[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MONT., ID., CALIF., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 5




MONTANA:

Montana death-row inmates question expert witness' testimony


Attorneys for 2 Montana death-row inmates are questioning whether state 
Department of Justice officials told a witness to change his testimony to 
bolster their failed argument that a substitute drug met the legal requirements 
for use in executions.

District Judge Deann Cooney has scheduled a Nov. 18 hearing on the issue raised 
by ACLU of Montana Legal Director Jim Taylor, one of the lawyers representing 
inmates Ronald Allen Smith and William Gollehon.

"Had the expert not changed his testimony, we would not have gotten to trial," 
Taylor said. "We want to know what happened. We just want a hearing and we've 
been trying to get a hearing for a year."

Department of Justice spokesman John Barnes did not immediately return a 
telephone message seeking comment.

In court documents filed in response to the inmates' request to preserve 
evidence and re-open the case, Assistant Attorney General Ben Reed said the 
accusation is groundless and Auburn University pharmacy school dean Roswell Lee 
Evans' testimony was consistent.

At the trial last year, District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock effectively blocked 
executions in Montana after ruling that 1 of the 2 drugs to be used in lethal 
injections did not meet a requirement under state law to be an 
"ultra-fast-acting barbiturate." The state does not have an alternative 
barbiturate to use in lethal injections.

Montana originally used sodium pentothal as the barbiturate, but that drug is 
no longer available in the U.S. for executions. State officials named 
pentobarbital as a substitute.

State attorneys argued unsuccessfully at trial that pentobarbital, which has 
never been used in a Montana execution, meets the requirement. Their expert, 
Evans, wrote an expert declaration in March 2015 that did not address the 
"ultra-fast acting" question. In April 2015, he supplemented that declaration 
by adding pentobarbital could be considered "ultra-fast acting" but that it is 
classified differently.

Taylor wrote in his request to re-open the case in March that Evans testified 
in a separate case in Tennessee in which he was asked about his testimony in 
the Montana case. According to a transcript, Evans was asked whether the 
Montana attorney general needed him to say pentobarbital was ultra-fast acting 
and he wrote that it could be.

"Could be," Evans answered. "That's not how it's classified."

Based on that testimony, Taylor wrote, it appears state attorneys persuaded 
Evans to change his original declaration.

"A fair reading of Evans' testimony ... is that someone from the Montana 
Attorney General's Office told Evans that what he had said in his 1st expert 
report was insufficient, and that he needed to change his opinion to fit what 
the defense required," Taylor wrote.

Reed, in response, wrote that Evans' testimony was consistent because 
barbiturates are typically classified by duration - "ultra-short acting" - and 
not rapidity - "ultra-fast acting." When read together, his statements are 
consistent and explain that while it is not classified as "ultra-fast acting" 
it could be described that way because the drug's onset is incredibly fast.

Evans' "could be" answer to the Tennessee attorney's question addressed what 
Evans actually wrote in the declaration, not whether the Montana attorney 
general's office needed him to change his testimony.

Taylor said the inmates' attorneys took their concerns to the attorney 
general's office. They received a response in February that "we took what we 
believed to be the appropriate actions with the DOJ lawyers involved in the 
death penalty litigation." The email also said that the state's dealings with 
Evans had ended.

Taylor said the actions the state may have taken against its attorneys in the 
case merit investigation by the court.

Reed responded that the argument is "nebulous and speculative."

(source: Associated Press)






IDAHO:

Death penalty case delayed


Accused murderer Erik Ohlson waived his right to a speedy trial in a Driggs, 
Idaho, courtroom Friday, agreeing to a July 2017 continuation.

Ohlson was originally supposed to go on trial for murder in January.

"That's a more realistic time frame," defense attorney Jim Archibald said in 
court. "Mr. Ohlson agrees."

Prosecutors didn't object. It gives both teams more time to prepare for the 
capital case.

"We want to try it once and try it right," prosecutor Chris Lundberg told the 
Jackson Hole Daily.

"If you do anything too soon you could ruin the trial," prosecutor Kathy 
Spitzer said. "It's an overabundance of caution."

This is the 1st murder case for both prosecutors.

Ohlson, who could face the death penalty, is charged with 2 counts of murder 
for the July shooting death of his ex-girlfriend, Jennifer Nalley, and their 
unborn child.

"With the death penalty, there will be appeals," Spitzer said. Life in prison 
is also on the table.

A motion to consolidate charges into one case was filed and approved Thursday. 
Ohlson also was charged with DUI the night he allegedly killed Nalley. That 
means evidence from the DUI case will be used in the murder trial.

