texas court Monday, 
Swearingen asked U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin to rule that the 
Texas court violated his constitutional rights by needlessly restricting his 
access to DNA tests.

The lawsuit also asked Yeakel to order DNA testing on several items of crime 
scene evidence, arguing that the results will show that somebody else strangled 
Melissa Trotter in 1998. The 19-year-old college student's body was discovered 
one month later in a national forest near Conroe in East Texas.

The items Swearingen, 45, wants tested include the torn pantyhose used to 
strangle Trotter, her clothes, a rape kit and 4 cigarette butts found near her 
body.

The clothing in particular should still carry skin cells that could identify 
the killer, said Bryce Benjet, a lawyer with the Innocence Project in New York 
who filed Swearingen's lawsuit.

"Testing can both determine whether an innocent man is in prison and identify 
the real rapist and murderer, who may still be at large," Benjet said in the 
lawsuit.

Montgomery County prosecutors have opposed Swearingen's requests for further 
testing over the past decade, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed with 
them multiple times, most recently in October 2015, citing a "mountain" of 
evidence indicating Swearingen's guilt - including a pantyhose fragment found 
at Swearingen's home that matched the portion missing from the hose used to 
strangle Trotter.

In light of the evidence, the appeals court said in an 8-1 ruling, Swearingen 
was not entitled to additional testing based on a hypothetical hope that it 
would identify another suspect whose DNA profile could be found on a national 
crime registry.

"(That) makes it hard to imagine a case in which we would not grant DNA 
testing," Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the majority. "We believe that had 
the Legislature meant to so drastically lower the barrier for testing, they 
would have said so explicitly."

In the lawsuit, however, Benjet said the items Swearingen wants checked are 
today routinely tested for DNA before trial. In fact, changes to state law 
would now require them to be tested before seeking the death penalty, he said.

"That should entitle him to DNA testing," Benjet told the American-Statesman.

(source: Austin American-Statesman)






ALABAMA:

Asking for death penalty, inmate keeps escaping it


On a mild December day in 1991, Thomas Arthur asked the Jefferson County jury 
that had just convicted him of murder to send him to the electric chair.

"I will not be executed - I'm totally positive of that," Arthur said. "I need 
the death penalty to be able to fight legally. Life without parole will tie my 
hands."

The jury obliged Arthur, who just faced his 3rd trial in the 1982 murder of 
Muscle Shoals engineer Troy Wicker. "If I was permitted, I'd shake your hands," 
he told them.

It was an unusual request, more so because it wasn't the 1st time Arthur asked 
to die. At his 2nd trial for Wicker's murder in 1987, Arthur asked the jury to 
sentence him to death, right after attorney William Hovater asked the panel to 
save his life.

"He didn't tell me he was going to do it, but he said 'I want to make an 
argument, too,'" Hovater said in a phone interview Monday. "He was very calm."

Arthur's words have, to this point, proven prescient. 6 times in the last 
decade Arthur faced an execution date. 6 times court or procedural action put 
the execution off, sometimes with hours to spare. Arthur, 74, faces a 7th 
execution date on Thursday, but appeals to stop the execution remain pending in 
the courts.

The inmate's legal journey has served as a somewhat opaque window into the 
state's execution process. Arthur's challenges to the process for years were 
the only way to learn the Alabama's death penalty protocol, and have 
highlighted the increasing legal and technical difficulties the state faces in 
carrying out the death penalty.

But Arthur's case is also a window into tragedies that are 3 and 4 decades old. 
The murder that could lead to Arthur's execution Thursday night wasn't the 
first to put him in prison.

2 mornings

On the morning of March 28, 1977, Arthur - who court records said had been 
drinking heavily - walked into the office of a supply company in Haleyville and 
asked Eloise West, the sister of his common-law wife, where his wife was. When 
West refused and told him to leave, Arthur pulled out 2 handguns and fired 3 
shots, killing West and injuring a witness. A jury convicted Arthur of 
2nd-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison. He participated in 
outreach programs while in prison and eventually landed a job in a work release 
program.

On the morning of Feb. 1, 1982, Muscle Shoals police responded to a call about 
a break-in. Upon arriving, they found Troy Wicker shot to death in his bed. His 
wife, Judy, claimed she had been sexually assaulted during a burglary of the 
house by an assailant who was black.

The scene, however, made investigators suspicious. Where burglars tend to 
hastily overturn a house looking for valuables and break appliances and 
furniture in the process, someone appeared to set the items on the floor with a 
purpose in mind. Doug Aycock, a retired Sheffield Police Department chief who 
helped with the initial investigation, said in an interview last week that it 
looked "staged," a sentiment echoed by Robert Hall, a retired chief detective 
of the Muscle Shoals Police Department.

"It was like it had been laid down rather than knocked down," he said. "By 
instinct and experience, it just didn't seem right."

But investigators had no other working information to go on until they received 
a tip that an inmate in a Decatur work release program had, in Aycock's words, 
"a large amount of money on him."

"In the meantime, we had subpoenaed some telephone records of Wicker's and her 
sister," he said. "The place Tommy was working at in Decatur was on the 
telephone records quite a bit. Those 2 things worked together -- him having 
money, him calling her. It led us to him, basically."

Both Hall and Aycock went to interview Arthur, who denied any involvement. "He 
never did admit anything," Hall said. "His story was you got the wrong guy, and 
I don't know what you're talking about."

As later described in testimony in Arthur's 2nd and 3rd trial by Judy Wicker - 
convicted for her part in the murder and sentenced to life in prison -- the two 
knew each other when they were young. Wicker said there had been tensions in 
her marriage and that she had discussed murdering Troy with her sister in early 
1981. According to the testimony, Arthur and Judy Wicker had an affair before 
the morning of Feb. 1, 1982.

That morning, Judy Wicker testified, she met her sister and Arthur, who she 
said was "made up" to look like a black man, wearing an Afro wig and painting 
his face black. The pair proceeded back to the house. Wicker testified that she 
asked Arthur not to do it, but said Arthur replied "the SOB deserves to die." 
At the house, she said, Arthur began destroying things, then went to the 
Wickers' bedroom and shot Troy Wicker, who was asleep.

