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

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 4



TEXAS:

North Texas man found guilty in shooting deaths of 3 people


A North Texas jury has convicted a 26-year-old man of capital murder in the 
shooting deaths of his estranged girlfriend, her mother and young brother.

The punishment phase of the trial for Amos Joseph Wells III is scheduled to 
begin Friday, a day after he was found guilty of the July 2013 slayings. 
Tarrant County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

The shooting at a Fort Worth home was preceded by an argument between Wells and 
22-year-old Chanice Reed, who was pregnant at the time. Authorities say Wells 
retrieved a handgun and killed the three.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports (http://bit.ly/2fjyJIE ) the evidence 
included shells found at the home that matched ammunition kept by Wells.

Wells later surrendered to police by asking to be shot and killed.

(source: Associated Press)






ALABAMA:

Death Row Inmate Narrowly Escapes Execution for the 7th Time


Thomas Arthur has escaped death for the 7th time.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay from the Court late 
Thursday evening delaying Arthur's scheduled Nov. 3 execution. The Court's stay 
marks the seventh time 74-year-old death row inmate Arthur has avoided an 
impending execution date.

Attorneys for Arthur filed briefs before the Court Thursday.

One of the petitions asked the Court to review Arthur's request for an 
alternative form of execution beside lethal injection, because Arthur believes 
Alabama's 3-drug lethal injection regimen would be cruel and unusual.

The 2nd asked the Court to review Alabama's death penalty sentencing laws, 
which Arthur argues are unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's January 
decision in Hurst v. Florida, which overturned the Sunshine State's sentencing 
laws.

The US Supreme Court ruled Florida's former sentencing laws, which allowed 
trial court judges to overrule the decision of a jury in a death penalty case, 
were unconstitutional.

Alabama is now the last state with judicial override for the death penalty. And 
since 1976, more than 92 % of 107 overrides have resulted in a judge imposing 
the death penalty when a trial jury voted against recommending the death 
penalty, according to Montgomery's Equal Justice Initiative.

Arthur's case would not usually warrant a stay, Chief Justice Roberts said in 
the order, but he agreed to vote for the stay because he wanted the other 
justices of the court to have time to review the case.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito voted against granting the stay, along with 
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas - who granted a temporary stay earlier in the 
evening before Arthur's 6 p.m. scheduled execution.

Arthur's stay will terminate when the court decides on the 2 petitions for 
writs of certiorari, which ask the Court to review the constitutionality of 
Arthur's case. If the Court denies the petitions for writs of certiorari, 
deciding not to take up Arthur's case, the stay on his execution would 
terminate.

If the Court decides to review the case, which Roberts in his order hinted was 
unlikely, the stay would be extended until the Court hands down a final ruling 
on his appeals.

If the stay is terminated by the Court's refusal to take up his case or the 
Court affirms the previous decisions of lower courts, which have all gone 
against Arthur, Arthur's execution will be rescheduled by the Alabama Supreme 
Court.

The Alabama Supreme Court has set seven different execution dates since Arthur 
was first convicted of the 1982 murder-for-hire of Muscle Shoals businessman 
Troy Wicker, and he outlived them all.

Roberts said he believed the case does not warrant the US Supreme Court's 
review, writing: "The claims set out in the application are purely 
fact-specific, dependent on contested interpretations of state law, insulated 
from our review by alternative holdings below, or some combination of the 3."

The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision on whether to review Arthur's 
challenge, which originates from an appeal in a US District Court in Alabama 
that was denied and later appealed to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his appeal in the US District Court based on a 2014 US Supreme Court 
Decision in Glossip v. Gross, Arthur suggested a firing squad or another lethal 
execution drug, Pentobarbital, as alternatives to the state's controversial 
3-drug regimen.

Arthur's attorneys argued that Midazolam, the 1st of 3 drugs in Alabama's 
cocktail, would fail to do its job of sedating the inmate to prevent pain 
during the induction of the 2 other live-taking drugs, violating the Eight 
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

In Glossip v. Gross, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the use of Midazolam 
as a sedative was not unconstitutional, allowing its use to continue, but 
Arthur argues that his preexisting heart condition would render Midazolam 
ineffective.

The federal judge hearing Arthur's case in US District Court rejected Arthur's 
argument because he said Arthur had not identified an alternative drug regimen 
and a firing squad isn't a prescribed form of execution under current Alabama 
law.

