[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.J., FLA., ALA., LA., CALIF., WASH.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 23




TEXAS----impending execution

Attorney Wants Execution Halted For Dad Who Killed Daughters


A man set for execution next month is appealing a judge's ruling last week that 
he's mentally competent to be executed for fatally shooting his 2 young 
daughters more than 15 years ago in Dallas while their mother listened 
helplessly over the phone.

John David Battaglia has asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's 
highest criminal court, to halt his scheduled Dec. 7 lethal injection in 
Huntsville.

State District Judge Robert Burns last week ruled Battaglia was faking 
delusions that could make him ineligible for the death penalty under U.S. 
Supreme Court rulings.

Battaglia's attorney, Michael Mowla, says in his appeal that Burns' ruling was 
"unsupported and incorrect." He wants the execution stopped so the state 
appeals court or a federal court can review the competency ruling.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Legislation Promises Stiffer Punishment For Targeting Police Officers


New legislation filed at the state capitol aims to provide stiffer punishment 
for those caught targeting police and first responders.

Following the shooting of San Antonio Police Det. Benjamin Marconi, the city's 
police Chief William McManus said that it was obvious, the uniform, not the 
officer was the target.

It's that idea that has spurred the creation of new legislation ahead of the 
January session that would enhance crimes against a police officer.

Charlie Wilkinson is the executive director for the Combined Law Enforcement 
Associations of Texas also known as CLEAT. Wilkinson says CLEAT is in support 
of the bill because it creates a new class of hate crimes when police officers 
and first responders are the intended target.

"This was Detective Marconi doing his job and filling in in a place where he 
was needed and he was targeted simply because he was a police officer," 
Wilkinson says.

The bill's author, Dallas Republican State Rep. Jason Villalba says it wouldn't 
only apply when an officer is targeted and shot.

"Let's say you are driving a car and you see a cop and you take your truck and 
you plow into their car, and the police officer isn't harmed. Obviously that 
isn't a case that is going to be a capital crime that results in the death 
penalty. It's going to be a crime that results in a 2nd degree felony. If we 
have a 2nd degree felony under our statute it moves up to the next highest 
class," Villalba explains.

The bill will be introduced in the legislative session that begins in January.

(source" tpr.org)

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

Texas Death Case Tests Standards For Defining Intellectual Disability


The U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that questions intellectual disabilities 
and the death penalty - specifically, what standards states may use in 
determining whether a defendant convicted of murder is mentally deficient.

In 2002, the justices barred the execution of the intellectually disabled. But 
it left the states considerable room to decide who is "mentally retarded." Two 
years ago, the court put its thumb more firmly on the scale, telling states 
they were not free to use a rigid IQ number to determine "retardation," but 
instead "must be informed by the medical community's diagnostic framework."

Now the state of Texas is defending its use of standards that major medical 
organizations do not endorse. Instead, the state's test is based on what the 
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals called "a consensus of Texas citizens," that 
not all those who meet the "social services definition" of "retardation" should 
be exempt from the death penalty.

The man at the center of the case is Bobby J. Moore, whose gun discharged 
during a botched robbery, killing a 70-year-old store clerk in Houston in 1980. 
There is no doubt about his guilt or about the fact that he has limited mental 
abilities. Even the prosecution's psychologist testified at trial that Moore 
likely "suffers from borderline intellectual functioning."

Moore's lawyers argue that Texas is using outdated standards to determine 
"retardation," instead of the current medical standards required by the U.S. 
Supreme Court. The state of Texas argues that there is no national standard, 
and that the state should not be limited to current medical diagnostic tools or 
standards.

Moore's lawyers note that, at age 13, he didn't understand the days of the 
week, the months of the year, how to tell time, or the principle that 
subtraction is the reverse of addition. He failed first grade twice, but school 
officials continued to advance him in order to keep him with children of a 
similar age. In addition to his other difficulties, his father beat him 
repeatedly over his failures in school. And when Moore was 14, his father threw 
him out of the house to live on the streets.

Moore's IQ tests range from a low of 57 to a high of 78 with an average of just 
over 70 - definitely in the retardation range.