Wicker, collecting a $90,000 insurance policy, paid Arthur $10,000 and her 
sister $6,000. A grand jury indicted Arthur for Troy Wicker's murder in August, 
1982. Arthur was later convicted.

Arthur continues to maintain his innocence. His attorneys say that no physical 
evidence links Arthur to the scene and that Judy Wicker - who did not testify 
in Arthur's 1st trial -- changed her story to win release from prison. (Wicker, 
released in 1992 after serving 10 years in prison, told the Florence Times 
Daily in 2009 that she did not testify at Arthur's 1st trial because she was 
appealing her conviction, and denied that her testimony led to her early 
release.)

The defense also says that the state has resisted advanced DNA testing that 
could implicate another person in the crime, and notes missteps by prosecutors 
in the case. Sentenced to death after his 1st trial, the Alabama Supreme Court 
reversed Arthur's conviction in 1985 because prosecutors improperly introduced 
details of his 1977 murder conviction into the record.

While waiting for his 2nd trial, Arthur broke out of a Covington County jail, 
shooting one of his jailers in the neck. Arthur made his way to Tennessee, 
where police captured him after he and an accomplice robbed a bank. The 2 
kidnapped a driver to obtain a getaway car. Arthur, who testified in his 
defense in that trial, claimed to have won the car in a poker game but cited 
his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination because the 
questions touched on his escape.

After his recapture, Arthur's 2nd trial took place in Jefferson County. 
Convicted a 2nd time in 1987 - with Judy Wicker on the stand and Arthur 
requesting a death sentence - the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals overturned 
the conviction in 1990, ruling that prosecutors improperly introduced a 
statement Arthur made to the police without an attorney present.

Hovater did not defend Arthur at his third trial. There, Arthur - claiming that 
his court-appointed attorneys had not been responsive to letters and phone 
calls - asked to defend himself, and upon conviction again asked for a death 
sentence, which Judge James Hard imposed in January 1992.

Arthur appealed after the verdict, in part arguing that the court should not 
have allowed him to act as his own co-counsel. The Alabama Court of Criminal 
Appeals rejected that argument in 1996.

"[Arthur] clearly indicated that, based on his experience, he was making a 
knowing and intelligent trial strategy decision to seek the death penalty, and 
he gave reasonable grounds for this decision: His ultimate goal was avoiding 
the death penalty," the court wrote.

His defense team argues that Arthur's counsel had little to any contact with 
him and failed to conduct research or investigations that could have 
strengthened his defense.

"In the 6 months before Mr. Arthur's third trial, lead counsel met with him in 
person only once and reported only 2 hours and 10 minutes of phone 
conversations," a fact sheet prepared by Arthur's attorneys says.

Close calls

Arthur won his 1st stay of execution in 2001 to allow an appeal based on his 
representation claims to go forward. In 2007, the inmate came within hours of 
execution before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to 
Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, which led then-Gov. Bob Riley to issue a 
45-day reprieve to review Alabama's lethal injection process. The U.S. Supreme 
Court stayed a 3rd execution date that December.

In 2008, Arthur managed to stop another execution date after Bobby Ray Gilbert, 
an inmate, presented an affidavit claiming he had an affair with Judy Wicker 
and killed Troy Wicker when he was a 17-year-old.

Hall said the name never came up in the initial investigation, and Hovater said 
he did not remember Arthur mentioning the name during the time he defended him. 
Judy Wicker said in 2009 she never heard the inmate's name until it came up in 
the case.

"This is just Tommy's way of bringing me back into this," she told the Times 
Daily. "I wish he would just leave me and my family out of this. But now that 
he has brought me back into it, I am going to do everything in my power to see 
that Tommy dies in prison."

The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately rejected the claim, finding that 
Arthur knew Gilbert and passed him notes to help prepare his affidavit and 
noting the lack of DNA evidence linking Gilbert with Judy Wicker.

Arthur's attorneys argue that the court did not look into the lack of Arthur's 
DNA evidence on the scene, and say more advanced DNA testing on the wig used in 
the crime - which defense counsel offered to pay for - might establish Arthur's 
innocence. Arthur's attorneys also pressed the state on the fact that Wicker's 
rape kit - which they had sought since 2002 - had apparently disappeared, and 
that the state did not disclose this fact until Gilbert's affidavit came 
forward.

"This disclosure was made not when the State first discovered the information 
but when the State apparently recognized that others - including opposing 
counsel - would discover it also," Arthur's attorneys wrote in a 2011 lawsuit.

Lethal injection

Most of Arthur's legal efforts in the last 5 years have gone toward a challenge 
to Alabama's execution process. The challenge moved almost in tandem with 
growing difficulties from the state in securing the drugs needed to carry out 
executions.

After switching the method of execution from the electric chair to lethal 
injection in 2002, Alabama used a protocol involving sodium thiopental to 
render the condemned individual unconscious; pancuronium bromide, which 
paralyzes the muscles, and potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

In 2011, however, the drug maker Hospira, facing protests from anti-death 
penalty campaigners in Europe, announced it would stop manufacturing sodium 
thiopental. Alabama eventually switched to pentobarbital, another sedative.

Arthur and his defense team sued, arguing that there was no way to determine if 
pentobarbital would render him unconscious in time to avoid the pain from the 
other 2 drugs.

"Without an adequate anesthetic prior to administration of the 2nd and 3rd 
drugs, (Thomas) Arthur indisputably faces a substantial risk that he will 
experience excruciating pain - first from the suffocation induced by a 
paralytic, and then from the horrific burning feeling and cardiac arrest caused 
by potassium chloride," the complaint reads.

Attorneys also argued that those in charge of carrying out executions don't 
regularly perform a "pinch test" to verify if inmates are unconscious before 
giving them the other 2 drugs in Alabama???s 3-drug process.

The state's response that August was for many years the only window into the 
execution methods used by Alabama. The state argued that the use of 
pentobarbital was only a slight modification of the protocol, and argued 
Arthur's time to argue many of his points had run out.

The lawsuit led to Arthur's 5th stay of execution in 2012.

Early in 2014, in the midst of Arthur's litigation, state officials confirmed 
they had run out of pentobarbital. In September of that year, the state 
switched its execution protocol to use midazolam as the sedative and rocuronium 
bromide as the paralytic, while maintaining potassium chloride to stop the 
heart.