"The DUI occurred when the defendant was fleeing the scene of the homicide," 
Spitzer said in court.

"Evidence in the DUI case is relevant to the homicide," Archibald agreed.

According to court documents, Ohlson went to Nalley's Driggs cabin early on 
July 5 after a night of drinking with a loaded .45-caliber pistol.

The gun was found near the cabin with an empty magazine next to it, records 
state. Ohlson told police in a taped confession that he considered killing 
himself with the gun but thought it was out of bullets. Instead he drove away, 
crashed his truck into a telephone pole and waited for police to show up, he 
said.

(source: Jackson Hole News & Guide)






CALIFORNIA:

State Execution Method Nears Final Approval


Days before California voters decide whether to ban capital punishment or 
expedite executions, state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
officials have sent a new execution protocol to its final administrative 
review.

"The Office of Administrative Law has up to 30 working days to review and 
approve it," said CDCR spokeswoman Terry Thornton. Depending on when they are 
approved, the new rules would take effect no later than April 1.

A federal judge put a stop to executions in 2006, citing concerns about the 
state???s three-drug execution protocol. The Brown administration agreed to 
develop a new protocol as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Criminal Justice 
Legal Foundation.

Nearly 20 inmates on California's death row have exhausted their legal appeals 
and are eligible for execution. But Thornton would not speculate on when the 
next execution would be scheduled if voters reject Proposition 62, which would 
outlaw capital punishment.

"It's odd timing," said Matt Cherry, executive director of Death Penalty Focus, 
which is supporting Proposition 62. "We believe the whole question of how to 
kill prisoners is moot until after the election," he added.

Cherry said he's certain if Proposition 62 fails, a legal challenge would be 
brought against the new execution protocol.

"Even if they survive legal challenge, which I doubt they would, they would 
still have to find the drugs," Cherry said. "What we know about the 4 drugs 
proposed by the state is that 2 are forbidden by the manufacturer to be used in 
executions."

A CDCR official said the state has its own compounding pharmacy to make the 
drugs, if it comes to that.

The other 2 drugs in the new protocol, Cherry said, have never been used in 
executions. "Using them for that would amount to human experimentation," he 
added, suggesting a legal line of attack.

A new Field Poll shows Proposition 62 leading 51 % to 45 %, with the rest 
undecided. Proposition 66, which would expedite executions, is favored by 48 % 
of voters, while 42 % are opposed and 10 % aren't sure.

If both measures pass, whichever gets more votes would prevail.

(source: KQED news)

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

LA Councilman pushes to repeal 'archaic' death penalty in CA


Councilman Gil Cedillo made a push Friday for a measure on Tuesday's ballot 
that would repeal the death penalty in California, calling it an "archaic" 
practice that is costly to the state and ineffective.

The City Council recently approved 2 resolutions authored by Cedillo, 1 of 
which puts the city on record as supporting Proposition 62, which would replace 
the death penalty with a lifelong prison sentence without possibility of 
parole.

In the 2nd resolution, the council declared its opposition to another death 
penalty measure, Proposition 66, which would speed up the execution process.

The resolutions - both authored by Cedillo - were signed by Mayor Eric Garcetti 
this week.

Cedillo called on "the people of Los Angeles and California to get rid of an 
archaic death penalty system that does not work and costs taxpayers an 
exorbitant amount every year."

"The polls indicate that people are still divided over this issue," he said. "I 
urge Californians to ask themselves whether it's worth investing in a broken 
system that's cost us $5 billion."

Prop 62 would apply retroactively to people already sentenced to death, and 
would require prisoners serving life sentences without the possibility of 
parole for murder to work while in prison.

Passage of the initiative would result in a net reduction in state and local 
government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few 
years, according to an analysis conducted by the Legislative Analyst's Office 
and Department of Finance.

During a City Hall news conference, Cedillo said he is "proud the city has 
taken a position against the death penalty" and appealed to voters to vote down 
Proposition 66, which he called "a reckless counter-measure" that "jeopardizes 
more innocent lives and the loss of more money for the state."

Cedillo was joined by 42-year-old Franky Carrillo, a resident of Echo Park who 
said he was sentenced to life in prison after being wrongfully accused in 1991 
of murdering a man in Lynwood. He was exonerated of the crime 20 years later 
with the help of a private law firm and the Innocence Project.

Carrillo said the legal system "failed me, and I was wrongfully convicted," but 
that he was lucky to have "good people came to my rescue - good lawyers, good 
advocates."

Former "M*A*S*H" star Mike Farrell, a longtime advocate of ending the death 
penalty, said that had Carrillo been convicted as an adult, he might have been 
executed before he had the chance to get his name cleared.