All of that led a Texas trial judge to conclude that under current medical 
standards, it would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual 
punishment to execute Moore.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision, declaring that 
states are not obligated to use current medical standards alone. Instead, the 
Texas court used the definition in the diagnostic manual put out by the 
American Association on Mental Retardation in 1992 as opposed to the revised 
manual put out in 2010.

The state court said that using that earlier standard, Moore was not mentally 
deficient citing that he was able to adapt to circumstances. As a young 
teenager, Moore adapted to life on the streets and robbed stores to finance a 
drug and alcohol habit. Moreover, the appeals court noted he was able to make 
and execute plans. For example, during the 1980 robbery, he wore a wig to 
conceal his identity.

Using these factors, the appeals court concluded that Moore was not 
sufficiently disabled to qualify for exemption from the death penalty.

Now the Supreme Court will decide, and its ruling could well affect the 
standards in other death penalty states.

(source: apr.org)






NEW JERSEY:

5 things to know about N.J. and the death penalty


Nearly 9 years after the Garden State banned capital punishment, a pair of 
state lawmakers introduced a bill this week seeking to restore it for serious 
crimes committed in the state.

Here are 5 things to know about the proposal and New Jersey's ban:

1. New Jersey made history with its ban.

In December 2007, the state Legislature voted to make New Jersey the 1st state 
to abolish the death penalty in 42 years. The state Assembly voted 44-36 to 
give the bill final legislative approval.

Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat and death penalty opponent, signed the measure 
into law days later, replacing capital punishment with life in prison without 
parole.

The effort was successful despite polling that showed 62 % of Americans 
favoring the death penalty and 53 % of New Jerseyans opposing its ban in the 
state.

Still, proponents of the ban said was the death penalty not only outdated and 
inhumane but also never used in the state.

Plus, lawmakers said getting rid of capital punishment would save money. The 
cost of the state keeping inmates on death row at the time was $72,602 a year 
for each prisoner - compared to $40,121 a year to keep them in prison, 
according to a state commission.

2. The law spared the lives of a handful of inmates.

There were 8 inmates on death row in New Jersey when Corzine signed the law. 
One of the most notorious was Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender convicted of 
the 1994 murder of Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old Hamilton girl whose killing led to 
the passage of "Megan's Law."

Another was John Martini, convicted of kidnapping and killing Fair Lawn 
businessman Irving Flax after receiving $25,000 in random money.

Another was Brian Wakefield, who was convicted of invading an Atlantic City 
couple's home, beating and stabbing them, seeing their bodies on fire, and 
going on a spending spree with with their credit cards.

3. A majority of states still have the death penalty.

New Jersey is 1 of 18 states without the death penalty. The District of 
Columbia has also banned it.

The 18 are: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 
Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

There are 32 states still have some form of capital punishment: Alabama, 
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and 
Wyoming.

4. The new bill was a response to recent events.

The proposal introduced Monday says the death penalty would apply to "extreme" 
New Jersey crimes - such the murder of a police officer; the murder of a child 
in commission of a sex crime; deaths caused by an act of terror; killings 
committed by those who have previously been convicted of murder; and for serial 
killers.

The sponsors of the measure said it was spurred by recent terror attacks and 
fatal ambushes of police officers across the U.S.

One sponsor, state Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) said added that "it has to 
be used very sparingly, only in circumstances where there is clear proof" such 
as a confession or DNA evidence.

5. The measure's future is uncertain but unlikely.

Similar efforts to revive the death penalty in the state have failed in recent 
years. And it's unlikely it would pass both houses of the Democratic-controlled 
state Legislature now. If it did pass, it would also have to be signed by the 
governor.

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a key sponsor of the 2008 ban, said he 
does not expect New Jersey to go "back to the dark ages."

(source: nj.com)






FLORIDA:

47 people executed under flawed Florida statute


In January 2016, in a case called Hurst v. Florida, the United States Supreme 
Court held that Florida's death penalty scheme was unconstitutional and 
violated the Sixth Amendment, pursuant to its decision in Ring v. Arizona.

