[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, DEL., VA., FLA., ALA., MO., USA, US MIL.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 24



TEXAS----impending execution

Is Texas About to Execute an Innocent Man?----Terry Edwards' murder conviction 
is irrevocably flawed.


Unless the courts or Gov. Greg Abbott step in to stop it, Texas will execute 
Terry Edwards on Thursday. This would be a reprehensible miscarriage of 
justice. Edwards' conviction for capital murder was won at least in part due to 
a faulty forensic argument pushed by the prosecution and what appears to be a 
racially biased and likely unconstitutional jury-selection process. If this 
execution proceeds as planned, it would be an irrevocable stain on a state 
justice system that leads the nation in wrongful convictions.

Terry Edwards is not a saint. He and his cousin Kirk Edwards were responsible 
for the 2002 homicides of Tommy Walker and Mickell Goodwin. But while Terry 
Edwards took part in the burglary that led to the murder of 2 of his former 
co-workers at a Subway restaurant in the Dallas suburbs, it's less clear that 
he was the triggerman. In a series of filings earlier this month, Edwards' 
attorneys requested that his execution be stayed and a new writ of habeas 
corpus be considered. It will be up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to 
decide whether new evidence ought to be considered at the federal level, while 
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is also considering whether to stay the 
execution.

The appeal makes for damning reading, dismantling key portions of the case 
against Terry Edwards. The principal evidentiary problem with Edwards' case 
surrounds the use of forensic testimony about gunshot residue. Despite the 
shooting having occurred at point-blank range, Edwards had no blood on his 
body, no gunshot residue on his hands, and none of the victim's DNA on his 
person when he was picked up by police immediately after the crime occurred. He 
was tested for gunshot residue within an hour of his arrest, according to the 
appeal.

A state forensic analyst named Vicki Hall tested Edwards' hands for gunshot 
residue and found it wasn't there. Given that negative result, the defense 
called Hall to testify at Edwards' trial; she was the defense's only witness 
during the guilt-innocence phase. On cross-examination, though, Hall explained 
away her test results, testifying that Edwards might have either sweated away 
or wiped off "some of that residue." Hall had also indicated in her forensics 
report that 1 of the 3 elements that would have been found in the gunshot 
residue was present on Edwards. In closing arguments, prosecutor Thomas D'Amore 
used Hall's testimony to argue that the presence of that 1 element - the 
relatively commonplace barium - proved that gunshot residue had been present, 
and that Edwards had somehow wiped off the other 2 chemicals.

In Edwards' appeal, a former FBI agent writes that this wipe theory is 
"scientifically unsupportable":

The three chemicals, barium, antimony, and lead, exist in the same particle, or 
in particles that contain two of the three. If you remove any of the components 
they would be removed linearly. It does not occur that just 1 of the components 
is removed; the components all increase or decrease together. It is not 
possible that a defendant who had gunshot residue on his hands could simply 
wipe 2 of the 3 components off of his hands and not the 3rd.

Or, as 1 of Edwards' current attorneys John Mills put it to me, "It is 
scientifically impossible to remove trace elements of 2 chemicals and not 1."

According to Mills, there is reason to believe gunshot residue would have been 
present on the shooter in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Hall, the 
forensic analyst, ran a trace analysis of the victim Mickell Goodwin and found 
all three elements on her right hand near a defensive wound. That result is 
"important for 2 reasons," Mills told me. "It does demonstrate that the gun 
that was used does emit a relatively high volume of gunshot residue when fired, 
and it heightens the significance of the absence of gunshot residue on Mr. 
Edwards." Hall and the state, however, failed to disclose this test to Edwards' 
lawyers in advance of the trial, and his new legal team didn't uncover this 
fact until very recently. At trial, though, Hall did testify about the negative 
results from tests conducted on the hands of the other victim, Tommy Walker.

