[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N. MEX., ARIZ., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 1



NEW MEXICO:

N.M. Governor Announces Push to Revive Death Penalty


It's time to put capital punishment back on the books in the "Land of 
Enchantment," particularly for cop-killers and those convicted of murdering 
children, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) announced Aug. 17.

The announcement came less than a week after a New Mexico police officer was 
gunned down in Hatch, N.M., while making a traffic stop.

"A society that fails to adequately protect and defend those who protect all of 
us is a society that will be undone and unsafe," Martinez said in remarks 
e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA.

New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009.

Monsters Among Us

"People need to ask themselves, if the man who ambushed and killed 5 police 
officers in Dallas had lived, would he deserve the ultimate penalty?" Martinez 
asked.

"How about the heartless violent criminals who killed Officer Jose Chavez in 
Hatch and left his children without their brave and selfless dad? Do they 
deserve the ultimate penalty? Absolutely," Martinez added.

Martinez said she felt the same way about those who sexually abuse and murder 
young children, referencing the notorious killing of Ashlynne Mike, a Navajo 
5th-grader who was kidnapped and sexually assaulted before she was killed in 
May.

"Does the monster who killed her deserve the ultimate punishment?" Martinez 
said. "Yes - absolutely."

The governor is expected to pursue this initiative as part of her legislative 
agenda in January.

Pushback From Pro-Death Forces

Although the death penalty is still legal in 30 states, there is a growing 
movement to abolish it. In just the past 10 years, 7 states have abolished 
capital punishment and the governors of Oregon, Washington, Colorado and 
Pennsylvania have temporarily halted executions in those states.

Several weeks ago, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down its death penalty 
scheme, saying it gives judges too much discretion to make the actual findings 
required to impose death (99 CrL 603, 8/10/16).

Nonetheless, proponents of capital punishment are pushing back and have put 
pro-death penalty initiatives on the ballot in three states (99 CrL 541, 
7/20/16).

Nebraska voters, in the Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal Referendum, will decide 
whether they want to restore capital punishment, just 18 months after their 
Legislature narrowly voted to replace the death penalty with life without 
parole.

Californians will choose from 2 competing initiatives. One would replace all 
death sentences with life without parole, whereas the other would not only 
reiterate the state's commitment to the death penalty but would also speed up 
the execution process.

A referendum in Oklahoma invites voters to strengthen their commitment to 
capital punishment by amending the state constitution to clarify that it isn't 
cruel and unusual.

(source: bna.com)






ARIZONA:

New defense team again in death penalty case


A Kingman murder suspect has a whole new defense team in his death penalty 
case.

Darrell Bryant Ketchner, 58, is charged with 1st-degree murder and burglary. 
His conviction and sentence on those charges were overturned in December 2014. 
Prosecutors are again seeking the death penalty, 1 of 2 capital cases in Mohave 
County.

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Ketchner's conviction and 75-year prison 
sentence for attempted murder and 3 other charges. He is also serving a 15-year 
sentence on a separate weapons charge.

Michael Reeves of Phoenix made his 1st appearance Friday as Ketchner's latest 
primary defense attorney. Reeves also asked to have Patricia Hubbard, also of 
Phoenix, act as his co-counsel in the case, having worked with her in the past. 
2 qualified defense attorneys are required in a death penalty case.

Superior Court Judge Rick Williams allowed Hubbard to be appointed co-counsel 
in the case and granted Christopher Flores' motion to withdraw as co-counsel. 
The judge also tentatively set a status hearing for Nov. 21, barring a conflict 
with that date. Ketchner's case is being heard in Bullhead City.

Previous defense attorneys have withdrawn from the case because of 
irreconcilable conflicts or lack of communication with Ketchner. With a new 
attorney, the progress of the case has slowed to a crawl.

Ketchner attacked his ex-girlfriend, Jennifer Allison, on the night of July 4, 
2009, as she sat at her kitchen table with her 18-year-old daughter, Ariel 
Allison, at her Kingman home. Ketchner chased Jennifer Allison outside and shot 
her in the head as she lay in the driveway.

Ketchner went back inside and allegedly stabbed Ariel Allison 8 times in her 
mother's bedroom where she later died. Several other children escaped out a 
window. Jennifer Allison survived her wounds.

Justin James Rector also faces the death penalty if convicted of the kidnapping 
and murder of 8-year-old Isabella Grogan-Cannella on Sept. 2, 2014 in Bullhead 
City.