In October, 4 medical ethicists from Harvard College provided testimony to the 
US Court of Appeals in Arthur's defense, arguing that only a doctor could 
prescribe an alternative but doctors are prohibited from taking part in 
executions by the Hippocratic Oath.

The Court of Appeals denied Arthur's stay for execution and upheld the US 
District Courts ruling against Arthur, which prompted Arthur to look to the US 
Supreme Court for reprieve.

Now, Arthur will wait as the US Supreme Court looks over the submitted briefs 
in his case and decides whether they will grant review, which the chief justice 
has hinted would be unlikely.

(source: Alabama Political Reporter)






OHIO:

Ohio Law Shielding Names of Execution Drug Sources Doesn't Violate First 
Amendment, Rules Court


An Ohio law shielding the names of companies that sell lethal injection drugs 
to the state does not tread on free-speech rights, a divided Sixth Circuit 
ruled.

In December 2014, Ohio passed HB 663, making the identity of individuals and 
companies who participate in the lethal injection of death-row inmates 
confidential.

The legislature passed the law after Ohio came under national scrutiny 
following the botched execution of Dennis McGuire in January 2014.

The drug cocktail injected into McGuire's veins had never been used before. 
Ohio ran out of pentobarbital - its preferred drug for executions - and instead 
used a mixture of midazolam and hydromorphone that left him choking and gasping 
for air for 25 minutes before he died.

Ohio has not carried out an execution since killing McGuire, in part because it 
cannot obtain the drugs required to ensure a painless death. Anti-death-penalty 
lobbying efforts have succeeded in persuading nearly all drug companies to stop 
selling pentobarbital to the state.

In an effort to circumvent this political pressure, HB 663 provides that the 
names of individuals involved in carrying out the death penalty - including the 
drug manufacturers - can no longer be disclosed as a public record or during 
judicial proceedings, unless a court specifically finds that the person's 
involvement in the administration of a lethal injection was unlawful.

Ohio death-row inmates sued, claiming the law unconstitutionally burdens free 
speech, but a federal judge dismissed their lawsuit because the inmates 
presented only "conjectural or hypothetical injuries."

A divided Sixth Circuit affirmed Wednesday, leaning on the U.S. Supreme Court's 
2014 decision in Ryan v. Wood, which rejected an Arizona death-row inmate's 
claim that he is entitled to know the source of Arizona's lethal injection 
drugs and the qualifications of the state's executioners.

"A unanimous Supreme Court saw fit to summarily vacate - without briefing or 
argument - the Ninth Circuit's determination that a death-row inmate seeking 
state-held information related to the method of his execution 'raised serious 
questions' as to whether he would prevail on a First Amendment claim," Judge 
Eugene Siler said, writing for the panel's 2-1 majority. "This ruling raises 
grave doubts as to whether such a claim is legally cognizable in the first 
place."

Siler said the Supreme Court has never recognized a public right of access to 
government information as broad as that claimed by the inmates.

"While the public's right of access under the First Amendment covers certain 
records filed in and transcripts of a qualifying government proceeding, it does 
not follow that this right covers all information related to the proceeding," 
the 16-page opinion states.

The majority affirmed that the inmates have not shown they are likely to be 
prosecuted under the law for revealing the identities of participants in Ohio's 
death penalty procedures.

Judge Jane Stranch dissented, immediately citing the "horrifying tale" of 
McGuire's execution gone wrong.

"The complaint properly alleges speech that speakers desire to utter and both 
the plaintiffs and the public desire to hear," she said. "It alleges that HB 
663 is a direct reaction to anti-death-penalty speech that historically has 
been available to the public - speech that had proven successful in the court 
of public opinion."

Stranch said the majority's decision upholding state secrecy with regard to 
execution proceedings denied death-row inmates a fair opportunity to challenge 
the constitutionality of their sentence.

(soruce: Associated Press)






NEBRASKA:

Catholic bishop says death penalty advocates took his words out of context


With just days to go before the election, Lincoln Bishop James D. Conley is 
demanding a retraction from Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, saying the group 
deliberately took his comments out of context to misrepresent his stance on the 
death penalty.

Nebraskans will vote Tuesday on whether to retain the Legislature's elimination 
of the death penalty or repeal the 2015 bill that abolished it.

