[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., FLA., ALA., NEB.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 5



TEXAS:

"An Eye For An Eye" by Israeli Documentary Filmmaker Ilan Ziv Premieres Oct. 
28, Shifts Election Focus From Division To Forgiveness


The powerful documentary AN EYE FOR AN EYE, comes to select U.S. theaters 
beginning October 28th with a message of forgiveness and healing for a country 
racked by divisive rhetoric. Directed by award winning filmmaker Ilan Ziv, AN 
EYE FOR AN EYE tells the story of death row inmate Mark Stroman, and the 
friendship he ultimately forges with one of his surviving victims Rais Bhuiyan, 
who sets about to save Stroman from death row as part of his Muslim faith.

As part of the film's message of tolerance and forgiveness, and its anti-death 
penalty position, film director Ilan Ziv will host select Q & A's following 
screenings.

Film Synopsis: In the weeks following 9/11, dozens of attacks against Muslims, 
Sikhs and other minorities were reported across America. Among the perpetrators 
was Mark Stroman, who began "hunting Arabs," as he described his nightly 
prowling. He set targets on anyone he thought came from the Middle East. His 
victims happened to be immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. He 
killed 2 and partially blinded a young man from Bangladesh. He was arrested, 
convicted and sentenced to death.

In a rare twist of fate, in the weeks before an impending execution, his only 
surviving victim became his biggest advocate - Rais Bhuiyan, a devoted Muslim, 
began a campaign to spare Mark's life in the name of Islam and mercy.

With unprecedented access and in-depth interviews, the film charts this 
riveting drama of revenge, change and forgiveness. At its heart is the profound 
bond forged between Stroman and the Israeli born filmmaker Ilan Ziv. For the 
first time in Mark's life, the narrative of hate starts to wear off as he 
begins a journey inward that challenges some of his most intolerable thoughts 
about the people and the world he lives in. A powerful human drama that carries 
a warning and a message of hope in our troubled times.

View the trailer for the film at: https://youtu.be/VQkpn92X5Xs

(source: digitaljournal.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

After mistakenly facing death penalty, confessed Bethlehem killer wins new 
trial


Nearly a decade ago, Paul Serrano III pleaded guilty to a brazen murder in 
Bethlehem, accepting a life sentence as prosecutors threatened to seek his 
execution if he went to trial.

But this week, Serrano's plea was thrown out and he was granted a new trial, 
after the justice system realized the death-penalty charges he originally faced 
were illegal and shouldn't have been brought against him in the first place.

That's because Serrano was 17 years old when he self-admittedly gunned down a 
15-year-old boy during a gangland hit in which he went to the wrong apartment 
and opened fire on the wrong person a week before Christmas 2006.

Though the shooting occurred just 24 days short of Serrano's 18th birthday, he 
was protected from the death penalty by a landmark ruling two years before in 
which the U.S. Supreme Court found it was cruel and unusual punishment to 
sentence juveniles to death.

Chickasaw Country, in south-central Oklahoma, is rich with Native American 
culture and Western history, an unprecedented destination for lovers of our 
country's historical landscape. Museums and historic sites will bring it to 
life, from the trailhead days of yore to the vibrant heritage of today.

But his age went unnoticed, apparently, by Northampton County prosecutors, 
Serrano's own lawyers and the judge.

"He was 17 at the time, and they pleaded him out as an 18-year-old," Serrano's 
latest attorney, Tyree Blair, said Friday. "I don't know how you miss that."

On Wednesday, Judge Emil Giordano vacated Serrano's guilty plea to first-degree 
murder and the life-without-parole sentence that resulted. Giordano found the 
August 2007 plea wasn't knowing and voluntary, given that Serrano entered into 
it in exchange for prosecutors withdrawing their efforts to seek his death. "It 
was overlooked," said District Attorney John Morganelli, who personally handled 
Serrano's case. "It was overlooked by everyone."

Giordano ordered a new trial as the now 27-year-old Serrano rejected a new plea 
offer from Morganelli. Under it, Serrano would have again admitted to 
1st-degree murder, and would have received a sentence of 30 years to life.

On Friday, Morganelli called Serrano a "knucklehead" for not taking the deal, 
saying authorities continue to have a "very good, strong case" against him 
despite the passage of time.

On Dec. 18, 2006, Serrano shot 15-year-old Kevin Muzila in the chest after 
knocking on the door of the boy's West Union Boulevard home, according to court 
records.

Police said Serrano was carrying out gang orders to kill a man who was a rival 
drug dealer. But Serrano mistakenly went to the next-door apartment and emptied 
his pistol without looking to see who answered, police said.

Serrano wasn't charged until three months later, after he had turned 18 years 
old. Morganelli has said his case proceeded quickly, resolving itself without 
drawn-out court proceedings because Serrano was "remorseful for what happened."

The evidence against Serrano includes a confession in which he allegedly told 
investigators that he was sorry for "killing the kid," court records say.

Serrano's new trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 27. Morganelli said that if 
Serrano is convicted of 1st-degree murder, he intends to again ask for a 
life-without-parole sentence.