The Court held that Florida's statutory scheme was flawed because it failed to 
require the jury, rather than the sentencing judge, to make findings of 
aggravating circumstances relied upon by the state to justify imposition of the 
death penalty. Ring first established that principle in 2002.

On remand in Hurst, the Florida Supreme Court followed the Supreme Court's 
mandate and further held that to be constitutional under both the federal and 
state constitutions, the death penalty statutory scheme must require unanimous 
findings by a jury on aggravators, as well as to a recommendation of death. 
Because the Florida high court relied upon the Florida Constitution, its 
decision on unanimity is not reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. State high 
courts have the final say on state constitutions.

What may be overlooked in the aftermath of these decisions is the shocking fact 
that after the decision in Ring v. Arizona in 2002, some 47 persons have been 
put to death in Florida under an unconstitutional process. And while many may 
assess the blame as falling on Florida's 3 branches of government for not 
acting after Ring to correct Florida???s statute, it is apparent that a large 
share of the blame rests with the discretionary review procedures of the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

Let me explain. Following the decision in Ring, many Florida death row inmates 
petitioned the Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, to apply 
Ring and invalidate Florida's death penalty scheme. However, relying on prior 
U.S. Supreme Court decisions generally upholding Florida's scheme, Florida's 
high court denied relief.

But many of these disappointed death row inmates sought further relief in the 
U.S. Supreme Court. Surprisingly, despite the clear holding in Ring, the Court 
inexplicably rejected these appeals, until finally, the Court accepted review 
in Hurst and specifically held Florida's scheme unconstitutional under Ring. 
These many unexplained denials also sent a false signal that despite Ring, 
Florida's scheme might be valid.

Tragically, in the 13 years since Ring, some 47 persons have been executed in 
Florida under an unconstitutional statute. Had the U.S. Supreme Court accepted 
review of a Florida case soon after Ring, those executions may arguably not 
have occurred - at least not until further review for harmless error, waiver or 
some other possible argument by the state was first evaluated. But none of that 
took place.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute discretion in deciding what 
cases to review. And ordinarily those decisions cannot be challenged. But, 
surely the exercise of this discretionary review authority should take into 
account the fact that lives hang in the balance.

As the high court itself has observed, "death is different." Or is it?

(source: Opinion; Harry Lee Antstead is a retired justice and Chief Justice of 
the Florida Supreme Court----The Tallahassee Democrat)






ALABAMA:

'We want justice:' Death penalty possible if young Alabama killings suspect 
convicted


Prosecutors haven't ruled out the option of seeking the death penalty if 1 of 4 
young Decatur residents is convicted of capital murder in the 2015 random 
killings of 2 men.

Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson said he hasn't yet decided 
whether his office will seek to have Joseph Cowan, 22, put to death if he is 
convicted of killing Joshua Davis and Antonio Hernandez-Lopez in Decatur.

This week, Cowan and 3 teenagers were denied youthful offender status in 
connection with a May 2015 crime spree that included several armed robberies 
and shootings into homes, in addition to the fatal shootings.

Joseph Cowan, 22, Cedric Cowan, 17, Amani Goodwin, 18, and Cortez Mitchell, 18, 
were denied youthful offender status in orders released today by Morgan County 
Circuit Judge Jennifer Howell.

"We are in full agreement with the judge's decision," Anderson said. "We want 
justice for these victims and their families. We were anticipating the 
applications to be denied."

At the time of the crimes, Cowan was 20, his brother Cedric Cowan was 16, 
Cortez Mitchell also was 16 and Amani Goodwin was 17.

Youthful offender status would have guaranteed the suspects not be sentenced to 
more than 3 years, if convicted.

For the teen defendants, the death penalty is out of the question if they are 
convicted because the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to sentence 
juveniles to death.

But, in the older Cowan's case, "we haven't made that call yet," Anderson said 
of seeking the death penalty. "We'd like to get all of the case information and 
evidence in to take a look at it. We also want to talk to the victims and their 
families about our decision."