Conley's dispute with the group that petitioned the issue onto the ballot stems 
from a news release and a post on its Facebook page that reads: "Nebraskans of 
faith CAN and DO support the death penalty."

Below the post is a photo of Conley and an audio link to the final 2 minutes of 
the bishop's 12-minute interview with KLIN radio's "Drive Time with Coby Mach" 
during which Conley said people who favor the death penalty "can still be a 
Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this issue."

All 3 Nebraska Catholic bishops oppose reinstating the death penalty.

JD Flynn, spokesman for the Diocese of Lincoln said Nebraskans for the Death 
Penalty, said Mach "unfairly cherry-picked portions of Bishop Conley's 
comments, from one radio interview, to misrepresent the central message of our 
bishops."

In the interview that aired Oct. 26, Conley said the Catholic church allows for 
the death penalty in principle "to protect the common good and lives of the 
community," but that under the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II, Pope 
Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, "the circumstances where that would be an option 
are practically nonexistent."

"Through the penal system we can protect the common good without resorting to 
the death penalty," Conley said in the interview. He said the church allows 
capital punishment only when it is absolutely necessary for public safety.

"Violence to deal with violence is not the answer," he said.

Unlike issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide, which Conley said are 
"moral evils and never accepted under any circumstances," the church is 
advising people to follow their consciences on the death penalty.

Revisit Lincoln in the the 1940s, '50s and '60s in our new book, "Lincoln 
Memories." Filled with hundreds of photos from the archives, this book is 
perfect for any Lincoln native or history buff.

"... if somebody thinks it through and in good conscience cannot bring 
themselves to retain the law -- if they have thought it through and prayed 
about it -- they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with 
the bishops on this issue," he said in the final moments of the interview.

To further clarify his statements, Conley has written a letter to be read 
during all worship services this weekend.

"I encourage you to continue to study, pray and discern how your vote can best 
serve our Lord, our nation, our families, and our parishes," the letter says, 
in part.

"We should be sure to support candidates who will protect the rights and 
dignity of the human person, and who will help to build a culture of life. We 
should be thoughtful about protecting religious liberty, about the needs of the 
poor and about the stability and security of our nation. Although Catholics 
disagree about some candidates and some issues, we should remember that the 
right to life is fundamental, and that no Catholic can promote, defend or 
enable legal protection for the grave evil of abortion, which is the direct 
killing of unborn children.

"... The Church teaches that we should work to protect public safety without 
resorting to execution. I do not believe the death penalty is needed in 
Nebraska, and I believe that abolishing the death penalty speaks to our 
commitment to the dignity of every human life. I encourage Catholics to study, 
think and pray carefully about this issue."

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






CALIFORNIA:

51 % Of California Voters Want To Abolish The Death Penalty


California and Nebraska will decide next week whether they will keep the death 
penalty and both measures would have national implications on the debate over 
capital punishment. Polls show voters are conflicted.

Ballot measures addressing the death penalty in California and Nebraska could 
lead to a dramatic change in the national debate over capital punishment. But 
polls show voters in both states are split on whether to keep the death 
penalty.

51% of voters in California are in favor of abolishing the state's death 
penalty and replace it with life without parole, a move that would clear out 
the largest death row in the United States, according to a new poll released on 
Thursday.

Abolishing the death penalty in California would have the overnight effect of 
removing more than a quarter of inmates from death row in the United States.

45 % of the respondents to said they would vote to keep the death penalty, and 
the remainder said they were undecided. The survey was conducted by Field Poll 
(a nonpartisan pollster) and UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies.

Another poll released this week, this one done by the Los Angeles Times, had 
only 44 % of respondents say they would vote to repeal the death penalty, 
compared to 45 % who said they would keep it. Another 10 % said they were still 
undecided.

California houses more than 700 inmates on its death row, more than any other 
state. Nonetheless, the state carries out few executions - the state has not 
executed anyone in a decade, and has only executed 13 people since the death 
penalty was brought back in the 70s.

But voters in California aren't only being asked whether to remove their 
state's death penalty, they are also being asked if they should speed it up.

A competing proposition would make a few changes in an effort to speed up the 
state's execution process - it would limit the number of appeals death row 
inmates are allowed, and allow for less oversight over how execution methods 
are decided.