D'Amore, meanwhile, has had three previous convictions overturned. In one of 
those cases, Hall testified that the presence of two of three chemicals on the 
hands of defendant Richard Miles indicated that he had "fir[ed] a weapon or 
handl[ed] a very dirty weapon." Miles was convicted, but the disclosure that 
Hall's trace-evidence testimony was faulty - a fact she later admitted herself 
- helped exonerate him years later. Edwards' attorneys argue in his appeal that 
"Hall's testimony and the direct examination by D'Amore in the Miles case were 
dishonest in a manner that reflects not only collusion and fraud, but also 
bears substantial similarities to the erroneous forensic testimony that the 2 
presented at Mr. Edwards's trial." (Mills pointed out to me that in D'Amore's 
closing argument about the hand-wiping in Edwards' case, he said specifically, 
"We've dealt with this situation before.")

Whether or not Terry Edwards is guilty or innocent, it would be criminal to 
deny his attorneys the time to investigate his case further.

Terry Edwards' lawyers argue there's further reason to believe his cousin was 
the shooter. Kirk Edwards pled guilty to robbing the Subway in exchange for a 
25-year sentence with parole eligibility. Relatives of both men say in the new 
appeal that Kirk was the dominant cousin, the owner of the gun, the one more 
prone to violence, and in their view the likely triggerman. Kirk Edwards had 
been out on parole for just a few months prior to the Subway robbery after 
having been in prison for most of his adult life on account of multiple felony 
convictions. He had also been disciplined 13 times for fighting with other 
inmates and prison staff, and "several" of those fights were violent. The 
daughter of 1 of the victims, Tommy Walker, also wanted to testify on Terry 
Edwards' behalf that the 2 men were friends, and she didn't believe he could 
have killed her father. This would have countered the prosecution's theory that 
this was an execution-style killing, committed because Terry Edwards was upset 
that he had been fired from Subway for stealing. The jury never got to hear 
this testimony, according to the appeal, because defense counsel failed to 
respond to phone calls from Walker's family. (The basis for the revenge-killing 
theory was forensic testimony that the victims had been kneeling when they were 
shot, which another forensic expert appears to have rebutted in this latest 
appeal.)

While Terry Edwards was seen dumping the .38-caliber handgun used in the 
murders in a trash can across the street from the restaurant, the appeal argues 
that the "state withheld evidence from an undisclosed eyewitness to the 
offense" that might have indicated that Kirk Edwards had been more involved in 
the robbery than prosecutors led jurors to believe. The only potential witness 
to the crime, according to a police report, saw a man fitting Kirk's 
description "running from" the restaurant, which would contradict his claim 
that he was merely the getaway driver. Inexplicably, this witness was not 
called at trial.

The most damning portion of the appeal, though, has to do with jury selection. 
Back in May, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in the case Foster v. Chatman that 
Georgia prosecutors had used a blatantly unconstitutional practice to pick the 
jury in a murder trial. Prosecutors in that case had written a B next to the 
name of every black juror, then used peremptory challenges - which attorneys 
can use to strike jurors without explaining why - to remove some of those black 
men and women from the pool and select an all-white jury, which ultimately 
convicted a black defendant of murder. The court found that these actions 
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Nearly all of the jury information in the Terry Edwards case - including the 
vast majority of jury questionnaires - has gone missing. But Edwards' defense 
team did find a "strike list apparently maintained" by prosecutors that 
includes "a handwritten, encircled 'B'" next to 32 of the jurors' names.

"When we saw it, Foster vs. Chatman had just come down and we couldn't believe 
the similarity," Mills told me. According to the limited information the 
appellate team has in its possession, at least 30 black people were struck from 
the jury, which was ultimately all white with a single Hispanic alternate. 2 of 
these potential black jurors were struck for cause, while the other 28 were 
removed thanks to an agreement made by the defense team and prosecution as part 
of a jury-strike bartering system used in Texas at the time. In this case, it 
seems possible that this trade allowed the prosecution to get rid of all of the 
black jurors without having to use peremptory challenges. (What the defense 
attorneys got out of this exchange is anyone's guess.) If it can be proved that 
the "B" in the marking means black, the courts would likely have to clarify 
whether this scheme was as unconstitutional as the peremptory-challenge one. 
"Foster v. Chatman could greatly bolster the defendant's [unconstitutional jury 
selection] claim, provided there is some indication that 'B' signifies 
'black,'" Daniel S. Medwed, a professor at Northeastern University School of 
Law who focuses on wrongful convictions, told me.