If prosecutors choose not to seek death, Joseph Cowan, upon conviction, would 
face life in prison without the possibility of parole.

We want justice for these victims and their families

The teen defendants could face life with or without the possibility of parole, 
if convicted.

Each of the suspects is charged with 3 counts of capital murder - 1 for killing 
25-year-old Davis during a robbery, 1 for killing 27-year-old Hernandez-Lopez 
during a robbery and the final count for killing 2 or more people.

The 6 counts of 1st-degree robbery the defendants are charged with each carries 
a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. The defendants face 1 to 10 years in 
prison on 1 count of shooting into an occupied dwelling and 2 to 20 years on a 
2nd count of that charge.

The next court hearing is an arraignment scheduled for Dec. 19 at 10 a.m. At 
that time, the defendants will enter pleas of guilty or not guilty.

The defendants remain in the Morgan County Jail, where they have been housed 
without bail since their arrests on May 17, 2015.

(source: al.com)






LOUISIANA:

Death row inmate whose conviction overturned granted bond


Rodricus Crawford, a local man previously convicted of 1st-degree murder and 
sentenced to death, could be released from jail for now after a judge in Caddo 
District Court assigned him a $50,000 bond on Tuesday.

Crawford was convicted in 2013 of the 1st-degree murder of his 1-year-old son, 
Roderius Lott. The Louisiana Supreme Court last week vacated the trial court's 
verdict, and now Crawford has the opportunity for a new trial. Crawford had 
been on death row in Angola. The case has drawn attention from the national 
media.

At the hearing on Tuesday, the defense requested that Crawford's bond be set at 
$25,000, while the prosecution asked for $50,000.

While Judge Brady O'Callaghan said the bond amount was "inappropriately low," 
he agreed to give the state's recommendation the benefit of the doubt.

"The charge against you is serious and has not been dismissed," O'Callaghan 
said to Crawford after setting the amount of the bond. "Please be prompt in all 
of your appearances."

According to the judge, an indictment is still pending.

Crawford's attorney, Cecelia Kappel, had no comment.

In a statement to The Times last week, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's 
Office said the case will be reassigned. A new assistant district attorney will 
re-evaluate the case in order to make a determination on a proper course of 
action to proceed further in the matter.

"This case has been a tragedy from the start," Kappel said in a statement to 
The Times. "We look forward to continuing to work with the Caddo Parish 
District Attorney's Office in order to right this injustice."

(source: Shreveport Times)



CALIFORNIA:

Appeals Court: DA disqualified from OC's worst mass murder trial


A state appellate panel upheld a Superior Court judge's recusal of the Orange 
County District Attorney's Office from prosecuting the penalty trial of Scott 
Evans Dekraai, the worst mass killer in the county's history.

The 3-justice panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal backed Orange County 
Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals, who found that the DA's office could not 
ensure that Dekraai would receive a fair shake in the penalty phase of his 
trial because of loyalty to the Orange County Sheriff's Department, which 
Goethals mainly faulted for issues with the handling of jailhouse informants.

Dekraai pleaded guilty to the murders of 8 people in and around a Seal Beach 
beauty salon 5 years ago and is awaiting a resolution on Goethals' ruling for 
the penalty phase to begin.

The District Attorney's Office was seeking the death penalty, but if the 
appellate court ruling is not overturned by a higher court, then it will be up 
to the California Attorney General's Office on how to proceed with the 
continued prosecution of Dekraai. Orange County District Attorney Tony 
Rackauckas said he would support Attorney General Kamala Harris' decision on 
how to proceed.

Rackauckas' office Tuesday released the following statement:

"Our hearts, of course, first go to the victims and their families in this 
case, and we feel tremendous pain for their loss. Many of them know that we 
truly care about them and that we worked tirelessly and vigorously to seek 
justice in this case.

The OCDA worked hard along with the Seal Beach Police Department and many first 
responders to make sure this defendant was convicted. As a result of hard work 
by local law enforcement, Dekraai will never see freedom outside of prison.

No matter who handles this case, the OCDA believes that these murders were 
callous, cruel, and committed with a malignant heart. The defendant deserves 
the ultimate punishment of death."