"We have a (death penalty) system that is broken ... and it is irreparable," 
Farrell said.

Supporters of Proposition 66, including Los Angeles County District Attorney 
Jackie Lacey, differ with Cedillo and Farrell on how to fix the "broken" death 
penalty system.

"We agree California's current death penalty system is broken," but they 
contend in a ballot argument that "the most heinous criminals sit on death row 
for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers 
hundreds of millions.

It does not need to be this way. The solution is to mend, not end, California's 
death penalty," they wrote.

Proposition 66 proposes to direct initial death-sentence appeals to a superior 
court judge and limit the number of successive appeals. It would also establish 
a timeline for appeals, widen the field of appointed attorneys to handle death 
penalty appeals, and authorize the transfer of death row inmates among state 
prisons.

The last execution carried out in California was in 2006. Executions have been 
put on hold because of a 9th Circuit ruling requiring a medical professional to 
administer lethal injection drugs.

In the event both measures are approved by voters, the measure with more yes 
votes would go into effect.

A measure to repeal the death penalty on the November 2012 ballot was rejected 
by a 52 % - 48 % margin.

(source: mynewsla.com)

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

California looks to single drug for carrying out executions


California's death row inmates could be executed using one of four different 
drugs or choose the gas chamber under regulations submitted for final approval 
Friday, just days before state voters consider whether to do away with the 
death penalty or reform it.

The plan by corrections officials responds to court pressure and amid a 
nationwide shortage of execution drugs.

The Office of Administrative Law now has 30 working days to review the 
regulations for technical problems. If approved, the rules could go into effect 
early next year, barring court challenges.

California has 750 condemned inmates on the nation's largest death row. 
However, the state hasn't executed anyone since 2006 and frustration over the 
law and the endless appeals that go with it spawned competing initiatives on 
Tuesday's ballot.

Proposition 62 would end the death penalty and keep condemned inmates in prison 
for life. Proposition 66 would speed up appeals and let officials begin 
single-drug executions.

The regulations submitted Friday would let corrections officials choose between 
4 powerful barbiturates - amobarbital, pentobarbital, secobarbital or 
thiopental - for each execution, depending on which one is available. Inmates 
also could continue to choose the gas chamber for their execution.

8 states have used a 1-drug method, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty 
Information Center, which opposes executions and tracks the issue. 5 states in 
addition to California have announced plans to use a single drug but have not 
done so.

Executions in California stalled amid legal challenges after 76-year-old 
Clarence Ray Allen was put to death with 3 drugs in 2006 for ordering a triple 
murder.

Federal and state judges suggested the state could resume the punishment if it 
began using a single drug, prompting Gov. Jerry Brown to say in 2012 that 
California would consider a 1-drug lethal injection.

But there was little progress on the change until a judge forced the state's 
hand with a ruling last year.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California said 2 of the 4 drugs 
identified in the state proposal have never been used in executions.

It also questioned whether the drugs will be safe and effective, since the 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation plans to have the one used for 
each execution specially made.

The department "is engaging in nothing less than human experimentation," Ana 
Zamora, the ACLU's criminal justice policy director, said in an email.

About 36,000 people submitted about 167,000 individual comments on the new 
regulations, department spokeswoman Terry Thornton said.

The department tried to adopt regulations for a 3-drug method in 2009 and 2010, 
but the attempts were blocked by a judge in 2012.

Matt Cherry, director of the campaign to eliminate the death penalty, said the 
"arduous legal battle over California's broken death penalty system" is another 
reason for voters to eliminate it.

Michael Rushford, president of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal 
Foundation, also expects more bureaucratic and legal challenges to stall 
executions. The foundation sued to force corrections officials to adopt the new 
rules.

Proposition 66 would speed things up by eliminating the need for the department 
to continue the usual administrative process, he said, speaking for the 
pro-death penalty campaigns.

Opponents already have signaled they are likely to challenge the regulations in 
court, meaning more delays are likely before anyone is executed if voters keep 
the death penalty.

(source: Associated Press)





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

Kill California's Death Penalty----Vote Yes on Prop. 62


Crossing the Richmond Bridge to San Quentin State Prison, the fog-shrouded 
compound looks ominous. It is the biggest, most expensive death row facility in 
the Western Hemisphere.

As I walk the long walk from the entrance of the prison to the condemned 
visiting block, a sign reads, "Walk, Don't Run." I walk slowly. "Halt,", a 
guard yells, holding up his right hand. I stop, heart pounding. A phalanx of 
guards with automatic weapons walks across my path to the guard tower. I am 
signaled to go on. I walk past the death chamber on my way to see "J." That was 
over 21 years ago. J was 27 years old, the same age as my eldest son.