Because so little information about the jurors in Terry Edwards' trial has been 
made available, Edwards' attorneys have not been able to confirm whether the 
circled "B" in the prosecution notes does mean black. As for the missing 
questionnaires that would prove this fact one way or the other, Mills thinks 
"the [Dallas County District Attorney's] Office has files that they have not 
disclosed to us." A representative from the Dallas County District Attorney's 
Office told me over email: "Mr. Edwards' case is being handled with the utmost 
ethics by District Attorney staff. The allegation that we have not shared all 
of our files is untrue. We have given them everything they requested that is in 
our possession, including work product."

Edwards' attorneys believe that if the latest stay request is granted, they 
might be able to find those missing questionnaires or track down the jurors to 
determine whether or not "B" meant black. Whether or not Terry Edwards is 
guilty or innocent of pulling the trigger in those 2002 homicides, it would be 
criminal to deny Edwards' attorneys the time to investigate this basic 
constitutional question. If Edwards doesn't get that stay, he'll be executed by 
the state of Texas on Thursday. There would be no rectifying that injustice.

(source: Jeremy Stahl is a Slate senior editor)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----21

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----539

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

22---------January 26---------------Terry Edwards---------540

23---------February 2---------------John Ramirez----------541

24---------February 7---------------Tilon Carter----------542

25---------March 14-----------------James Bigby-----------543

26---------April 12-----------------Paul Storey-----------544

27---------June 28------------------Steven Long-----------545

28---------July 19-----------------Kosoul Chanthakoummane---546

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)






DELAWARE:

Supreme Court reinstates conviction in 1996 double murder


Delaware's Supreme Court has reinstated the convictions of a man sentenced to 
death for killing 2 people more than 20 years ago.

The court said in a ruling late last week that a lower court judge erred in 
overturning Luis Reyes' convictions. The court reinstated his convictions and 
ordered him to be resentenced to life without parole, now that Delaware's death 
penalty has been declared unconstitutional.

The lower court judge questioned the fundamental legality and fairness of 
Reyes' trial in a ruling a year ago.

Reyes and co-defendant Luis Cabrera Jr. were sentenced to death in 2002 for the 
1996 murders of Brandon Saunders and Vaughn Rowe in Wilmington.

The same judge vacated Cabrera's death sentence in 2015 but upheld his 
conviction.

(source: Associated Press)






VIRGINIA:

Protests across Virginia as state executes 112th victim in 40 years --Protests 
across Virginia as state executes 112th victim in 40 years Protests across 
Virginia as state executes 112th victim in 40 years


As he was being executed by the state, the guilty thief turned to Christ and 
said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Those hopeful, repentant words were repeated in the opening song of an 
execution vigil held at historic St. Mary of Sorrows Church in Fairfax last 
Wednesday (18 January). Twelve people gathered in the church to pray for 
convicted murderer Ricky Jovan Gray, for his victims and for an end to the 
death penalty.

Miles away, Gray was preparing to die at the Greensville Correctional Center in 
southern Virginia. After being administered a lethal injection of midazolam, he 
died at 9.42 pm local time. The drug, which has led to botched executions in 
other states, is so controversial that Gov. Terry McAuliffe added an amendment 
to a death penalty bill that allowed the identity of companies that produce 
midazolam to remain secret.

Through the Virginia Catholic Conference, Arlington Bishop Michael F. Burbidge 
and Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo condemned the killing, saying: 
"Knowing that the state can protect itself in ways other than through the death 
penalty, we have repeatedly asked that the practice be abandoned. Our broken 
world cries out for justice, not the additional violence or vengeance the death 
penalty will exact."

Gray's death makes 112 executions in Virginia since 1976, tying the state with 
Oklahoma for the 2ynd most executions in the country, according to Virginians 
for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Texas is 1st. 6 Virginia inmates remain 
on death row, though the state has not sentenced anyone to death in the past 5 
years.

Gray was convicted for the murders of Bryan and Kathryn Harvey and their 
daughters, Stella and Ruby, during a home robbery in Richmond in 2006. He also 
was linked to several other murders. Gray's lawyers say he was physically and 
sexually abused as a child and started using drugs at a young age. They also 
believe he was high on the powerful hallucinogenic drug PCP, or phencyclidine, 
at the time he committed the murders.