The Attorney General's Office appealed Goethals' ruling, arguing that the 
Sheriff's Department was to blame for the misconduct related to the handling of 
informants in the case against Dekraai and others and that local prosecutors 
did not have a conflict of interest.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred by recusing the entire OCDA's 
office from prosecuting Dekraai's penalty phase," the appellate justices' 
opinion states. "...we conclude it was well within the court's discretion to 
recuse the entire OCDA's office from prosecuting the penalty phase because the 
OCDA had a disqualifying conflict of interest."

The justices noted that the Attorney General's Office argued that Goethals' 
ruling "was a remedy in search of a conflict." They replied, "Nonsense. The 
court recused the OCDA only after lengthy evidentiary hearings where it heard a 
steady stream of evidence regarding improper conduct by the prosecution team. 
To suggest the trial judge prejudged the case is reckless and grossly unfair. 
These proceedings were a search for the truth."

Dekraai's attorney, Scott Sanders, has argued that Dekraai's constitutional 
rights were violated in the way informants were used to glean damning evidence 
against his client. Prosecutors have denied the claims.

Dekraai went on a rampage Oct. 12, 2011, at the Salon Meritage at 500 Pacific 
Coast Highway that killed Dekraai's ex-wife, 48-year-old Michelle Marie 
Fournier, 47-year-old Christy Wilson, store owner 62-year-old Randy Lee Fannin, 
and Victoria Ann Buzzo, 54, Lucia Berniece Kondas, 65, Laura Lee Elody, 46, and 
Michele Dashbach Fast, 47.

After leaving the salon, Dekraai gunned down his last victim, 64-year- old 
David Caouette, as the victim sat in his Range Rover, which was parked next to 
the gunman's vehicle.

Dekraai pleaded guilty May 2, 2014, to the 8 murders and an attempted murder 
involving a 9th victim, 77-year-old Hattie Stretz, who survived.

In response to a motion filed by Sanders in early 2014, Goethals held a series 
of evidentiary hearings but denied the attorney's request to dismiss the death 
penalty and recuse the OCDA's Office.

However, the matter resurfaced when new evidence arose that the sheriff kept a 
log of inmate movements - known as TRED records - that hadn't been disclosed 
previously. Following a new round of hearings in 2015, Goethals recused 
Rackauckas' office from the case.

At issue was whether the informants simply overheard incriminating statements 
and passed them on to their handlers or if they questioned cellmates about 
their cases, which is a violation of the law if the defendant has an attorney. 
Another legal no-no is promising a reward to an informant in exchange for 
information.

Sanders also argued that sheriff's deputies would move defendants around the 
jail to be near informants so they could elicit evidence. In some cases, he 
said, informants would be placed in disciplinary isolation with another 
defendant even though the snitch did nothing to merit such punishment.

Mexican Mafia shot caller turned informant, Fernando Perez, befriended Dekraai 
in Orange County Jail and alerted authorities to conversations they had. 
Because prosecutors did not wish to use Perez as a witness they instead had 
Dekraai's cell wired with a recording device.

While Goethals concluded in 2014 that the conduct did not rise to the level 
needed to toss the District Attorney's Office from the case, the surfacing of 
the TRED records changed his mind. He noted last year that 2 sheriff's deputies 
"either intentionally lied or willfully withheld material evidence" from him.

The appellate panel concurred, writing, "Based on the entire record, we 
conclude substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion OCDA had 
an actual conflict because its loyalty to OCSD prevented the OCDA from 
performing its constitutional and statutory obligations in this case."

The justices, like Goethals, singled out two deputies, Seth Tunstall and Ben 
Garcia, for their conflicting statements on the handling of informants.

"Needless to say, there was overwhelming evidence supporting the trial court's 
conclusion Garcia and Tunstall intentionally lied or willfully withheld 
information at the 1st hearing and they lacked credibility," the justices 
wrote.

The justices also had harsh criticism for Dekraai's prosecutors, Dan Wagner and 
Scott Simmons.