After my first visit with J, I felt sick to my stomach. I ventured to a bar in 
the City in Little Italy, took a couple shots of Jack and felt a little better. 
I still get a bad a feeling when I visit death row; you don't get used to it.

On November 8, California voters will decide between 2 competing ballot 
measures: Proposition 62, which will end the death penalty and replace it with 
life without parole, or, Proposition 66, which will move to speed up the 
executions and shorten the appeals process for condemned inmates.

Since 1967, California sentenced over 1,000 defendants to death, spending over 
4 billion taxpayer dollars to execute 13 condemned men. There are now 747 
condemned inmates on death row; 352 inmates are waiting for an attorney to be 
appointed on their state habeas appeals, most wait an average of 12 years 
before habeas counsel is appointed. The number of death-sentenced inmates 
without habeas counsel increases annually because the appointment of qualified 
counsel cannot keep pace with the increasing judgments of death. California 
added 14 convicted men to death row in 2015, 27 % of all death sentences meted 
out in the country last year.

The California Supreme Court has trouble finding qualified attorneys willing to 
take on such appointments. There are only 332 active criminal law specialists 
in California. Many specialists do not have the requisite skill set and 
training to represent capital defendants in death penalty appeals.

Prop. 66 advocates speeding up the appeals process by relaxing the standards 
and qualifications of appointed counsel, requiring experienced Court of Appeal 
panel attorneys to accept death penalty appointments or be removed from those 
panels. Numerous panel attorneys have said they will resign from the 
appointment panel rather than be coerced into taking a death case. The defense 
bar lacks the manpower to deal with death cases.

The U.S. and California Constitutions require that death sentences be carefully 
reviewed by the courts. Our robust system of post-conviction review of death 
sentences is not a quick casual process, and only 3 persons have been 
exonerated from death row since 1981.

It takes at least 15 to 25 years for these cases to be reviewed by the 
California Supreme Court and the federal courts. There is now a backlog of over 
150 fully briefed capital appeals and habeas petitions before the court. Death 
penalty appeals and habeas petitions cannot be done in 5 years as proposed by 
Prop. 66.

There are not enough qualified lawyers, court resources, or money to make the 
death system work; it cannot be done on the cheap and it is not a process that 
can be fast tracked.

Assuming the proponents of Prop. 66 could expedite executions at a rate of one 
execution a week, it would take over 14 years to kill the 747 inmates now on 
death row. During that same time, California will add at least another 200 
condemned inmates.

Executions by lethal injections have been prohibited in California by the 
federal courts for the last 10 years. Any resumption of executions in 
California is years away, because the litigation over newly proposed protocols 
for the drugs that will be used and the procedures to administer the lethal 
injection has not made its way through the state and federal courts. The 
proponents of Prop. 66 want to allow the state to procure lethal drugs secretly 
and eliminate court oversight of the protocols in administering the lethal 
drugs during an execution.

Regardless of one's moral views on the death penalty, there is a consensus that 
California's death penalty system cannot be fixed. California Supreme Court 
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has said, "The choice for voters [is] not 
whether you believe in [capital punishment] anymore, rather, the 'effectiveness 
and costs' of the system."

United States Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer, recently criticized 
California's costly administration of the death penalty, citing its 
unreliability, arbitrariness in application, and unconscionably long delays.

J's case is now on hold because the Supreme Court has not reimbursed his 
attorneys for work performed back in 2011. Delays in funding death penalty 
litigation are not unusual, as California struggles to find the necessary 
resources of an already stretched state budget.

Since I first met J over 21 years ago, his father, mother, brother, and sister 
have died. I send him birthday cards, books, magazines, and colored drawing 
pencils.

J will be 49 on his birthday this November. When I look at the drawings he 
sends me, I wonder how many more years I will be able to make the trip across 
the Richmond Bridge, I'll be 70 soon. I'm sick and tired of the trip.

The Justice That Works Act of 2016, Prop. 62, will end California's death 
penalty and replace it with Life Without the Possibility of Parole, saving the 
taxpayers about $150 million annually.

No capital defendant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole has 
ever been released from custody.

It's time to stop the bleed of billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the 
dirty, grisly business of state killings. California's death penalty system is 
a multibillion dollar failure, broken beyond repair.