Polls show voters are confused by the initiative that would speed up the 
process. This week's Los Angeles Times poll found about 20 % of respondents 
still didn't know how to vote on the issue.

Both of this week's Field and the Los Angeles Times polls show less than a 
majority are in favor of changing the appeals process, although they both found 
very different margins: 48 % in the former and 35 % in the latter.

If both propositions somehow pass, whichever one receives the most vote governs 
the state's death penalty.

Meanwhile, polling in Nebraska is much more limited.

Last year, Nebraska's unicameral legislature overrode their governor's veto and 
abolished the death penalty. But, with significant fundraising provided by Gov. 
Pete Ricketts, supporters of the death penalty gathered enough signatures to 
give the voters the ultimate say on whether to keep the death penalty.

Nebraska houses just 10 death row inmates, and the state has only executed 3 
men in the modern era. In an attempt to show how the state could carry out the 
death penalty, Gov. Ricketts' department of corrections spent $26,000 on 
illegal execution drugs from a supplier in India. The drugs were not allowed 
into the United States, and despite their requests, Nebraska has been unable to 
get a refund.

So practically speaking, the impact of Nebraska's death penalty is much less 
than California's. But Nebraska matters as a symbol.

When Nebraska's nonpartisan legislature abolished the death penalty, the 
anti-death penalty movement held it up as an example that, even in 
conservatives states, the death penalty is unpopular. If voters decide to bring 
the death penalty back, it hurts that narrative.

The death penalty is generally supported in Nebraska, although the polling on 
this specific initiative has been thin.

Back in August, the group aiming to bring back the death penalty sponsored a 
survey that found 58 % of those who responded said they would vote to bring 
back the death penalty. 30 % said they would vote to leave the death penalty 
abolished, and 11 % said they were undecided.

The poll has important caveats though - it was conducted in early August, 
before ads on the issue had begun to pick up (and the anti-death penalty side 
has greatly outspent the pro side), and the survey did not use the official 
ballot language that includes the fact that the death penalty would be replaced 
by life without parole.

Finally, another conservative state - Oklahoma - also is asking its voters 
about the death penalty. But there, the practical impact appears to be minimal. 
It's more about sending a message.

Over the past several years, Oklahoma has garnered national attention for its 
repeated botched execution attempts, which eventually earned a grand jury 
investigation led by the state's own attorney general. That investigation found 
the state was "careless, cavalier, and in some circumstances dismissive of 
established" execution procedures.

After their numerous mistakes, Oklahoma won't be permitted to carry out 
executions any time soon. But, with Oklahoma's petition, supporters of the 
death penalty can show that they believe the death penalty is still 
constitutional.

Under the referendum, the legislature would be able to designate any method of 
execution not specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, and it would 
declare that the death penalty "shall not be deemed to be or constitute the 
infliction of cruel or unusual punishment under Oklahoma's Constitution," 
although Oklahoma's courts given no indication that they actually desire to do 
so.

(source: BuzzFeedNews)

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

We need to abolish the death penalty


Re "Awful as it is, death penalty serves a purpose in California" (Insight, 
Nov. 2): As a 30-year police veteran, I had always been a supporter of the 
death penalty. In the 1980s I was appointed as 1 of the 13 official state 
execution witnesses. After many delays, Robert Alton Harris was executed for 
his horrific crimes on April 22, 1992, at San Quentin.

I hated Harris for his cold-blooded murder of the son of a San Diego police 
detective. I wanted him executed. The execution was botched by a last-second 
call from U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Harris was unstrapped and removed 
from the gas chamber. Several hours later he was returned, re-strapped in, and 
poison gas killed him. As much as I hated him, I didn't feel any better 
afterward. In fact, I began to feel like we were sinking to his level.

After much soul-searching and talks with my priest, I turned against the death 
penalty. Harris wasn't worthy of my hate. He was a pitiful figure who should 
have spent the rest of his life shuffling around the general population of 
prison. I did my duty and witnessed the last gas chamber execution a year later 
and then removed myself from the list.

Columnist Marcos Breton says it is easy for millionaires who have never been 
touched by the horror of homicide to be against the death penalty. I'm just an 
old cop on a pension, and I have been touched by the horror and am steadfastly 
against the death penalty. It is time for the people of California to get out 
of the killing business.