At that time the use of midazolam in lethal injection protocols had recently 
come under scrutiny after its use in three botched executions in Ohio, 
Oklahoma, and Arizona. Arthur amended his complaint, with his attorneys arguing 
the drug's reliability was in question and that because of Arthur's health, 
midazolam would trigger a heart attack before the other drugs were 
administered.

In 2015, Glossip v. Gross, a case from Oklahoma challenging the 
constitutionality of midazolam came before the U.S. Supreme Court. Arthur's 
litigation - and all executions in the state - were subsequently paused while 
the country waited for SCOTUS to issue a judgment.

Roughly 7 months later, SCOTUS held that there was not enough proof to show 
that a 3-drug protocol involving midazolam was unconstitutional.

Possibly more consequential for Arthur, however, the court also ruled that 
condemned inmates who challenge the death penalty must suggest alternative and 
readily available methods of execution in order to challenge the state's 
current execution method.

Part of Arthur's case then became an argument about how he would prefer to die. 
He has requested lethal injection solely with pentobarbital or execution by a 
firing squad.

1 year after Glossip and four years after filing his 1st complaint, part of 
Arthur's case went to trial.

The trial focused on 2 main issues: the availability of an alternative to 
ADOC's current lethal injection protocol, and whether ADOC sufficiently 
performs the consciousness check.

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins ultimately ruled against Arthur.

His attorneys have since filed an appeal to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of 
Appeals. But 2 days after Watkins issued his ruling, the state asked the 
Alabama Supreme Court to set an expedited execution date for Arthur.

"Thus, rather than seeking execution dates based on when the proceedings of 
condemned inmates had been finalized, the State apparently put Mr. Arthur at 
the top of the list and sought an execution date before any decision on his 
appeal," his appeal reads.

The appeal is pending before the U.S. Circuit Court.

Arthur did not testify at the trial and does not appear to have made any public 
statements in the last decade. Hovater said Arthur tried to contact him for 
years about getting back on his case, and said he had a sharp mind.

"He's very outgoing as far as having a conversation," he said. "He's not dumb."

When he requested the death penalty in 1987, Arthur made it clear to the jury 
he did not have a death wish.

"You get a quicker appeal process," he said. "It's not a guess as to whether it 
will be reversed, but when. I don't want to die. I want to live to be 1,000."

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)

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

Death row inmates in Alabama are human guinea pigs


Alabama's last execution may have burned a man alive because the "consciousness 
assessment" it administers is about as scientific as someone jostling you when 
you nod off on the sofa.

This is clear from the firsthand account of Ms. Terry Deep, a federal 
investigator who witnessed the execution of Christopher Brooks at Holman Prison 
in Atmore, Alabama on Jan. 21, 2016.

Deep signed a sworn affidavit attached as an exhibit to an April 15, 2016 court 
filing in the case of Ronald Bert Smith detailing these observations; Mr. Smith 
is scheduled for execution in Alabama on Dec. 8, 2016, and his federal 
defenders also represented Christopher Brooks.

Ms. Deep's account goes like this: "After the Warden called for order and read 
the execution warrant, Mr. Brooks made his final statement. Warden Davenport 
then left the execution chamber, leaving [a correctional officer, identified 
only as D.F.] and the prison chaplain in the execution chamber. The chaplain 
walked over to Mr. Brooks, held his hand, and stepped away. Mr. Brooks' 
breathing became rapid and shallow. D.F. called out Mr. Brooks' name, raised 
his eyelids and reached behind Mr. Brooks' left arm momentarily. Mr. Brooks' 
eyes were closed at the end of this activity. D.F. stepped away from Mr. 
Brooks. Mr. Brooks' breathing further slowed. Before the curtains were closed, 
Mr. Brooks' left eye opened, and was still open when the execution chamber 
curtains were closed."

Using these critical observations, federal defenders based in Montgomery, 
Alabama, cogently argue that:

[Alabama's] execution protocol uses potassium chloride, a drug that 
unquestionably causes an unconstitutional level of pain [.] [Alabama does] not 
intend to anesthetize [Ronald Smith]; rather, they intend to use a sedative 
with no analgesic properties to create the illusion of adequate anesthesia. 
[Alabama's] protocol further creates an illusion of adequate anesthesia by 
having an untrained corrections officer conduct a "consciousness assessment" to 
determine whether an inmate is anesthetized prior to injection of potassium 
chloride, a drug that, if injected without adequate anesthesia, indisputably 
causes an unconstitutional level of pain.

Because of the way midazolam works in the human body, it could sedate an 
individual to the point where he was incapable of communicating that he was in 
pain while doing nothing to suppress the experience of pain. Because midazolam 
is a sedative and not an analgesic, there is a high likelihood that an inmate 
who receives a high dose of midazolam would be unable to respond to the noxious 
stimuli that constitute the ADOC???s consciousness check, but would still feel 
the excruciating effects of the 2nd and 3rd drugs.

In layman's terms, what the public defenders are saying is, as human beings, if 
we insist on pumping caustic, corrosive drugs into other human beings, our 
Constitution, and specifically the Eighth Amendment???s prohibition of cruel 
and unusual punishment, demands it not cause excruciating pain.

In the case of lethal injection, I respectfully submit, this is an impossible 
burden to satisfy because (1) thankfully, exterminating human beings is hardly 
an exact science, and (2) corrections officers who execute in Alabama, and for 
that matter nationwide - whose government paychecks come with a duty to kill - 
are not, when it comes to administering lethal injections, the sharpest tools 
in the shed. In Stephanie Mencimer, "State Executioners: Untrained, 
Incompetent, and 'Complete Idiots", she quotes Dr. Jay Chapman, the Oklahoma 
coroner who helped create the modern lethal injection protocol, who observed in 
The New York Times in 2007, "It never occurred to me when we set this up that 
we'd have complete idiots administering the drugs."

In Alabama's executions, including Mr. Brooks', the critical "consciousness 
assessment" the federal public defenders say, "is performed by a corrections 
officer who has received no medical training, whereas anesthesiologists receive 
extensive training in order to assess a patient's depth of anesthesia. Not only 
must they graduate from college and medical school, they must follow this with 
4 years of training before they can be certified to practice anesthesiology 
without supervision."

