[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MISS., OHIO, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 12



MISSISSIPPI:

2 face capital murder charges in death of Mississippi college student


2 of the 5 suspects being held in the shooting death of 21-year-old Mississippi 
State University student now face capital murder charges.

The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reports that officials upgraded the 
charges Thursday against 18-year-old Syboris Pippins and 20-year-old Jaylen 
Barker, both of Columbus. They are now being held on bonds of $2 million each. 
If convicted, both could face the death penalty.

The charges stem from the early Sunday morning robbery and murder of Joseph 
Tillman.

Starkville Police Chief Frank Nichols said Tillman, a senior marketing major, 
was seen interacting with a group of men in the Cotton District. After 
interacting for several minutes, Nichols says Tillman was robbed and shot.

Police have also charged 3 others, including a 16-year-old, with accessory 
after the fact to murder.

(source: CBS news)






OHIO:

Facing death, Kevin Keith deserves a new trial


Kevin Keith sat on death row for 16 years. Then, in 2010, Ted Strickland 
commuted his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole, 
rightly citing "too many real and unanswered questions" about whether Keith 
committed a triple murder at an apartment in Bucyrus. That was partial justice 
for Keith, once a defensive tackle at Canton-McKinley High School. He still 
needs a way to get back into court for a new trial in which the totality of the 
evidence would be examined.

Perhaps that opportunity now will come. The Columbus Dispatch recently reported 
on grave questions raised about the work of G. Michele Yezzo, a longtime 
forensic scientist at the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation. She retired 
in 2009 after more than three decades on the job. An examination of her 
personnel file has revealed years of erratic behavior, threatening and 
otherwise hostile, even a suspension in 1993.

Most troubling, the record points to concerns that Yezzo slanted her results 
and conclusions to favor the police and prosecution. The Dispatch noted she 
often conducted her analyses of murders and other high-profile felonies with 
little oversight.

Lee Fisher, a state attorney general in the 1990s, told the Dispatch he "would 
call for an investigation into every case where her findings and conclusions 
were instrumental in the final result," citing "an obligation to the integrity 
of the criminal-justice system. ..."

Jim Petro, the attorney general a decade later and part of the current Kevin 
Keith defense, described Yezzo's work to the Dispatch as "shoddy at best." He 
added: "Any case where she provided forensic evidence that resulted in a 
conviction now comes into question."

Mike DeWine, the current attorney general, told the Dispatch that his office 
has conducted 2 such reviews since learning about the problem in 2015. He 
reports the examinations turned up no issues.

That doesn't seem to fit the Keith case. A key factor for the prosecution was 
the Yezzo analysis of a partial impression of a license plate number left in a 
snow bank by the alleged getaway car. In 2010, the Keith defense hired one of 
the nation's leading forensic experts to review the analysis. He found the 
impression did not match the bumper of Keith's car. He also concluded there 
wasn't sufficient detail about the plate numbers.

Add these findings to the erosion of eyewitness testimony, plus credible 
information pointing to a likely alternative suspect, and the case against 
Keith weakens to the point of a wrongful conviction.

As the Dispatch reported, a judge in Huron County already has dismissed the 
1993 murder conviction of a man due to the sloppy work of Yezzo.

Kevin Keith came within 2 weeks of execution. Imagine the horror if he had been 
put to death by the state and 6 years later all of this surfaced. That helps 
explain why Ohio lawmakers must enact the recommendations of the Supreme Court 
task force on the death penalty, especially those items designed to prevent 
wrongful convictions and execution. It also points to doing what is just, 
granting Keith a new trial.

(source Beacon Journal Editorial Board)






CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty battle won't die: Fight over Proposition 66 likely to continue 
after election


The fight over the death penalty never seems to die.

Even though it's not yet certain if opponents lost both capital punishment 
ballot measures, they pre-emptively asked the state Supreme Court to block 
Proposition 66 that would speed up executions.

The 1st volley in what could be a protracted legal battle rankled death penalty 
supporters and could be a harbinger of a long road ahead if the reform measure 
goes into effect and shakes up the way appeals are handled. Backers claimed 
victory with support on about 51 % of more than 8 million ballots counted.