In the face of all this ugliness, Carol Mayfield, director of parish social 
ministry at St. Mary of Sorrows, believes prayer is the only response. "Here, 
we are dealing with it in the only way we can," she told the Arlington Catholic 
Herald, newspaper of the Arlington Diocese. "It's very sad, but it is consoling 
and hopefully healing to all those for whom we pray."

For 17 years, parishioners have been praying on the night of executions. Betsy 
Pugin, who has participated since the beginning, said they have gathered 37 
times for state and federal executions. Other religious and secular vigils were 
held throughout the state on the day of Gray's execution, including at St. John 
Neumann Church in Reston.

Because of the often horrific nature of the crimes, opposing the death penalty 
is difficult for many, even within the Catholic Church, acknowledged Mayfield. 
Still, she believes the taking of any human life is wrong. Pugin added, 
"Violence is the symptom, not the cure."

Maura McFadden, a graduate student at Divine Mercy University in Arlington, 
came to the vigil out of a respect for all life, innocent or guilty. "I think 
it's important to stretch your heart in terms of mercy, and events like this 
help."

(source: The Tablet)






FLORIDA:

Defense Lawyers Request Speedy Trial For Cocoa Man Accused of Double Murder


The attorneys for an accused Brevard County killer are asking the court to 
grant him a speedy trial.

Marcus Royal is already serving a life sentence for violation of probation in 
another case.

Prosecutors want him on death row for the 2013 murder of Faye Jones and her 
neighbor, Michael Fallon. Fallon was injured in the attack, but later died.

Channel 9's Melonie Holt was in court Monday when Judge James Earp said it was 
time to move the case forward. However, the judge also pointed out that the 
death penalty is under question statewide.

Prosecutors reiterated Monday that they believe that the death penalty is still 
on the table for Royal.

Royal is accused of tying, binding and brutally attacking 80-year-old Jones in 
her Cocoa home.

(source: spacecoastdaily.com)






ALABAMA:

U.S. Supreme Court won't review appeals of 3 Alabama death row inmates


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it won't review the cases of 3 Alabama 
death row inmates.

It was a decision that Alabama's attorney general said reaffirms that the 
state's death penalty sentencing law is constitutional.

The court denied certiorari, or review, to appeals of death row inmates Tommy 
Arthur, Jerry Bohannon and Aubrey Shaw.

Arthur, whose Nov. 3 execution was stayed so the U.S. Supreme Court could 
consider his appeals, still has one appeal pending before the high court based 
on a different challenge - one regarding Alabama's lethal injection method. 
Arthur has had 7 executions stayed in the past 15 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court in its order Thursday stated its stay of execution will 
remain in place pending Arthur's request for the court to review his appeals. 
If the court refuses to review his appeals, the stay would automatically go 
away.

In their appeals denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday all three had 
included challenges to the Alabama law that allows judges to override jury 
sentencing recommendations in capital murder cases. Their appeals noted that 
the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2016 had ruled unconstitutional Florida's 
death penalty sentencing scheme, which also included judicial override.

Alabama now stands alone as the only state with judicial override. Delaware's 
supreme court ruled in August had ruled that state's law allowing judicial 
override was unconstitutional.

While the override law was rarely used in Florida or Delaware, Alabama judges 
in dozens of cases have overridden juries' life without parole recommendations 
and imposed death instead over the past 2 decades.

Alabama prosecutors have said that Alabama's judicial override law is crafted 
differently than the other two states. In Alabama, when a jury unanimously 
convicts a defendant of capital murder, it is based on one of a number of 
aggravating factors such as murder during the course of a robbery, burglary, or 
kidnapping.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said the decision by the U.S. Supreme 
Court on Monday not to hear petitions by Arthur, Shaw and Bohannon "is another 
victory for the rule of law."

"The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari petitions from Thomas Arthur, 
Jerry Bohannon, and Aubrey Shaw, challenging Alabama's death penalty system in 
light of the 2016 Hurst v. Florida case, is a reaffirmation that Alabama's 
death sentencing law is constitutional," Strange stated in prepared comments 
issued by his office.