(source: Op-Ed; Robert F. Landheer is a member of the United States Supreme 
Court Bar and is a Criminal Law Specialist certified by the California Board of 
Legal Specialization, who has represented death cases in the trial courts and 
on appeal for over 30 years----Santa Barbara Independent)

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

California to decide if their state will continue to have the death penalty


On October 25th, 1994, Dora Buenrostro almost got away with the murder of her 3 
young children.

It all began in the small town of San Jacinto, in the Riverside County of 
California. A then 34-year-old mother of 3, Mrs Buenrostro stewed what she 
thought would be the perfect cover on her estranged husband.

Mrs Buenrostro ran into the police station in the early hours of Thursday 
morning, saying her estranged husband had appeared at her apartment and she was 
afraid.

15 minutes after her panicked arrival, the police found her 9-year-old daughter 
and 8-year-old son in the family's apartment. Her other daughter, 4-year-old 
Deidra, was later found in an abandoned post office. All 3 had suffered fatal 
stab wounds.

The police originally took her husband in for questioning, but after producing 
a credible alibi - he was released. Mrs Buenrostro was arrested a few days 
later, and has sat on death row for the past 18 years awaiting her execution.

Sandi Dawn Nieves told police she killed her four daughters to get even with 
the men in her life.

In 1998, the then 34-year-old was fighting with her ex-husband to hang on to 
her 4 daughters in what was an ugly custody battle. Ms Nieves claimed her 
ex-husband's older son was a threat to her 4 daughters.

But in June of that same year, Nieves allegedly encouraged her 4 girls - aged 
5, 7, 11 and 12 at the time of their death - to hold a slumber party in the 
kitchen of the family's Santa Clarita home.

It was there that Mrs Nieves asphyxiated them with natural gas from the oven, 
then allegedly used gasoline to ignite a fire that blackened the inside of the 
home but did little damage to its exterior, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
Department and coroner's sources said.

The 4 girls were found tucked into sleeping bags on the floor of the kitchen, 
while Mrs Nieves and her other child were taken to a hospital for treatment.

As soon as she recovered, Mrs Nieves was taken to jail - where she has spent 
the past 16 years.

Both Buenrostro and Nieves sit alongside 747 other murderers, rapists and 
abusers waiting on death row in California for their name to be called.

In the state of California, the death penalty is still a legal form of 
punishment, along with 29 other states across the country. But it has been 10 
years since the last lethal injection was carried out in the state.

On election day, Californian voters will have the choice between 2 ballot 
decisions. Vote for Proposition 62, which would abolish the death penalty in 
the state, or Proposition 66 - which would speed up the execution of those 
waiting on death row.

While only 13 executions have been carried out since the penalty was reinstated 
in 1978, all could change for the 749 men and women currently sitting on death 
row if the votes swing to Prop. 62.

According to a poll conducted by Sacramento State's Institute for Social 
Research, there are more voters in favour of ending the death penalty across 
the state over the proposition to speed up executions.

But the poll also revealed that not enough voters had made up their mind that 
would be required for a new law to pass.

According to the Los Angeles Times, this is because a large pool of voters are 
confused about what each measure promises, and because people remain strongly 
divided on the issue of capital punishment.

"The death penalty is much more controversial, in a sense," pollster Anna 
Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research said.

"People have strong religious or moral opposition on both sides of the issue. 
They have core values."

Further to this, the latest Pew Research survey, which was released in 
September, found 49 % of Americans favoured the death penalty, the lowest in 
more than 4 decades.

"Only about 1/2 of Americans now favour the death penalty for people convicted 
of murder, while 42 % oppose it," the paper read.

"Support has dropped 7 % points since March 2015, from 56 %.

"Public support for capital punishment peaked in the mid-1990s, when 8-in-10 
Americans favoured the death penalty and fewer than 2-in-10 were opposed.

"Opposition to the death penalty is now the highest it has been since 1972."

But according to a poll conducted by Chicago-based organisation, the Campaign 
to End the Death Penalty, a survey to all 749 death row inmates in California 
revealed that they opposed the abolishment of the death penalty because "people 
feel that it [Prop. 62] was just a death sentence with a different name."

Lilly Hughes, director of the organisation, told Mother Jones that for a 
prisoner - abolishing the death penalty, and letting them live out their life 
in jail - would fundamentally be "another method of execution."

"You die in prison. It just takes a longer, slower time to do it."

Many prisoners also feel that abolishing the death penalty will also eliminate 
the state-sponsored resources guaranteed to them as they fight their 
convictions while facing execution - such as above average psychiatric care and 
support from international anti-death penalty communities.