However, anesthesiologists, the reputable ones in the U.S. at least, won't help 
Alabama, or any other state, to whitewash - using a seemingly mundane and 
sterile-looking medical procedure - the violent torture of lethal injection. As 
Dr. J. Jeffrey Andrews, Secretary of The American Board of Anesthesiology wrote 
in May of 2014: "[We] should never confuse the death chamber with the operating 
room, lethal doses of execution drugs with anesthetic drugs, or the executioner 
with the anesthesiologist. Physicians should not be expected to act in ways 
that violate the ethics of medical practice, even if these acts are legal. 
Anesthesiologists are healers, not executioners."

Furthermore, as the federal defenders in Alabama highlight, even if 
anesthesiologists did violate their professional code of ethics and participate 
in the ignominy of public executions (and specifically, the grim but oh so 
important "consciousness assessment"): "[A]nesthesiologists do not take such 
action based solely on a manual assessment, they also rely on the use of 
devices that monitor vital signs. The events of Christopher Brooks' execution 
indicate that Defendants' crude assessment conducted by an individual with no 
medical training creates a substantial risk of pain in violation of the Eighth 
Amendment. Mr. Brooks' left eye opened after the consciousness assessment and 
assuming they even noticed, no one from the ADOC took any action."

The late Dr. Jack Kevorkian, nicknamed "Dr. Death," was once, according to his 
New York Times obituary, called "a reckless instrument of death" who "poses a 
great threat to the public." But, compared to corrections officers on the 
execution squad in Alabama, at least when Kevorkian sent people to their 
deaths, he had some medical training and whatever their efficacy, he used 
machines.

In a 1958 paper Kevorkian once authored called, "Capital Punishment or Capital 
Gain?," he wrote: "Most of us are well aware that the ultimate 'laboratory' for 
testing every medical fact, concept or device is man himself .... In this 
logical and proper sequence of trial, the human subject at the end, the 'guinea 
pig,' is and always will be, the most difficult link to procure .... Viewing 
the problem purely realistically, capital punishment as it exists today, offers 
an unrivaled opportunity [.]"

It would appear the State of Alabama agrees.

(source: Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an 
assistant federal public defender in Alabama, in the same office that 
represented Christopher Brooks, between 2012 and 2015----thehill.com)






OHIO:

'OLD SPARKY' AT POLICE MUSEUM ---- Toledo Police Museum exhibit looks at 
electric-chair use; Local cases shown in new display


A minor South Toledo car crash in 1957 so angered Bennie Collins that he shot 
the driver in a fatal case of road rage.

One year later, the state executed Collins in the electric chair. He was the 
17th and final northwest Ohio convict put to death in the device nicknamed "Old 
Sparky."

The Toledo Police Museum's newest exhibit, "Tales from Old Sparky: Convictions 
that led to the electric chair," showcases 14 such criminal cases from Toledo 
and Lucas County. It includes a loaned replica of the state's original electric 
chair.

The electric chair was used to execute people in Ohio until 1963. The last 
local person killed this way died in December, 1958. Although the replica has 
no electrical setup, the real chair reached nearly 2,000 volts within 10 
seconds and caused instant death.

Also on display is a history of capital punishment in Ohio and newspaper 
clippings from each of the local crimes. They illustrate how the public and 
news media reacted to the offenses at the time.

This exhibit helps educate the public about the history of crime and 
punishment, said Director Shirley Green.

"This is a period of time where the state of Ohio was going from hanging as 
capital punishment to the electric chair, which they thought was more humane," 
Ms. Green said.

Ms. Green said organizers did not want to glamorize the crimes, but hoped to 
educate the public about the evolution of law enforcement investigations.

Museum volunteer Diane Miscannon said hosting the replica chair reminds 
visitors that life is valuable, and it's wrong to commit murder. Her father, 
Officer William Miscannon was killed in the line of duty in 1970.

"If you knowingly and willingly take a life, you're putting your own life on 
the line," she said.

Among the museum visitors on a recent morning was Jodi Francis with her niece 
and nephews.

Ms. Francis, 45, of Holland said she supports the death penalty for serious 
offenses. She said the exhibit teaches youth the history of serious crimes in 
the city and the possible effects of criminal behavior.

"I think it's a good exhibit to have here for the kids, to let them really see 
where we've been, where we're going, and what we could go to next," Ms. Francis 
said.

This exhibit is on display at the Toledo Police Museum, 2201 Kenwood Blvd. in 
Ottawa Park. It is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays. The chair 
is on loan for at least a year from the Mansfield Reformatory Preservation 
Society.

(source: Toledo Blade)






NEBRASKA:

A Billionaire Governor Is Using His Own Money to Reinstate the Death 
Penalty----Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts may have bigger aims than just restoring 
capital punishment.


On May 20, 2015, the Nebraska state Legislature voted to repeal the state's 
death penalty. When the Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, vetoed the 
legislation 6 days later, the Legislature overrode his veto. It was an 
extraordinary move, making Nebraska the 1st solidly conservative state in more 
than 40 years to end the death penalty.

But the victory for death penalty opponents was short-lived. Having failed in 
his role as governor to protect the death penalty, Ricketts worked to reinstate 
it in a different capacity: As a man of deep pockets. Ricketts and his 
billionaire father, Republican megadonor Joe Ricketts, spent $300,000 on an 
effort to collect enough signatures to put the death penalty question to 
voters, in the form of a referendum on November 8. The governor donated another 
$100,000 this fall to fund a campaign to sway voters to reinstate the death 
penalty.

"It's pretty unusual to have a governor who would lose an initiative through 
the process then try to reverse that process outside of the role of the 
governor with his own money," says state Sen. Colby Coash, a conservative 
Republican and a leader of the anti-death-penalty effort. "Pretty 
unprecedented."

Ricketts' personal funding of the pro-death-penalty campaign has raised 
questions about the separation of powers in the state, but also about his 
political motives. The death penalty is an odd issue for Ricketts to stake so 
much on because, at least in Nebraska, it's largely symbolic. The state has not 
carried out an execution in nearly 2 decades - and critics believe it will not 
execute anyone in the foreseeable future because the state is unable to obtain 
the necessary drugs. (Ricketts' administration even tried, but failed, to 
obtain execution drugs illegally from India.)