But with millions of outstanding votes, it was still too close to call Friday.

"Proposition 66 was passed by the voters because they are sick of lawyers who 
oppose the death penalty constantly undermining the system with lawsuit after 
lawsuit," said McGregor Scott, a former state and federal prosecutor who 
co-chairs the Yes on 66 Campaign.

"It is not at all ironic, and is in fact a slap in the face to the voters, that 
their response to the passage of Proposition 66 was to file another lawsuit 
trying to thwart the will of the voters."

With voters shooting down a measure that would have repealed capital punishment 
and leaning toward adopting the series of reforms to expedite appeals, they 
appeared to give a lifeline to the beleaguered death penalty that has sent 900 
of California's most vicious killers to death row in the past 4 decades but 
only resulted in 13 executions.

Proposition 66 would make procedural changes in how appeals are heard and who 
is qualified to represent condemned killers. Currently, the pool of appellate 
lawyers handling capital cases is small and inmates are sometimes not assigned 
counsel for more than 5 years after conviction.

The reform effort would expand that pool by assigning attorneys who currently 
handle other types of appeals to death penalty cases.

While the California Supreme Court would still hear direct appeals regarding 
errors at trial, appeals for claims such as newly discovered evidence, 
incompetent counsel or misconduct by jurors or prosecutors would be heard by 
the trial court.

Those secondary appeals would have to be filed within a year of conviction 
instead of 3, and all state appeals would have to be exhausted in 5 years.

The petition filed Wednesday with the California Supreme Court by former 
Attorney General John Van de Kamp and Ron Briggs, whose father wrote the ballot 
measure that expanded California's death penalty in 1978, said the reform 
measure would disrupt the courts, cost more money and limit the ability to 
mount proper appeals. They said the deadlines would set "an inordinately short 
timeline for the courts to review those complex cases" and result in attorneys 
cutting corners in their investigations.

Death penalty opponents had claimed the reform measure would lead to the 
appointment of incompetent lawyers and tight deadlines would prevent appeals 
based on new evidence that can take years to unearth.

7 of the past 10 exonerations in the U.S. took 25 years or more to find 
evidence of innocence, attorney Barry Scheck said.

"What is going to happen when you have jerry-rigged system with lawyers that 
are not competent to do the job, with courts that are overburdened, with time 
limits that everything has to be done in 5 years?" asked Scheck, co-founder of 
the Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School in New York.

"It could be a bloodbath."

Proposition 66 supporters dismissed the challenge before the California Supreme 
Court as a frivolous stall tactic.

Kent Scheidegger, director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation who helped 
write Proposition 66, said it will take some time for the California Judicial 
Counsel to approve lawyers to handle such cases, but he said they would be 
competent. He said the current shortage of lawyers is due to the people 
controlling the appointment process who won't consider well-qualified lawyers, 
such as former prosecutors, willing to handle appeals.

"Having anti-death penalty crusaders in charge of an important part of the 
process has been a big part of the problem," he said.

Experts predicted extensive litigation over Proposition 66.

Sean Kennedy, a law professor at Loyola Law School and former federal defender 
who handled death penalty appeals, said the law seeks to speed up appeals like 
the federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did in U.S. 
courts.

Elements of that law are still being contested and he expects future challenges 
in California to argue on due process grounds that expedited appeals hamper 
meaningful review.

"I think California is very schizophrenic about the death penalty," Kennedy 
said.

"Majorities often support the death penalty ... but people are concerned about 
being like Texas and having no real due process.???

(source: San Mateo Daily Journal)






USA:

Roof's mental status uncertain; his attorneys seek delay to Charleston death 
penalty trial


The current mental status of accused Charleston church killer Dylann Roof has 
emerged as a key issue and may delay the start of his upcoming death penalty 
trial.

Legal papers on the U.S. District Court internet site made public Friday make 
it clear that defense and prosecution lawyers are wrangling over the issue of 
Roof's mental competency. They are also fighting over whether a final hearing 
on Roof's mental status - now scheduled for Wednesday in Charleston - will be 
open or closed.