The last time the state of California went to the polls to cast their vote on 
capital punishment, a widely petitioned ballot initiative to replace capital 
punishment with life without parole lost by a narrow margin. The whole 
population of prisoners waiting to be executed went on suicide watch.

State prison spokesman Terry Thornton, told the Los Angeles Times that "death 
row is complicated" and that 24-hour vigils were likely to be implemented again 
next week during the election, to "address the mental health needs" of the 
condemned.

(source: news.com.au)

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

How Riverside County became California's death penalty leader


alifornia voters next week will consider the fate of the death penalty, and in 
few places are the stakes as high as Riverside County.

10 years into a state moratorium on executions, many prosecutors have stopped 
seeking capital punishment altogether. Riverside, however, is condemning 
killers at the highest rate in the country. The county has sent 22 people to 
death row in the past 5 years, the same number as Los Angeles County - where 
more than 6 times as many murders were committed.

Whether a crime merits execution, according to both legal experts and public 
officials, is a matter of geography as much as anything.

\"That's how it should be," Riverside County Dist. Atty. Mike Hestrin said, 
contending that how the death penalty is used in each county should reflect the 
local sentiment.

There are 2 measures on the ballot Tuesday: 1 calling to repeal the death 
penalty and the other seeking to narrow the time frame from sentencing to 
execution.

Since capital punishment was put on hold a decade ago over questions 
surrounding lethal drug protocols, prosecutors in 33 California counties have 
not condemned a single person. Half a dozen counties recently have taken 
inmates off death row, abandoning legal appeals to keep them there.

But in Riverside, death sentences increased after the freeze.

"I know we are seen as the death penalty center," said Hestrin, a Republican. 
But capital cases are reserved for what he said he views as the most horrible 
crimes - and are essential to defining community values.

"It creates a common feeling that we seek and deliver justice. ... It expresses 
outrage at heinous acts."

He cited the death sentence given last year to Tyrone Harts, who shot his 
girlfriend and then set her on fire, leaving 4 of her children to try to douse 
the flames with small cups of water.

In deciding to seek capital punishment, Hestrin said, he measures "evil" - 
whether the killing involved "a predator, stalking, planning."

The prosecutor attributed Riverside County's meting out of the death penalty to 
a crime rate he said is relatively high. California Department of Justice 
reports, however, show Riverside ranked in the bottom fourth for violent crime 
in 2015.

Moreover, Hestrin said, a majority of the voters he serves supports capital 
punishment. In 2012, almost 2/3 of them voted against a ballot initiative to 
repeal death sentences.

"We are a county that wants law and order," he said. "I don't shy away from 
that. ... I feel we seek and deliver justice."

California's execution freeze also plays a part. Hestrin said Riverside voters 
would be less supportive if those death sentences were not "symbolic."

According to death row rosters across the nation, 25 people have been sentenced 
this year - a dramatic fall from the 49 death penalties handed down in 2015, 
which was a 41-year low.

At its peak in 1996, the nation condemned 315 individuals.

Death penalty opponents say the sentencing decline reflects shrinking public 
support for capital punishment.

"They carry those doubts with them into jury deliberation rooms," said Robert 
Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

Supporters instead see more selective prosecution, with fewer questionable 
outcomes.

"That is how it should be," said Kent Scheidegger, director of the 
Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which has gone to court to 
force California to resume executions.

The discretion county prosecutors have in deciding to seek a death sentence is 
wide, so often it depends on who is making the call.

Hestrin said there were 22 pending death penalty cases in Riverside County when 
he took office.

He removed 7 from the list, including a homicide that involved a love triangle, 
deciding execution would be an inappropriate outcome. Cases he has added for 
trial include a man who killed his father, uncle and a bystander after being 
discharged from a psychiatric facility and another accused of killing two Palm 
Springs police officers.

Other defendants who could face the death penalty in Riverside County if 
convicted include a woman accused of shooting her husband to take his money, a 
man charged with kidnapping and killing a teenager on her walk home from school 
and a gang member accused of firing into a house, killing a 6-year-old.

4 pending cases in Orange County, by contrast, involve three accused serial 
killers and a man charged in the mass murder of 8 people.

"These are literally the worst of the worst of the worst," said Susan 
Schroeder, chief of staff for the Orange County district attorney's office. The 
death penalty, she said, should be reserved for crimes in which "the only just 
punishment available to us in a civilized society is death."

The disparities have led some defense lawyers to argue that it is as wrong to 
condemn a person by geography as it would be by race.

Appellate lawyer Mike Clough - whose clients include the serial arsonist who 
started the Esperanza wildfire that killed 5 firefighters - said the rate at 
which the death penalty is handed out in Riverside does not follow crime 
trends, demographics or even voter leanings.