It's possible that the governor simply feels passionately about the death 
penalty, which he has long supported. But Ricketts' critics think he's using 
the death penalty to achieve a different objective: consolidating his own 
power. Ricketts, they say, wanted the death penalty on the ballot in November 
as a wedge issue to unseat lawmakers who have defied him over the past year. If 
Ricketts plays his cards right, he could enter the last 2 years of his 1st term 
as a much more powerful governor. From there, he could run for the US Senate - 
for which he ran unsuccessfully in 2006 - or even the White House. "Certainly 
he sees himself with a future," says Paul Landow, a professor at the University 
of Nebraska-Omaha who specializes in state-level politics. "A national future."

Ricketts, his critics say, wanted the death penalty on the ballot in November 
as a wedge issue to unseat lawmakers who have defied him over the past year.

Within a few months of becoming governor in January 2015, Ricketts was clashing 
with the Legislature - and losing. The 1st showdown came over a bill to raise 
the gas tax to pay for repairs to roads and bridges. Ricketts vetoed the 
6-cent-per-gallon hike, and the Legislature overrode his veto. Less than 2 
weeks later, the Legislature overrode another veto, this time over the death 
penalty. The very next day brought a third override, over a bill to allow 
driver's licenses for young immigrants who were granted temporary legal status 
under President Barack Obama's 2012 executive action to help children of 
undocumented immigrants. A year later, the Legislature would override Ricketts' 
veto of a bill permitting these same immigrants to obtain professional and 
commercial licenses.

Ricketts has made no secret of his anger at the legislators who voted against 
him on those measures. At the state Republican Party convention this spring, he 
read aloud the names of more than a dozen GOP senators who had crossed him and 
called for electing Republican senators who do not stray from the party's 
platform. (The Legislature is unicameral, but its members are known as 
senators.) This is a faux pas in Nebraska, where the Legislature is ostensibly 
nonpartisan, although it's no secret which members are Republicans and which 
are Democrats. 13 senators, including 5 Republicans, chastised Ricketts in an 
open letter for attacking "respected conservatives elected by the people to 
obey their own convictions and principles, not the governor's."

But Ricketts was doing more than lecturing the Legislature. By the time he gave 
that speech, he had already endorsed a challenger to one of the Republicans who 
had clashed with him on those vetoes. Later in the summer, he gave his support 
to another challenger of an incumbent Republican. Meanwhile, Americans for 
Prosperity and Trees of Liberty, 2 groups affiliated with the Koch brothers, 
used a direct-mail campaign to target incumbent Republicans who had defied 
Ricketts on the vetoes. (The groups are not required to disclose their donors.) 
After a May primary - Nebraska employs a jungle primary system in which the top 
2 vote-earners face off in the general election - 3 sitting Republicans are 
confronting GOP challengers on November 8.

With the death penalty question on the ballot, these challengers are making it 
a central campaign issue as they try to oust sitting Republicans who voted to 
repeal it. They're "trying to ride it to election," says state Sen. Mike Gloor, 
a Republican who voted to repeal the death penalty. Vincent Powers, the head of 
the state Democratic Party, puts it more bluntly. "Ricketts just wants to 
impose his will on the Legislature, and so he's using this emotional issue as a 
club," he says. "It's very troubling if you are like me and you think democracy 
is a good thing."

"Ricketts just wants to impose his will on the Legislature, and so he's using 
this emotional issue as a club. It's very troubling if you are like me and you 
think democracy is a good thing."

The fact that the repeal effort succeeded at all was something of a miracle. 
For decades, state Sen. Ernie Chambers, a liberal independent who has served in 
the Legislature since the 1970s, has unsuccessfully introduced a bill to 
abolish the state's death penalty. But in 2015, with a large freshman class 
open to arguments against the death penalty, a few conservatives in the 
Legislature took up the cause as well.

By all accounts, Nebraska's death penalty is a failure. The last execution in 
the state took place in 1997, but the state continues to spend $14.6 million a 
year on costs related to maintaining the death penalty, according to a study 
commissioned by the state's anti-death penalty coalition. The legislators who 
voted to repeal it had come to believe that the death penalty was not just a 
financial loser but also bad policy that was unfairly applied, used to coerce 
suspects into pleading guilty, and capable of putting innocent people to death.

As the death penalty fight moved from the Legislature to the ballot initiative, 
a coalition of conservatives, liberals, and the Catholic Church came together 
to fight to retain the repeal. The coalition has spent more than $2.5 million 
on voter education efforts, canvassing, and TV ads - far more than its 
pro-death-penalty counterpart has spent.

Even with the active backing of the Nebraska Catholic Conference in the heavily 
Catholic state, the consensus is that a popular referendum on the death penalty 
in a deep-red state is a heavy lift. But there are a few wild cards that could 
help the anti-death penalty side in a close contest. The first is the language 
on the ballot itself, which could confuse some death penalty supporters, who 
need to vote "repeal" to reverse the existing death penalty ban. When the 
ballot language was finalized, the coalition opposing the death penalty quickly 
changed its name to Retain a Just Nebraska so that death penalty opponents 
would know to vote "retain" to keep the ban.

The 2nd big question is turnout. Nebraska does not have a governor's race or a 
US Senate race this year, leaving the presidential race as the main draw for 
voters to get to the polls. But Nebraska, though deeply conservative, is not 
exactly Trump territory. Ricketts endorsed Trump after his first choice, Ted 
Cruz, dropped out of the primary, but he has not donated to Trump's campaign; 
his wife, meanwhile, registered as a Democrat and is supporting Hillary 
Clinton. Both of the state's Republican US senators have spoken out against 
Trump: Ben Sasse is perhaps the most prominent Never Trump Republican in the 
country, while Deb Fischer unendorsed him after the infamous 2005 Access 
Hollywood video was leaked in early October. (She later re-endorsed him.) "I 
think there's a legitimate chance that the Legislature will be held up," Coash 
says hopefully. "It all comes down to turnout."