"Both Wagner and Simmons admitted they were aware Perez had initiated 
conversations with a represented defendant," they wrote. "This should have been 
a red flag for them."

The Dekraai hearings also raised questions about the use of informants in 
crackdowns on Mexican Mafia violence in the jails. The justices criticized 
former Deputy District Attorney Erik Petersen for what they called lapses in 
his legal duties. Multiple cases Petersen prosecuted had to be revisited with 
some killers getting plea deals that allowed them to walk free or escape life 
sentences.

Goethals was right to recuse Rackauckas' office because case law allows for it 
when there are "institutional" problems between law enforcement agents, the 
court concluded.

"Here, institutional interests and structural incentives between the OCDA and 
OCSD constituted a genuine conflict of interest," the justices wrote.

"In Orange County, the OCSD is charged with investigating crimes, and the OCDA 
is charged with prosecuting those crimes. In this case, though, the evidence 
demonstrates the OCSD, in its secondary capacity as county jailer, created and 
maintained a CI program whereby it continued to investigate criminal activity 
in contravention of targeted defendants' constitutional rights."

The justices ruled there are "systemic problems" in the use of informants in 
Orange County.

"The magnitude of the systemic problems cannot be overlooked," the justices 
wrote.

(source: mynewsla.com)

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

California passes death penalty reform to speed executions


California voters have decided to repair the state's dysfunctional death 
penalty by passing a measure intended to speed up appeals, uniting with voters 
in more conservative states that also supported capital punishment.

Proposition 66 continued to hold a 51 % margin of support Tuesday after two 
weeks of counting millions of ballots in a contentious race that also saw 
voters reject a dueling measure to end executions.

"California voters not only want to keep the death penalty intact but they want 
it to work as intended," Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie 
Schubert said in a statement. "The reforms outlined in Prop. 66 are smart fixes 
that will eradicate waste, delays and inefficiencies while protecting due 
process for all those who are given the ultimate sentence of death."

The waning California vote count also showed voters narrowly rejected a finance 
measure that could have threatened 2 of Gov. Jerry Brown's megaprojects. The 
measures were the final 2 to be called of 17 statewide initiatives voters faced 
in a lengthy ballot.

The 2 death penalty measures drove massive spending from both sides of the 
contentious issue. Law enforcement groups were the biggest supporters of 
Proposition 66, pouring $12.6 million into the campaign and outspending the 
rich donors who fueled an $11.5 million effort to fight it. The same backers 
kicked in about $10 million each to fight or support Proposition 62, which 
would have repealed the death penalty.

Backers of both measures agreed the current system was broken. More than 900 
convicted killers have been sent to death row since capital punishment was 
reinstated, but only 13 have been executed since 1978. The last execution by 
lethal injection was more than a decade ago and 750 killers languish on death 
row.

The reform effort was proposed to "mend not end" capital punishment after 52 
percent of voters rejected a repeal measure in 2012.

In passing Proposition 66, California joined 2 other states in support for 
capital punishment on Election Day, bucking a pattern of states that have 
abolished the death penalty.

Nebraska reinstated the punishment a year after lawmakers abolished it. 
Oklahomans voted to make it tougher to repeal the death penalty in the future.

Those votes run counter to a nationwide move away from capital punishment. A 
Pew Research Center poll in September showed support for the death penalty at 
its lowest level in 40 years.

7 states - not counting Nebraska's reversal - have done away with the death 
penalty legislatively or judicially since 2000. Death sentences and executions 
have mostly been in a steep decline over that same period.

California's Proposition 66 would change how appeals are handled, appointing 
more lawyers to take cases, putting certain types of appeals before trial court 
judges and setting a 5-year deadline for appeals to be heard. Currently, it can 
take longer than that for an attorney to be assigned to a case and upward of 25 
years to exhaust all appeals.

Opponents had said the system was fatally flawed and argued that eliminating it 
would save $150 million a year largely by reducing lengthy appeals.

They claimed the reforms would be no panacea and instead wreak havoc on courts, 
lead to incompetent lawyers being appointed for appeals and could result in 
wrongful convictions.