"There isn't any answer but politics," Clough said, adding that Riverside's 
judicial system is tilted to favor a death verdict.

3/4 of the county judges who have upheld death sentences since 2011 previously 
worked as prosecutors. And 7 judges presiding over trials in which 39 
defendants were condemned had been death penalty prosecutors.

"It becomes a self-replicating system at that point," Clough said.

Prosecutorial discretion also has left some crime victims struggling to 
comprehend when the death option is taken off the table.

Sometimes, the reason is purely financial.

In an appeal that took 13 years for a hearing, the state Supreme Court in 2015 
ordered a new sentencing trial for a man condemned in the torture slaying of a 
20-year-old woman in Shasta County.

Her brother, Jason Sinner, said county officials told him a new sentencing 
trial would cost $2 million - and introduced him to the woman prosecuting child 
abuse cases who could use the money instead.

"My sister was just as good as anybody," Sinner said.

"All I wanted them to do is stand up a little bit and say the death penalty is 
messed up. Get rid of it, or embrace it and get it working."

(source: Los Angeles Times)






OREGON:

Retired prison boss in Salem is death penalty critic


Fade in to the Oregon State Penitentiary, past the concertina wire fence and 
the sliding doors and locks. The state's most dangerous felons are incarcerated 
here, including all but 2 of the 34 inmates on death row.

In an office, away from the segregated cells, sits the superintendent, Frank 
Thompson. In front of him is a bucket of water, and he has a syringe in hand. 
With him is a man advising him how to properly administer a lethal injection.

Thompson draws water into the syringe, then depresses the plunger as the 
syringe empties into the bucket. He does this over and over, while the adviser 
warns about the importance of the depression rate. The fluid, he is told, 
should not flow out faster than gravity.

Dissolve to a downtown coffee shop, a mile and a half from the prison and 
bustling with conversation about life in Salem. Thompson describes to me the 
scene from 20 years ago.

"I'm practicing delivering a lethal injection," he says, almost as if he 
doesn't believe it really happened. "Surreal doesn't begin to explain it."

My gaze is diverted to his right hand, resting on the table between us. Without 
realizing it, he's going through the motion as if he is depressing that 
syringe.

Thompson plays a lead role in the history of capital punishment in Oregon, as 
the man who oversaw the state's last execution. He conducted 2, in fact, while 
he was superintendent at Oregon State Penitentiary. Those are the state's only 
executions in the past 54 years.

His story is compelling. He supported capital punishment during most of his 
30-year career in law enforcement and corrections, but today he is one of its 
most outspoken critics.

Our conversation and his appearance at a meeting of Oregonians for Alternatives 
to the Death Penalty are sandwiched between an opinion piece published in the 
New York Times and a trip to Oklahoma, 1 of 3 states with capital punishment 
initiatives on the ballot this week.

"The death penalty doesn't deter," he tells me. "It only satisfies vengeance."

Thompson, whose mother and father were educators, grew up in the segregated 
south, in Arkansas. He worked in law enforcement, and both his best friend and 
his cousin were killed on the job. The man who murdered his cousin ultimately 
was executed for another crime.

"Deep down, I remember feeling justice had been served," Thompson said. "But 
emotion does not make good policy."

When he applied for the top prison job in Oregon in 1994, he told an 
interviewer that he would be capable of executing an inmate, something which 
hadn't happened in more than 3 decades at the time.

"It was part of the criminal justice system," Thompson says, "but I thought I 
wouldn't have to."

Within 18 months of landing the job, 2 death row inmates waived their appeals 
and were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, 1 for killing his 
half-sister and her former husband, and another for killing 3 homeless men and 
a 10-year-old boy.

There was no protocol in Oregon for execution by lethal injection. Oregon 
previously used a gas chamber, the last time in 1962.

This would be the 1st execution in 34 years, the 1st by lethal injection, and 
the 1st for Thompson and everyone on his staff.

"No one can imagine the amount of pressure with all these firsts," Thompson 
said. "I felt like the world was watching."

The glare of the spotlight was one of the reasons he focused on training his 
staff, which came naturally for him.

Thompson is an Army veteran. He served in the military police during the 
Vietnam War era, and was stationed in Korea. Preparing to administer the death 
penalty, to him, was a lot like preparing for combat.

"You're hoping you never have to kill anybody, but you do what you're called 
upon to do," he says.

Like a good soldier and commander, Thompson was as concerned for those serving 
with him as he was for himself. Each of the employees who participated in the 
1st execution, in 1996, volunteered for duty. He met 1-on-1 with each person 
and selected those who would carry out the execution orders.