As a newly discovered juvenile, Serrano not only benefits from the Supreme 
Court's prior death-penalty ruling. He also benefits from a 2012 decision in 
which the court banned automatic life sentences for juveniles who kill - though 
judges are still permitted to impose them if they believe the facts warrant it.

It was that 2nd ruling that caused Serrano's case to be re-examined. In March, 
one of Serrano's original attorneys, Matthew Potts, filed a petition 
challenging his life sentence given his status as a juvenile.

(source: The Morning Call)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Quadruple murder suspect to face death penalty trial


The man charged with killing his 2 young daughters, their sister and their 
mother will face a death penalty trial.

Prosecutors said Dibon Toone, 39, likely beat the 4 victims to death with a 
hammer. Police found the bodies of Garlette Howard, 32, and her daughters -- 
ages 6, 7 and 11 -- inside their townhome in Greenville in August.

Toone fled to Richmond, Va., where he was arrested and brought back to North 
Carolina. He is scheduled to be in court Nov. 16.

(source: WCTI news)






FLORIDA:

Lawyers For Death Row Inmate Fire Back At Bondi


Lawyers for a death row inmate Larry Darnell Perry are blasting Attorney 
General Pam Bondi's request that the Florida Supreme Court clarify a decision 
that struck down a new law because it did not require unanimous jury 
recommendations in death-penalty cases.

In the Oct. 14 decision in Perry's case, a 5-2 majority of the court found that 
the law was unconstitutional because it only required 10 of 12 jurors to 
recommend the death penalty and that it "cannot be applied to pending 
prosecutions."

Bondi's lawyers, in the request for clarification, maintained that cases in 
which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty can move forward, even without 
a change in the law, so long as trial courts require unanimous recommendations.

But in a response filed Thursday, Perry's lawyers accused Bondi of essentially 
asking the courts to rewrite the law, something the defense lawyers argued can 
only be done by the Legislature.

"Simply put, there is no need for this court to 'clarify' its decision --- 
which could not be clearer --- and which properly respects the role of the 
Legislature under the Florida Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. 
Indeed, it is obvious that respondent (Bondi's office) is not seeking 
'clarification' at all," lawyers J. Edwin Mills and Frank Bankowitz wrote in 
the 12-page document.

The response by the lawyers representing Perry, who was convicted in the 2013 
murder of his infant son, is the latest in a drawn-out battle over the state's 
death penalty.

In a case known as Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court in January ruled 
that the state's death-penalty sentencing system was unconstitutional because 
it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries.

At the urging of Bondi and prosecutors, the Legislature in March passed a law 
that requires at least 10 jurors to recommend that the death penalty be 
imposed.

Defense lawyers repeatedly warned lawmakers that failing to require unanimous 
jury recommendations would further endanger the state's death penalty, a 
caution borne out by the Florida Supreme Court's decisions in a pair of cases 
--- Hurst's and Perry's --- last month.

In a strong signal that courts may not be able to move forward with capital 
trials until the Legislature changes the statute, the Florida Supreme Court on 
Friday stopped a Clearwater judge from proceeding with a death penalty case.

Perry's lawyers on Thursday accused Bondi of attempting an "end-run" around 
limitations on requests for rehearings by raising new issues in her request for 
clarification. For example, lawyers seeking a rehearing are barred from making 
new arguments.

"Respondent (Bondi's office) simply believes that this court was wrong in 
holding that the lack of a unanimity requirement for the jury's final vote 
rendered the statute unconstitutional," the defense lawyers wrote. "The motion 
for rehearing is not a vehicle for counsel or the party to continue its 
attempts at advocacy."

Arguing that the courts cannot rewrite statutes, Perry's lawyers relied on a 
decade-old case, known as State v. Steele. In the 2005 case, the state argued 
against allowing trial courts to adopt individual procedures in death penalty 
cases. The majority of justices agreed, writing that "any changes should be 
made systematically" to ensure consistency in the death penalty sentencing 
process, Perry's lawyers noted.

Perry lawyers also asked that, if the court is going to allow death penalty 
cases to move forward without a rewrite of the statute, that the changes be 
made by the Supreme Court and "not by trial judges."

(source: WGCU news)






ALABAMA:

Lawmaker wants firing squad option for death row inmate


Tommy Arthur has suggested that shooting him would be a more humane death than 
the state's current lethal injection procedure.

On Friday, a state lawmaker said that should be an option.

Arthur, convicted of murdering a man more than 3 decades ago after leaving a 
Decatur work release program, on Thursday survived his 7th scheduled execution 
date.

"He's asked for a lead injection, so let's give him it," said Sen. Trip 
Pittman, R-Daphne. On Friday, Pittman pre-filed for the 2017 legislative 
session Senate Bill 12. It adds a 5-man firing squad to the state's options for 
carrying out the death penalty.

Pittman said he'd been thinking about the legislation for a few months, but 
couldn't imagine that Arthur wouldn't be executed Thursday evening. But he 
wasn't, thanks to a last-minute stay by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I filed it (Friday) after I read about Arthur. This was the final straw," 
Pittman said.

Pittman said Arthur is "basically an assassin." Arthur was convicted in 1982 
for the murder-for-hire killing of Troy Wicker of Muscle Shoals.