After that hearing, U.S. Judge Richard Gergel will likely issue an order saying 
whether Roof is mentally fit to stand trial, or whether he should be 
hospitalized until he is competent.

Under the law, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the 
proceedings against him and assist his lawyers in his own defense. Roof, 22, is 
an avowed white supremacist from the Columbia area. He faces 33 charges 
including hate crimes in connection with the June 2015 Charleston church 
massacre, in which 9 African-Americans were killed execution-style. His lawyers 
have said in open court he will plead guilty and be sentenced to life without 
parole in prison if prosecutors drop their demand for the death penalty.

According to a defendant's filing in the case made public Friday, U.S. Judge 
Richard Gergel has already made a finding "that there is reasonable cause to 
believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or 
defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial..."

Although the defense motion does not say when Gergel made that finding, the 
judge apparently did so after a closed hearing Monday at which the public and 
prosecutors were excluded. At that hearing, Roof's defense lawyers presented 
evidence indicating he was not mentally stable.

As prescribed by law when questions of a defendant's mental competence arise, 
Gergel then appointed an independent mental health professional to examine 
Roof. That examination is now apparently finished, or near finished, and the 
results will be given to Gergel.

The results of that examination will likely play a large role in Wednesday's 
upcoming hearing and may determine if Roof's trial can go on as scheduled.

"If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering 
him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the 
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him...," the defendant shall 
be hospitalized, federal law law says.

That hospitalization shall continue until the defendant's mental condition 
improves to the point where he can stand trial, federal law says.

Defense lawyers are seeking to close Wednesday's hearing about Roof's mental 
status, according to a filing unsealed Friday.

"Any (open) competency hearing will pose equally grave threats to the 
deffendant's right to a fair trial, to a fair and impartial jury, and to the 
assistance of counsel," defense lawyers wrote.

However, prosecution lawyers argue in a strongly-worded brief that, for 
numerous reasons, the Wednesday hearing about Roof's competency should be open 
to the public and victims.

"The victims should not be held in the dark about the competency hearing," the 
government argued. "The victims in this case have a right to know what is 
occurring in this case."

"While the defendant does have a right to a fair trial, so too do the victims 
have a right to a fair trial, one that affords them access to the information 
and proceedings that address their experience and loss as well as the person 
who caused it," the government argued.

Government lawyers also reminded Gergel that U.S. courts are traditionally open 
and there is "a strong presumption of open proceedings."

Moreover, since the public already knows that Roof's mental competence is an 
issue, "there is no sufficiently compelling interest in closing the hearing," 
prosecutors wrote.

Roof's mental status is currently being evaluated in a confidential setting. 
Judge Gergel is expected to get a report on Roof's competence soon.

"Should the defendant be found incompetent, we presume that the Court would 
order him transferred to a Bureau medical facility for further evaluation and 
treatment aimed at restoring him to competence," defense lawyers wrote.

Defense lawyers also indicate they want to delay jury selection now for perhaps 
an indefinite time, as the matters concerning Roof's competency are legally 
complex and will likely take a long time to deal with in a manner that will 
protect Roof's rights.

"With a holiday coming up, we wish to avoid having to make any more last-minute 
requests for time to resolve the numerous issues of constitutional dimension 
that seem to be arising now virtually on a daily basis," wrote Roof's defense 
team, headed by noted anti-death penalty lawyer David Bruck.

"We suggest that the Court adopt a new schedule that avoids resuming jury 
selection on Nov. 21-22," Bruck and his team wrote.

Gergel announced earlier this week he wanted to start jury selection on Nov. 
21, the Monday the week of Thanksgiving.

Gergel had originally planned to start jury selection last Monday, but to 
everyone's surprise, Roof's lawyers asked for and got a closed court hearing at 
which last-minute mental competency issues concerning Roof arose. Neither 
prosecutors nor the public were allowed to attend that hearing.

(source: thestate.com)