Thompson was aware of the heavy toll it could take on them. While a police 
officer and corrections officer in Arkansas, he had friends who were involved 
in executions in that state. Some of them suffered from post-traumatic stress 
disorder.

To help insulate his staff from the fears of doing the job, and from making a 
mistake, training was a top priority for Thompson. They trained for every step 
of the process, and for every possible scenario, and they did it over and over 
again.

In hindsight, it might have been excessive. But not to Thompson, who says he 
spent $80,000 on overtime to prepare staff for the first one.

"My biggest fear was to have a botched execution," he says. "We don't need any 
other victims."

Fade back to Oregon State Penitentiary, where Thompson is sitting across from 
one of the condemned men, describing in detail how the death sentence will be 
carried out.

Thompson explains how the condemned man will be placed in restraints on a 
gurney and connected to a heart monitor machine. He explains how he will be 
hooked up to intravenous catheters for lethal injection of solutions that will 
first induce unconsciousness, then stop breathing and finally stop the heart.

The irony of premeditation is not lost on Thompson.

Back at the coffee shop, Thompson reflects on what was another surreal moment 
in the evolution of his stance on capital punishment.

"I'm sitting as close as I am to you," Thompson says to me, "and I'm explaining 
to this man how I'm going to kill him."

It was around this time, in the middle of intense training, that Thompson's 
stance on capital punishment began to sway.

"Everybody knew it," he says. "You register your concerns, but you don't bail 
out."

He was lucky to have a caring and understanding support system to go home to, 
and still is and does. He and his wife, Deborah, have been married since 1970. 
They have a daughter and a granddaughter.

Deborah accompanied him to the recent meeting of Oregonians for Alternatives to 
the Death Penalty, during which he talked about the impact executions can have 
on corrections officers. Someone later asked if he had experienced PTSD.

"I've had no professional counseling or treatment. You might ask my wife."

She says he has.

"I believe having an opportunity to do what I'm doing tonight is my therapy," 
Thompson went on to say. "I see it somewhat as a ministry."

Public support for the death penalty fell by 7 % points in the last year, with 
fewer than 1/2 of Americans (49 %) now saying they support it, according to a 
national Pew Research Center poll released Sept. 29. It marked the 1st time in 
45 years that support for capital punishment polled below 50 %.

Thompson shares his story any chance he gets with legislators, criminal justice 
advocates and community leaders across Oregon - where the death penalty is 
legal but currently under moratorium - and across the country. He has met with 
elected officials in Colorado and Maryland, and his recent appearances in 
Oklahoma were arranged by a senator.

He reels off a list of reasons why he and others believe the death penalty 
should be abolished, including how it is not an effective deterrent to murder, 
how it is applied disproportionately against the poor and minorities, and how 
it diverts resources from effective criminal justice policy.

Thompson stood next to the gurney during one of the executions - he won't say 
which one - watching the man take his last breath. For the other, he stood 
outside the room and watched for the flat line on the heart monitor.

Although he used the names of the executed in his New York Times piece, he 
prefers not to in this column.

"There are victims out there," he says.

Thompson said the team stayed intact for both executions, after which a couple 
of staffers quietly went on to other professions because of how much they were 
bothered by the experience. He often gets asked why he didn't quit after the 
1st one, if he had changed his stance.

"Executing people was 1/1000 of what we did," he said, noting his role in 
helping develop the Performance Recognition and Award System (PRAS) that 
reinforces pro-social program development and positive behavior in Oregon 
prisons.

"I'm proud of that," Thompson says, "but that's not going to be on my 
headstone."

Fade in to the execution room at Oregon State Penitentiary, with a condemned 
man strapped to the gurney, awaiting the injection of a cocktail of lethal 
chemicals.

Staff inside the room are trained to conduct the execution professionally and 
with as much dignity as humanly possible. Before the injection is administered, 
the man lets them know the straps binding his hands are hurting him.

Thompson gives instructions to loosen them, and after the adjustments are made, 
the man looks his executioner in the eye and says, "Thank you, boss."

(source: Statesman Journal)






USA:

Federal death penalty trial to begin for admitted Charleston church shooter


The federal death penalty trial begins Monday for admitted Charleston church 
shooter Dylann Roof.

Roof admitted to opening fire during a bible study at Mother Emanuel in June 
2015 where nine people died including state senator reverend Clementa Pinckney.

Jury selection began in the case in October. 757 potential jurors filled out 
questionnaires and 512 people remain in the pool.

The process to narrow them down to the final jury will begin November 7.

(source: WCBD news)