(source: Mohave Daily News)






CALIFORNIA:

California must preserve the death penalty, with some reforms


Stephen Cooper's latest rant against the death penalty in California was off 
the mark on many points. He believes Proposition 66, death penalty reform, is 
deeply flawed. What Cooper fails to ever mention is that Proposition 66 was 
conceived by some of the brightest legal minds in California. It was carefully 
written by leading criminal prosecutors, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 
and other top legal experts - people who know from experience what's needed to 
mend, not end California's broken death penalty system.

Cooper supports Proposition 62, which allows the worst of the worst killers to 
be supported for life by California taxpayers - feeding, housing, clothing, and 
providing healthcare to these child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial 
murderers, and cop killers. Californians do not support this thought process 
and each time the idea of repealing the death penalty makes its way to the 
ballot, it is defeated. This year seems no different. A recent poll conducted 
by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found that 75.7 % of 
Californians surveyed support Proposition 66.

Proposition 66 is supported because it makes sense. It provides due process to 
the defendants while providing justice to victims and their families. The 
centerpiece of Cooper's post is simply wrong. The initiative does not impose a 
rigid deadline that must be met in every case. Courts are allowed to go longer 
in extraordinary cases. However, Proposition 66 streamlines the system to 
ensure criminals sentenced to death are assigned a special appeals lawyer 
immediately. It expands the availability of lawyers to handle these appeals. It 
limits state appeals to 5 years instead of allowing for these convicted 
criminals to file appeal after appeal after appeal. 5 years is generally 
sufficient to get through state appeals, even in the most complex cases. This 5 
years does not include a later federal appeal. While the DC Sniper and Oklahoma 
City Bombing cases are federal cases, they demonstrate that the courts can 
thoroughly review capital cases within that timeframe. Proposition 66 reforms 
are closely modeled on recent reforms to the federal death penalty system and 
show that in practice, Proposition 66 will work.

Additionally, while there are no innocent people on California's death row 
(even California's Governor Jerry Brown has stated "there are no innocent 
inmates on California's death row"), Proposition 66 will ensure due process by 
never limiting claims of actual innocence. Lastly, it reforms death row housing 
takes away special privileges, requires killers to work and use their earnings 
to pay restitution to victims' families.

Currently, there are 746 killers sitting on California's death row. These 
inmates have brutally murdered more than 1000 victims, including 226 children 
and 43 police officers; 294 victims were raped and/or tortured. Taxpayers are 
housing serial killers like Lawrence Bittaker who kidnapped, raped and murdered 
6 women and Cary Stayner who murdered 2 women and 2 teenagers. Sadly, these 
killers and others like them continue to sit on death row-sometimes for 
decades- leaving the victims' families without the justice they were promised.

These killers and their repetitive appeals are the reason why the No on 
Proposition 62 and Yes on Proposition 66 is supported by hundreds of district 
attorneys, sheriffs, law enforcement organizations, elected officials, victims' 
right advocates, community leaders and an overwhelming Californians.

It's time fix California's death penalty. By doing so, Californians will save 
millions of dollars every year. And most importantly, will bring justice to 
murder victims and their families that is long overdue.

I urge a "no vote" on Proposition 62 and "yes on Proposition 66."

(source: Anne Schubert, The Hill)

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

Zafft's alleged murderer may face death penalty


The death penalty is on the table for the man who allegedly murdered Isaac 
Zafft, a 27-year-old Winona man, while Zafft was working at a farm in 
California just over 2 years ago. On Thursday, prosecutors will decide if they 
want to prosecute the man accused of the crime - who also stomped a homeless 
man to death in 2008 - as a death penalty case.

In Nevada County, where Zafft was murdered, prosecutors have not tried a death 
penalty case for 135 years, and the last recorded execution was in 1881. And, 
if Zafft's alleged killer is executed for his crime, he could be the last. In 
November, California voters will be asked whether to repeal the death penalty 
as a punitive option for those convicted of murder, replacing the possible 
sentence with life in prison without parole.

On Monday, July 7, 2014, at around 1 a.m., the Nevada County Sheriff's 
Department received a report of shots heard at a rural location in Penn Valley, 
Calif., just northeast of Sacramento. Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal 
reported that when deputies arrived at the farm, they found Zafft lying on the 
ground, suffering from gunshot wounds. He was later pronounced dead.