"We would like nothing better than a criminal justice system that is responsive 
and fair," said Ana Zamora, manager of the No on Prop. 66 campaign. "But 
California just made a mistake the size of Texas. We cannot say with any 
certainty that California will not execute an innocent person."

Some death penalty foes have already asked the California Supreme Court to 
block Proposition 66 from taking effect. Supporters of the measure criticized 
that as a frivolous move and another stall tactic in delaying executions that 
could otherwise resume next year.

Franklin Zimring, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, 
said the court filing was "just a preview of coming attractions" as death 
penalty opponents try to keep the system at a standstill.

"The irony is that Prop. 66 was supposed to simplify and speed things up," 
Zimring said. "The smart money would bet that it has made things more complex, 
increased the set of issues to be litigated and, if anything, could slow down 
the path to execution in California from its glacial pace previously, it is 
this."

(source: Mercury News)






WASHINGTON:

Report: Suspect in party attack wrote lyrics about killing


A young man charged in a mass shooting at a Washington state house party last 
summer has been writing rap lyrics from jail bragging about killing - writings 
that could influence whether prosecutors decide to seek the death penalty in 
his case, a newspaper reported.

The material included a letter that 20-year-old defendant Allen Ivanov penned 
to a former Snohomish County jail inmate convicted of murder.

It starts with "rap ideas" and the lyrics focus on guns, violence and what 
Ivanov calls the "murder game," the Daily Herald of Everett reported Tuesday 
(https://goo.gl/cCPDVQ ), citing records it obtained through a public records 
request.

The lyrics appear to reference the July 30 shooting in Mukilteo that left 3 
people dead and 1 injured, the newspaper reported. Authorities say Ivanov 
opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle he had just purchased.

The letter was written to Christopher Garcia-Gonzalez, who is serving 20 years 
after being convicted of murdering a piano teacher after answering the man's 
online ad for a "hot male housekeeper."

"I knew she knew who I was 'cause I saw her face right before I pulled the 
trigger," Ivanov wrote, the Herald said.

Ivanov is charged with aggravated murder in the killings of his ex-girlfriend, 
Anna Bui, and Jacob Long and Jordan Ebner, all 19. Another man, Will Kramer, 
then 18, survived after being shot in the back.

Investigators said Ivanov was upset that Bui was moving on with her life.

The materials also include a 6-page, single-spaced letter Ivanov reportedly 
wrote just before the shooting. At least part of it reached his mother, who 
turned it over to police.

"You know what's funny? The media is going to portray me as some unstable, 
overly emotional, crazy lunatic," the letter reads. "There's nothing wrong 
(with) me or the way I think. There's really nothing wrong with me: I have a 
roof over my head, access to food and resources, a loving family, an amazing 
job, etc. I'm selfish. That's why I did this."

The letter also suggests he knew what he was planning was wrong: "Is this the 
right thing to do? Of course (expletive) not. Never, ever, ever, ever in a 
trillion years. Taking lives is insane. This is like my early retirement. I'm 
giving up on solving things. I'm a loser. I quit," the newspaper reported, 
citing the documents.

Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe is weighing whether to seek the 
death penalty for Ivanov. The young man's lawyers, Walter Peale and Karen 
Halverson, have been working to compile information that might persuade him not 
to. A decision is expected next month.

The documents obtained by the newspaper included more than 390 pages of text 
messages between Ivanov and one of his friends - some released previously - 
that indicate Ivanov first started talking about shooting Bui on July 22. 
Within hours, he was sending his friend links to information about 
military-style weapons available at gun stores in Lynnwood and Marysville.

Ivanov's friend repeatedly pleaded with him to stop talking about hurting 
people, to get some help and to not obtain a firearm.

After Ivanov bought the gun, the friend asked if he really intended to shoot 
Bui.

"I feel like im talking to a future serial killer," the friend wrote.

"I'm just stuntin (sic) nothing will happen," Ivanov replied.

But in the ensuing days, Ivanov wrote about how much pain he was in.

"im gonna do it," Ivanov wrote in one of the messages.

(source: Associated Press)