Most politicians and analysts predict the repeal will be overturned because 
Nebraska is such a conservative state. "I would be absolutely shocked if the 
voters basically supported to keep the repeal of the death penalty," says Aaron 
Trost, a Republican operative who ran Fischer's campaign in 2012. In August, 
the pro-death-penalty group released a poll showing that 2 out of 3 Nebraskans 
support the death penalty. Dan Parsons, the spokesman for the 
anti-death-penalty group, has argued that the poll was "flawed." Unlike the 
poll, the referendum states that if the death penalty repeal stands, defendants 
who would otherwise have received a death sentence would instead get life in 
prison. Previous polling has shown that when life without parole is mentioned 
as the alternative to the death penalty, some Americans switch from death 
penalty support to opposition.

"We've outworked them and outmaneuvered them for over a year now," Parsons 
says. As of early October, according to campaign finance disclosures, the 
anti-death-penalty group had raised $2.7 million to the pro-death-penalty 
group's $1.2 million - and most of the latter funds were spent gathering 
signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

The anti-death penalty group received big donations from liberal philanthropic 
organizations. Major contributors to the pro-death penalty group include Pete 
and Joe Ricketts and billionaire Republican donor Robert Mercer, as well as two 
national dark-money groups. One of those groups, Citizens for a Sound 
Government, spent money on Ricketts' behalf during his 2014 primary. It's 
unclear who is behind the groups' money or why outside groups see fit to invest 
in the death penalty in Nebraska. One possibility is that they're investing in 
something else: Ricketts' broader conservative agenda and his career, perhaps 
on the national stage.

"Should the ballot initiative lose, that would be a big blow to him," says 
Landow, the political scientist. "So it's a gamble. And he took it, I think, 
because he calculated that it was worth it in terms of his future national 
standing."

(source: Mother Jones)






CALIFORNIA:

Life after death row: an evening with Shujaa Graham


There was a full house on Oct. 25 in the Parish Hall of First Parish Unitarian 
Church in Concord. The crowd turned out to hear Shujaa Graham, an exonerated 
death row inmate turned criminal justice activist and death penalty 
abolitionist.

Concord Prison Outreach was well represented at the event as was First Parish 
itself. Others came out of desire to learn the issues and learn from other 
activists. One woman said she had seen the Black Lives Matter sign out in front 
of First Parish the previous week and decided to attend the church service on 
Sunday, where she saw the flyer for the event with Graham, and one thing led to 
another. Several previously incarcerated people were also present. The first 
half hour was for meet and greet with coffee and refreshments.

Graham's story hits many of the major landmarks in the history of race 
relations and criminal justice in the U.S. over the past 65 years. He was born 
the son of a share cropper in Louisiana in the 1950s. He lived his childhood 
years under Jim Crow laws, moving to Los Angeles in the 1960s, part of the 
Great Migration of African-Americans out of the segregated south to the cities 
of the West and North. The crowded living conditions, competition for jobs, 
exploitation by white landlords, resentment from whites and the 
already-established blacks made life a challenge for the huge numbers of newly 
arrived African-Americans. As a teenager, Graham was in and out of trouble and, 
with many other African-American youths, became part of the juvenile justice 
system. He lived through the Watts riots. He never really learned to read or 
write.

When Graham was in his late teens, he was sent to San Quentin. That was where 
he turned his life around. Under the mentorship of members of the black prison 
movement, he applied himself to his studies. He finally got an education, 
reading widely from historical and contemporary sources.

Those were turbulent times. There was a prison uprising and a guard was killed. 
Graham was falsely accused of the murder and sent to death row. Thanks to 
activists on the outside who took up his cause, he had 4 separate trials and 
was finally exonerated after 8 years. After his release, Graham became a 
community organizer in the Bay area before moving to the Washington D.C.-area 
with his wife, where they raised their 3 children and still live to this day.

Graham is active in an organization called Witness to Innocence, a group run by 
and for death penalty exonerees. Witness to Innocence teaches its members to 
tell their story, to reach out and work with others - especially young people. 
Deeply involved in this work, Graham and his wife, Phyllis Prentice, are active 
to this day - traveling and speaking.

The event also featured photography from Scott Langley's death penalty photo 
documentary project. The photos added a lot to the program. Langley, an 
anti-death penalty activist and professional photographer, was present at the 
event. He introduced Graham, whom he has known for many years. Langley is the 
coordinator for death penalty abolition work for Amnesty International USA in 
the Northeast.

The program was hosted by Amnesty International Group 15, a local chapter of 
Amnesty International USA based in Concord, with members from many of the 
surrounding towns. Founded in the 1970s, Group 15 was the 15th Amnesty group to 
be formed in the U.S. and has been active ever since. Group 15 meets monthly at 
First Parish in Concord. Visitors and guests and anyone who is interested are 
always welcome at the meetings.

(source: wickedlocal.com)

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

Exonerated death row inmate says capital punishment should be eliminated


The inmates on death row represent the worst of the worst of California's 
criminals. Collectively, they've murdered roughly 1,000 people. Californians 
have consistently voted that executing these people is the way to make things 
right.

But what happens if the legal system gets it wrong?

"I'm a death row survivor out of the state of California," said Shujaa Graham.

Graham spent years on San Quentin's death row.

"Think about you fittin' to lose your life for something that you didn't do," 
Graham said.

Graham admits, there were quite a few things he did do in his early years. As a 
child, he joined an L.A. gang and was in and out of juvenile hall. At age 18, 
he was sent to prison. Within the walls of the prison, he began to turn his 
life around.

"I tried to create a new person," Graham said. "And from that day on, I never 
looked back."

Graham was transferred to a San Joaquin County prison, the Deuel Vocational 
Institute, and became an advocate for prisoner's rights.

"We tried to get reading materials, better prison conditions for prisoners. 
Tried to expose the brutality that was being perpetrated by the guards at the 
prison," Graham said.

He said authorities labeled him a violent troublemaker during a time of violent 
clashes between correctional officers and prisoners.

"Did I add to the atmosphere by educating people that they didn't have to 
accept this? Some people took it another way. Some people did it my way. Some 
people did it this way. Others resorted to violence," Graham said.