The 3 suspects - Finley Byrdette Fultz, 27; Daniel Louis Devencenzi, 31; and 
Nathan Robert Philbrook, 33 - have been charged with murder in the 1st degree 
in the course of a robbery. Fultz, who prosecutors allege pulled the trigger, 
also faces charges of personal use of a firearm, personal discharge of a 
firearm, and personal discharge of a firearm causing death.

According to Nevada court reports, in 2008 Fultz pled guilty to voluntary 
manslaughter for stomping a homeless man who was sleeping in a park to death in 
Reno, Nev. News reports stated that witnesses heard Fultz and another man 
yelling "white pride" as they murdered the sleeping black man. The victim, 
James Beasley, 55, died in a hospital shortly after, and Fultz said that he 
never meant to kill him. Fultz was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with the 
possibility of parole. He was granted parole and released in 2013.

When Fultz was sentenced in late 2008, a Nevada resident wrote in an online 
forum: "This was a senseless crime that could very well be repeated in 4 
years."

Almost a year and a half after he was released, prosecutors allege that Fultz 
fatally shot Zafft.

Nevada County District Attorney Clifford Newell, who is prosecuting the case, 
said that currently his office is deciding whether it will prosecute the case 
as a death penalty case. "We've charged it with that potential," he said. 
Newell said that he hopes to decide whether to prosecute it as a death penalty 
case by Thursday.

California is 1 of 31 states in the nation where the death penalty is legal. 
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, there were 
743 inmates in California sitting on death row. Since 1976, there have been 13 
executions in the state, and the last execution took place in 2006 after 
Clarence Ray Allen was convicted of a triple murder and conspiracy to murder 8 
witnesses. In California, a man or woman could receive the death penalty for 
treason against the state, perjury causing the execution of an innocent person, 
train wrecking that leads to someone's death, or murder in the first degree. If 
a suspect is convicted of murder in the 1st degree, he or she could face a 
potential sentence imprisonment for 25 years to life, life imprisonment, or the 
death penalty.

However, there are some challenges to prosecuting a death penalty case. Newell 
said that death penalty cases tend to take longer, additional staff members 
have to help with prosecution and defense, a better record of court proceedings 
have to be kept, and defendants may have two trials with two different juries. 
"There are a lot of rights for the defendants that have to be observed and 
safeguards to make sure the process is clean and they get an absolutely fair 
trial," he said.

Fultz and Devencenzi are currently in custody in Nevada County. The third 
suspect, Philbrook, is currently in custody in the state of Nevada, awaiting 
extradition on California Governor Jerry Brown's warrant. Newell said the 
extradition process takes time, and he expects that Philbrook will be 
transported to Nevada County within the next 2 weeks, although he hopes that he 
arrives at the end of this week. "We've taken it very seriously," he said. 
Newell added that a lot of resources and money have been spent, including 
working with other district attorneys and authorities in Ohio to bring Fultz 
into custody. "It was a huge undertaking" and it was the right thing to do for 
the Zafft family, Newell said.

Zafft was a 2005 graduate of Winona Senior High School, an honor student and an 
Eagle Scout. Family and friends remember him as an adventurous and kind young 
man who had a love of traveling and meeting new and different people. "As a 
dear friend to so many, his passing was heart breaking," friend David Kruger 
said. "He was murdered, and as hard as it is not to focus on that inhuman act, 
his friends will always keep a bit of his kindness and humor in our hearts."

(source: Winona Post)






USA:

Another case against the death penalty


Back in 1991, a teen-age girl was wearing gold earrings at a Philadelphia 
railway station. 2 men approached and demanded the earrings. The girl tried to 
run, but was caught. The earrings were jerked off, and she was shot to death.

James Dennis, then 21, was convicted of the murder, largely on eyewitness 
identification. Police never found the gun, earrings or other physical evidence 
against him. He claimed he had been elsewhere at the time of the murder - yet 
he was sentenced to death.

Last month, the Third Circuit federal court ruled that Dennis was railroaded by 
prosecutors who hid evidence that would have freed him. The court ruling said: 
"Evidence suppressed by the prosecution - a receipt corroborating Dennis's 
alibi, an inconsistent statement by the commonwealth's key eyewitness, and 
documents indicating that another individual committed the murder - effectively 
gutted the commonwealth's case against Dennis."

Now, after a quarter-century in prison, the accused man will go free or face 
another trial. Thank heaven, death sentence appeals drag out interminably, or 
Dennis might have been put to death long ago for a crime he apparently didn't 
commit.