James Cost, Folsom, chief of police (retired)

(source: Letter to the Editor)






USA:

Killing Dylann Roof Wouldn't Help Racial Injustice


The impact of race on criminal justice is one of the hottest topics of our 
time. Today's police-shooting videos have not revealed something new, they have 
revealed, in a new way, a legacy of racial hatred and violence that is embedded 
in our nation's DNA, and more and more Americans are waking up to that fact. 
So, if we are ready to address the impact of racism in the criminal justice 
system, what do the remedies look like?

Let me tell you one thing that will not work - sentencing Dylann Roof to death. 
Jury selection for his federal death penalty case in the Charleston shooting 
last summer starts on Nov. 7.

When I heard about his slaughter of 9 black worshipers in Charleston's Mother 
Emanuel AME Church, I wanted vengeance. I wanted his blood. I grew up as a 
black child in the South in the 60s and spent the past 34 years as a criminal 
defense lawyer. I'd seen too many black lives sacrificed to racism, snuffed out 
by violence or wasted by our criminal justice system. Snapshots of Dylann Roof 
began to emerge - here wearing a jacket emblazoned with the flags of Rhodesia 
and Apartheid-era South Africa, there in sunglasses holding a confederate flag 
and a gun. My rage grew, and I was sure that he deserved to die. I had long 
been opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances, yet I wished the death 
penalty on Dylann Roof.

The more I thought about it, though, the more I understood that, one: his death 
would not get me what I wanted, and 2: his execution wouldn't help solve the 
problem of racism in the criminal justice system. It would only serve to 
reinforce the legacy of racial injustice in our use of the death penalty.

After 34 years of practicing in the criminal justice system and studying its 
history, here is what I know to be true: the racism that has marred our 
country's development since its beginnings is inextricable from the death 
penalty. Every credible study evaluating race and capital punishment in America 
has shown the same thing: The death penalty is not reserved for the worst of 
the worst, but mostly for black and brown people convicted of killing white 
people. None of this is surprising given our history of segregation and 
lynching.

What I also know to be true is that prosecutors sometimes exclude black jurors 
from death-penalty and non-death penalty trials for no reason but their race; 
and only in the most extreme and rare instances are they held accountable. 
Don't think this just happens in the South. I saw the exact same practices we 
associate with Dixie in courtrooms in the Pacific Northwest. This, like every 
other aspect of race in our country, is a national problem that stretches from 
sea to shining sea.

Abhorrent racial considerations, instead of the mere facts, seep into jury's 
deliberations. In Texas, a black defendant was predicted to be violent based on 
race and was therefore sentenced to death. And for those who say the Supreme 
Court will likely reverse the conviction, remember, the case only got to the 
highest court because numerous other judges heard this evidence and saw no 
problem. And, when innocent people are sentenced to death, we find that 93 of 
156 innocent people released from death rows across this country are black and 
brown.

Our problems with race and the criminal justice system run deep and will take 
years of work to resolve. Some might think that sentencing Roof to death would 
demonstrate that black lives actually matter and somehow erase the legacy of 
racism and the death penalty. If we kill him, won't that show that we are not 
racists?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Killing Roof would not put us on the path to redemption. His execution would 
not dispel the racism that rules who we execute in America. Seeking his death 
would not somehow "even the score." And remember, the human brain is not fully 
developed until about 25 years of age. Are we actually going to try to cleanse 
the racism from the death penalty by executing a person who was 21 years old at 
the time of his offense?

History would not judge us kindly for such a killing.

Roof has offered to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence with no 
parole. This would save us from re-hashing the most difficult parts of his case 
and open the door to talk fully and in loving memory of his victims, including 
the Reverend Clementa Pinckney who, if alive, would be leading the discussions 
we desperately need to reform our criminal justice system.

The ugly truth about my initial desire for Roof's execution is that it might 
somehow validate the very part of our criminal justice system most infected by 
racism. People could offer up Roof's execution as an example of how the death 
penalty is meted out fairly in America, and thereby increase the legitimacy of 
a system that unfairly and disproportionately continues to kill black and brown 
people. Because if Roof is sentenced to death and forgotten in the minds of 
many Americans, we would go back to executing black and brown people like we 
always have, and valuing white lives over the lives of people of color.

What I want is an America that does not nurture the hate in Roof's heart. And 
killing him won't get me that either.

(source: TIME)