One of those clashes turned deadly. A correctional officer was killed and 
Graham was blamed. But he said he had nothing to do with the murder of that 
prison guard.

"Something happened. What happened? None of them really know," Graham said. 
"They say there was a takeover in the building."

His 1st trial ended with a hung jury. But after the 2nd, Graham and another 
inmate were convicted and sentenced to death.

"I never contemplated suicide when I was on death row," Graham remembered, 
holding back tears. "But sometimes, the pain got so hard, that it was perfectly 
OK if I didn't wake up in the morning."

After years of appeals, Graham got his conviction overturned when his attorneys 
proved blacks were excluded from his jury.

But he wasn't free yet. A 3rd trial ended in another hung jury before he was 
finally acquitted.

As a long-time crusader against the death penalty, Graham is now urging voters 
to pass Proposition 62, which would repeal the death penalty.

"Capital punishment doesn't solve any problems," Graham said. "It's just a 
vengeful thing."

Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert says that's not the 
case.

"It's not a decision we take lightly. But if someone decides to go into the 
Golden 1 Center tonight and kill indiscriminately for no reason, that should be 
an option," Schubert said.

Proposition 62 would also commute the sentences of current condemned inmates to 
life in prison, which would mean telling people like Sandy Friend the man who 
raped and murdered her 7-year-old son won't be executed.

"These loved ones were given a promise," Schubert said. "And through the swipe 
of a pen, through an election process, it's all taken away."

Still, Schubert agrees -- California's death penalty is broken. So she's 
advocating for Proposition 66, which would preserve the death penalty but speed 
up the process from conviction to execution.

"Let's fix the appeals process so people don't wait 7 to 10 years to even get 
an attorney after they've been convicted. It shouldn't take 5 to 10 years once 
you've gotten a lawyer to have appeal after appeal after appeal," Schubert 
said.

But appeal, after appeal, after appeal was the difference between life and 
death for Graham.

"Remember, it took 8 years to prove my innocence," Graham said. "It's a great 
possibility I wouldn't be here today if Proposition 66 had been into effect."

In Shujaa Graham's case, the system got it wrong. The question before voters 
is, will Proposition 62 or 66 set things right?

(source: Fox News)

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

Attorneys for man accused of killing Sierra LaMar prepare to argue she actually 
ran away


Defense attorneys for the accused killer of Sierra LaMar are preparing to argue 
the Morgan Hill teen ran away the day of her 2012 disappearance, relying on a 
contested notebook entry as evidence.

Antolin Garcia-Torres, 25, will go on trial in January on a murder charge in 
Sierra's death even though the body of the girl - who vanished at age 15 and is 
presumed dead by authorities - has not been found. The Santa Clara County 
district attorney's office is seeking the death penalty.

Prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude a cryptic note in Sierra's Spanish 
notebook from the evidence that will be presented to jurors, arguing the 
writing was not hers and was likely a prank committed by other teens at Ann 
Sobrato High School after Sierra went missing.

The note reads, "I hate my life ... no ever sees this. I will be in San 
Francisco by 3/16/12." That was the last day Sierra was seen.

Garcia-Torres' attorneys say it could be inferred that Sierra wrote the note.

"The Spanish notebook belonged to Sierra Lamar - it was her personal notebook," 
Deputy Alternate Defender Alfonso Lopez said Monday in court. "I think the 
inference is because it was her notebook, it was her writing in the notebook."

Deputy District Attorney David Boyd, however, said in court documents that the 
note did not match Sierra's handwriting. He said Monday that the notebook was 
turned over to police after school officials seized it from unnamed students 
who had been writing in it.

"What Mr. Lopez declines to do ... is to say where this notebook was found," 
Boyd said in court.

A judge is set to continue pretrial hearings in the case on Dec. 9, and could 
rule on whether to allow the note.

Authorities and Sierra's parents have dismissed the possibility the girl ran 
away, saying it is inconsistent with her character or the evidence. But defense 
attorneys have also cited a 2nd notebook that was believed to have been shared 
between Sierra and 3 school friends and includes a message about running off.

"I really just wanna run away," the entry said. "You know like take a road trip 
to Las Vegas/Hollywood. Away from problems just lay on a beach and chill. We 
should some day. NO JOKE. Like we should f - around get drunk and get loss with 
some HAWWT ass strangers."

In addition, the defense said in court documents, Sierra's close friend Ashley 
Gardiner, who lived with Sierra and her mother, told detectives that Sierra 
told her she wanted to run away and had showed her a suitcase of clothes.

Sierra typically left home about 7:15 a.m. to catch a bus to school, but she 
never got on the bus the day she vanished and wasn't seen at school. The last 
time anyone heard from her was 7:11 a.m. when she sent a text to a friend, 
planning to meet up at school that day. Her mother called police in the evening 
to report her missing.

Sierra's phone was found in a field less than a mile from her home the day 
after she went missing. A day later, her clothes, books and purse turned up 
near a shed less than 2 miles from her home.

Authorities said Sierra and Garcia-Torres didn't know each other prior to March 
16, 2012, but have been linked by forensic evidence. DNA found on Sierra's 
clothes belonged to Garcia-Torres, who lived about 7 miles from the girl, they 
said, while Sierra's hair was allegedly found on rope in Garcia-Torres' car.

Prosecutors argued last year that the theory that Sierra ran off was illogical 
considering that her clothing, phone and purse - which contained the $5 her 
mother routinely gave her to buy lunch - were all recovered.

The girl's clothes also showed signs of abduction, including marks that 
indicate she had been dragged, according to prosecutors, who called the runaway 
defense a "patently absurd theory for a totally dependent 15-year-old."

(source: sfgate.com)

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

Defendant in Ceres death penalty case asks for new advisory counsel


Mark Edward Mesiti again was not able to proceed with his motion to dismiss his 
death penalty case, telling the judge on Monday that his advisory counsel has 
failed to give him court transcripts he needs to make his argument in court.

Mesiti, who is legally representing himself, is accused of killing his 
14-year-old daughter, Alycia Mesiti. On March 25, 2009, the girl's body was 
found buried in the backyard of the Ceres home where Mesiti lived at the time 
of her disappearance in August 2006.