This case illustrates why the death penalty is barbaric and unfair - a savage 
remnant from medieval times. It's capricious, hitting poor suspects and 
minorities who can't afford expensive defense lawyers.

Nearly all modern democracies have halted executions. It's shameful that 
America remains an exception. Even so, many U.S. states - including West 
Virginia, hurrah - stopped killing prisoners. Many others still have death laws 
on the books, but don't use them. Executions today still occur in harsh 
Southern states, like Texas.

Even places that still have the death penalty have trouble getting the drugs 
for lethal injection or coming up with an alternative as people grow 
increasingly uncomfortable with taking life.

Eventually, we hope the death penalty will be banned all across America.

Goodbye and good riddance.

(source: Editorial, Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail)

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

Judge Gergel orders secret hearing on explosive evidence in Dylann Roof case


Federal Judge Richard Gergel has ordered ordered that a pretrial hearing to be 
held Thursday on potentially explosive evidence in the Dylann Roof death 
penalty be closed to the public and press.

"This instance is one of those rare cases where Defendant's Sixth Amendment 
right to a fair trial outweighs the public's and the press' First Amendment 
right of access," wrote Gergel in a 10-page order released around 5:30 pm 
Wednesday.

Gergel ruled after an earlier public hearing in which he indicated evidence to 
be discussed Thursday is so controversial, it could taint prospective jurors' 
ability to be fair far more than any other information already made public in 
Roof's widely publicized and sensational church shooting case.

The evidence concerns information that federal prosecutors may possibly want to 
introduce at trial, and that defense lawyers want to exclude, according to 
court filings. However, the court filings do not reveal the nature of that 
evidence.

Roof, 22, of Columbia, faces the death penalty in a federal trial that begins 
in November in Charleston. He is charged with killing 9 parishioners at the 
Charleston AME "Mother" Emanuel church in downtown Charleston in June 2015.

A 33-count federal indictment charges Roof with 12 counts of committing a 
federal hate crime (nine counts of murder and three attempted murders) against 
black victims, 12 counts of obstructing the exercise of religion resulting in 
death and nine counts of the use of a firearm to commit murder.

Earlier Wednesday, 2 attorneys representing Charleston media outlets argued to 
Gergel that he should keep Thursday's hearing open. They said later they 
expected Gergel to rule against the public and press, but they had no regrets.

"These are important Constitution issues that need to be raised to keep the 
awareness of the public and the court that we have public courts in this county 
- and if you are going to close a court proceeding, it ought to be drastic and 
rare," said Jay Bender, who represented the Post and Courier. Carl Muller 
represented WCBD-TV.

Bender added that Gergel obviously "thinks there is something that if it were 
made public, it would prejudice beyond repair all potential jurors."!

Keeping Thursday's hearing about potential evidence closed will protect the 
jury pool and help ensure a fair trial, Gergel told the media lawyers on 
Wednesday as they argued that Thursday's hearing should be open to the public 
and press.

The evidence "has not yet been publicly disclosed."-- Federal Judge Richard 
Gergel

Gergel repeatedly told Bender and Muller that if the evidence can be admitted 
to trial, he will make it public as soon as possible after Thursday's hearing. 
He will also release a transcript of Thursday's hearing at the appropriate 
time, he said.

Closing a court is extremely rare, Gergel acknowledged, but the evidence to be 
discussed at Thursday???s hearing is uniquely sensitive and "has not yet been 
publicly disclosed," the judge said. "This is one of those matters that ... 
leaves us no choice."

Closing the courtroom could create "widespread suspicion that a blanket is 
being thrown over truth, and justice is being pushed aside by canny lawyers and 
the court."

In a written argument to Gergel, Muller argued that "closing the courtroom" 
also could undermine Roof's right to a fair trial "by creating widespread 
suspicion that a blanket is being thrown over truth, and justice is being 
pushed aside by canny lawyers and the court."

Gergel told Bender in court that as much as he values the public's right to 
attend trials and hearings, "I am equally committed to the rights of the 
parties and the defendant to a fair trial."

Already, Gergel said, he is allowing 3 weeks to question prospective jurors 
before Roof's Nov. 7 death penalty trial.

Questioning will focus on whether jurors can be fair-minded, he said.

Repeating that any evidence he reviews and decides can be admitted to trial 
will be made public, Gergel said, "The whole community has a right to know - 
it's a question of when."

(source: thestate.com)