The Alabama Attorney General's Office on Friday said it doesn???t know or track 
the state's cost for fighting Arthur's numerous legal battles that have 
prevented his execution.

"I would assume the taxpayers have spent millions of dollars on a guy who got 
paid $10,000 to kill somebody," said Pittman, chairman of the Senate General 
Fund budget committee.

He's also frustrated because the state has a prison crowding problem that's 
being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, but another branch of the 
federal government won't let it carry out the death penalty.

"This was a man who was paid to go out and shoot someone in the head," Pittman 
said. "What about Troy Wicker? What about his family?

"This just seems like it needs to be an option out there going forward."

Alabama began using lethal injection in 2002. Inmates can opt for the electric 
chair, but none have since the switch.

Last year, when the state's executions were on hold because of a shortage of 
the needed lethal drugs, Rep. Lynn Greer suggested the state go back to the 
electric chair as its primary method of execution. His legislation died.

"Maybe we need to have other options," Pittman said Friday about another 
potential drug shortage.

In a split decision Thursday, 5 justices voted to stay Arthur's execution as it 
considers whether to take up his challenge to the state's lethal injection 
procedure. Arthur's latest appeal largely centers on a requirement that 
condemned inmates challenging their method of execution must name a feasible 
alternate method.

Arthur filed a lawsuit challenging the state's lethal injection procedure as 
cruel and unusual punishment. He suggested a firing squad and another lethal 
injection drug, but the judge said Arthur had not identified a source for 
alternate drugs and noted that Alabama law does not explicitly name the firing 
squad as an allowed form of execution.

Utah allows for firing squads if lethal injection drugs are unavailable. And an 
Oklahoma law allows for them if lethal injection and electrocutions are ever 
declared unconstitutional, National Public Radio reported.

The 2017 legislative session begins in February.

(source: The Decatur Daily)






NEBRASKA:

Judges support retaining repeal of death penalty


We are former Nebraska judges united in our call to retain LB 268, which was 
passed by the Nebraska Unicameral in 2015 repealing the state's death penalty 
and leaving in place life imprisonment.

Each of us is intimately familiar with our state's legal system, and committed 
to seeing it function in an effective manner that protects Nebraskans. Our 
legal experience has led us to conclude that the death penalty is an unworkable 
and failed policy.

In the 4 decades since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 
states have tinkered with death penalty statutes, repeatedly promising that 
they can fix them. The evidence is clear that they cannot. Here is the reason 
why: you cannot design an efficient system of capital punishment, which 
delivers punishment swiftly, while also avoiding the risk of executing the 
innocent. States that hold onto the death penalty end up with a government 
program that fails on both these fronts - it is inefficient and makes mistakes.

The death penalty prolongs and adds uncertainty to the legal process, often 
harming murder victims' families. More death sentences are overturned than end 
in an execution. For those few death sentences ending in an execution, the 
average wait between conviction and execution is over 15 years, and sometimes 
much longer (as we have seen in Nebraska). Despite promises to the contrary, 
politicians cannot dramatically expedite this process.

Because of past mistakes, death penalty cases must go through a complex federal 
appeals process, which state lawmakers can't change. Death penalty cases thus 
force murder victims' families to endure a prolonged and uncertain legal 
process. For them, the death penalty is a false promise.

The death penalty wastes resources that should go to measures that actually 
reduce crime. Death penalty cases are more complex, take more time, require 
more lawyers, and therefore cost more money. There is no valid evidence that 
the money spent on the death penalty impacts murder rates. It is imperative, 
then, to dedicate our law enforcement dollars to measures that - unlike the 
death penalty - actually reduce crime.

The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk of execution. As judges, we 
strove to ensure that the innocent were protected and the guilty held 
accountable. At the same time, we recognize that judges and others in the 
criminal justice system are fallible. It is simply too much to expect 
perfection in any human institution - which is what the death penalty demands, 
since it is impossible to bring back the wrongfully executed.

The over 155 death row exonerations nationwide, and wrongful convictions of the 
Beatrice 6 here in Nebraska, make clear that the death penalty should have no 
place in our fallible justice system.

The Nebraska Unicameral recognized the problems inherent in capital punishment 
and a bipartisan super majority wisely voted to end it. It is important to 
respect and retain this decision, and not bring back a costly and broken 
government program.

* Judge William Connolly----Nebraska Supreme Court Justice, retired, 22 years 
on the Supreme Court bench

* Judge Stephen A. Davis----District Judge, retired, 20 years on the bench in 
Douglas County

* Judge Sandra L. Dougherty----District Judge, retired, 10 years on the bench 
in Douglas County

* Judge Patrick Mullen----Nebraska District Judge, retired, 28 years on 
district bench in Douglas County

* Judge Ronald Reagan----District Judge Sarpy County, retired, 32 years on the 
bench in Sarpy County, sentenced John Joubert to death

* Judge John Hartigan----District Judge, retired, 20 years on district bench in 
Douglas County

* Judge Merritt C. Warren----District Judge, retired, 22 years on district 
bench in Knox County

(source: Aurora News Register)