After the defendant decided to act as his own attorney, the court appointed 
attorney Martin Baker as an advisory counsel to assist Mesiti as needed. Mesiti 
on Monday afternoon asked the judge to hold a closed-door hearing, so he could 
explain to the court why he needs a new advisory counsel.

Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Dawna Reeves denied his request, telling Mesiti 
those closed-door hearings are for defendants who have an attorney.

"You are the attorney," Reeves told Mesiti. "Mr. Baker's role is simply as 
advisory counsel."

Baker said this appears to be a lack of mutual understanding about who can 
retrieve these transcripts on behalf of Mesiti, who remains in custody at the 
county jail. He told the judge Mesiti has insisted on sending members of his 
"legal team" who are unknown to the attorney. Baker said Mesiti gave him one 
name of person who has failed to pick up the transcripts.

The judge informed Mesiti he doesn't have to be assisted by an advisory counsel 
if he doesn't want one. Mesiti, who claims his right to a speedy trial has been 
violated, said he wants a new advisory counsel. It's unclear if appointing a 
new attorney to assist Mesiti will postpone his Feb. 6 capital murder trial.

Reeves sounded frustrated when Mesiti told her he wasn't able to proceed with 
his motion. She asked him "Why would you file a motion if you're not ready to 
proceed?"

Mesiti claimed Baker has refused to provide him with court transcripts from 
hearings before Oct. 6, 2015. He told the judge he needs those transcripts to 
argue against a prosecution response to his motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss initially was scheduled Oct. 21. Mesiti showed up in 
court that day, saying he couldn't make his argument because of jail sewage 
flooding near his cell. Sheriff's officials later said plumbing problems were 
quickly fixed and the flooding was not near Mesiti's jail cell.

On Monday, Mesiti reluctantly decided to withdraw his motion to dismiss. The 
judge ordered him to hand Baker a list of the court documents he needs and the 
name of the person who will retrieve the documents.

Reeves scheduled a hearing Nov. 15 to ensure the Mesiti and Baker have resolved 
the transcript issue. The judge also scheduled a hearing Dec. 8, when they can 
discuss a juror questionnaire.

Along with the capital murder charge, Mesiti is charged with more than 40 
counts of sexually abusing his daughter, as well as sexual abuse charges 
involving 2 other girls, according to a criminal grand jury indictment.

(source: Modesto Bee)

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

Judge rules in Pinyon Pines cold-case triple homicide----Cristin Smith, Robert 
Pape will stand trial


There was big news surrounding the Pinyon Pines triple-homicide cold case 
Sunday when Riverside County Superior Court Judge Bernard Schwartz denied a 
motion to dismiss the case based on allegations of prejudice and ruled that 
there is sufficient evidence for Robert Lars Pape and Cristin Conrad Smith, 
both 28, to stand trial on all charges.

It was the 4th and final day of a preliminary hearing inside the Riverside 
County Hall of Justice. Judge Schwartz ruled there was reasonable and probable 
cause to believe Pape and Smith may have committed the crimes based on new 
evidence and courtroom testimony heard in the hearing.

The Riverside County District Attorney's Office told CBS Local 2's and KESQ 
News Channel 3's Katie Widner it was a small victory in a much bigger battle.

"Well, this is the 1st step to a long process in this case," said John Hall, 
public information officer for the DA's office. "The judge found sufficient 
evidence to hold both defendants to answer and go to trial on all charges in 
this case. It's a long time coming, obviously, and we're glad that this part is 
done, but we still have a long way to go."

Pape's attorney Jeff Moore did not want to go on-camera after the hearing, but 
promised there would be more evidence presented during trial.

The DA's office said it only presented a portion of the evidence in this case 
at the preliminary hearing.

The men are charged with 3 counts of murder, with a special circumstance 
allegation of committing multiple murders. The charges were filed by the DA's 
office against Pape and Smith on June 8. The special circumstance allegation 
makes Pape eligible for the death penalty. The DA's office said District 
Attorney Mike Hestrin will make that decision as to whether they will seek it 
at a later date. Smith was a juvenile at the time of the murders, therefore he 
is not eligible for the death penalty, but faces life in prison without the 
possibility of parole.

(source: KESQ news)






USA:

Admitted murderer to face death penalty trial in Massachusetts


A Massachusetts man who admitted to murdering 3 people in a weeklong 2001 
rampage in 2 states is due back in court on Tuesday, where federal prosecutors 
plan to try a 2nd time to have him executed for his crimes.

Gary Lee Sampson, 56, was sentenced to death in 2004 after pleading guilty to 
killing 2 men, aged 69 and 19, who picked him up while he was hitchhiking in 
Massachusetts in 2 separate incidents, and later killing the 58-year-old 
caretaker of a vacation home he broke into on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, 
New Hampshire.

That sentence was overturned in 2011 after a judge learned that 1 of the jurors 
lied about her history as a victim of domestic violence, setting the stage for 
the 2nd death penalty trial Massachusetts has seen in 2 years.

It took 6 weeks to select the jury to hear Sampson's case, an illustration of 
how hard it is to find a pool of people open to the idea of voting to execute 
someone in a state where the penalty is highly controversial and banned under 
state law.

Sampson faces the risk of execution because he is on trial in federal court, as 
was Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death last 
year.

Since Sampson had pleaded guilty, the trial will focus exclusively on whether 
he will be put to death for his crimes, or sentenced to life in prison without 
the possibility of parole.

Federal prosecutors contend that the severity of Sampson's crimes justify 
capital punishment. His victims were Philip McCloskey, 69, Jonathan Rizzo, 19, 
slain in Massachusetts, and Robert Whitney, 58, killed in New Hampshire.

Defense attorneys plan to address more than 200 mitigating factors, including 
Sampson's history of mental illness, abusive father and deteriorating health. 
In a court filing earlier this year, they noted that Sampson's cirrhosis and 
heart disease were likely to end his life long before he sees the inside of an 
execution chamber.

Opening statements in the trial are set for Tuesday.

Even if he is sentenced to death at this trial, which is expected to last 2 
months, Sampson will have a years-long appeals process ahead of him.

Of the 75 people sentenced to death on federal charges since 1988, only 3 have 
been put to death.

(source: Reuters)