"Convicted murders have repeatedly challenged Alabama's death penalty 
sentencing system because it allows for judicial override similar to Florida's 
law. However, Alabama law also holds that a jury must unanimously find an 
aggravating factor at either the guilt or sentencing phase--such as when the 
murder was committed during a robbery, a rape, or a kidnapping - before 
determining a death sentence. This is a significant distinction between Alabama 
law and Florida's law which was ruled unconstitutional last year by the Supreme 
Court."

"Alabama's death penalty law was specifically upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court 
in Harris v. Alabama in 1995, and, as we witnessed again today, the High Court 
has consistently declined to take challenges to Alabama's law based on the same 
grounds in which Florida's law was contested," Strange stated. "It should, 
therefore, be clear to all that Alabama's death penalty sentencing system is 
constitutional."

The U.S. Supreme Court had vacated the sentences of Alabama death row inmates 
Ronnie Kirksey, Corey Wimbley, and Ryan Gerald Russell, this year and sent them 
back to the state appeals court to review in light of its Florida ruling.

Arthur was convicted in the 1982 murder for hire of Troy Wicker of Muscle 
Shoals. Bohannon was convicted in the Dec. 11, 2010 shooting deaths of Anthony 
Harvey and Jerry DuBoise outside the Paradise Lounge, a nightclub in Mobile. 
Shaw was convicted in the stabbing deaths of his great aunt and great uncle in 
2007.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled on Sept. 30 that the state's death penalty 
sentencing law is constitutional in Bohannon's case in light of the U.S. 
Supreme Court's ruling in the Hurst case.

(source: al.com)

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

Attorney General Strange: Victory for rule of law as U.S. Supreme Court 
declines to hear challenges to Alabama's death penalty sentencing system


Attorney General Luther Strange said today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court 
not to hear petitions by 3 Alabama death row inmates challenging the 
constitutionality of the State's capital sentencing law is another victory for 
the rule of law.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari petitions from Thomas Arthur, 
Jerry Bohannon, and Aubrey Shaw, challenging Alabama's death penalty system in 
light of the 2016 Hurst v. Florida case, is a reaffirmation that Alabama's 
death sentencing law is constitutional," said Attorney General Luther Strange.

"Convicted murders have repeatedly challenged Alabama's death penalty 
sentencing system because it allows for judicial override similar to Florida's 
law. However, Alabama law also holds that a jury must unanimously find an 
aggravating factor at either the guilt or sentencing phase - such as when the 
murder was committed during a robbery, a rape, or a kidnapping - before 
determining a death sentence. This is a significant distinction between Alabama 
law and Florida's law which was ruled unconstitutional last year by the Supreme 
Court.

"Alabama's death penalty law was specifically upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court 
in Harris v. Alabama in 1995, and, as we witnessed again today, the High Court 
has consistently declined to take challenges to Alabama's law based on the same 
grounds in which Florida's law was contested.

"It should, therefore, be clear to all that Alabama's death penalty sentencing 
system is constitutional."

(source: WTVY news)

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

Supreme Court lets Alabama judges impose death penalty


The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider challenges to Alabama's death 
penalty system, the only one in the country that lets judges overrule juries 
and impose death sentences.

The court's denial of several lower court appeals came a year after the 
justices ruled 8-1 against a similar capital punishment protocol in Florida. 
Since that decision, state supreme courts there and in Delaware have struck 
down those systems.

Many opponents of the Alabama system had expected the justices to take up a 
challenge. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in particular, has criticized the state for 
allowing elected judges to impose executions even when juries recommend life 
sentences.

A recent study by the Alabama-based Equal Justice Initiative, one of the groups 
challenging the state's death penalty system, found that judges overrode jury 
verdicts 107 times in the four decades since the Supreme Court reinstated the 
death penalty. In nearly all those cases, judges imposed death sentences. The 
study said 21% of 199 people on the state's death row were sentenced through 
such judicial overrides.

The state executed 2 prisoners last year, more than any other state except 
Georgia and Texas. It ranks 7th in total executions since 1976, behind Texas, 
Oklahoma, Virginia, Florida, Missouri and Georgia.

Last November, 5 justices agreed to block the execution of Alabama's Tommy 
Arthur, who had raised objections both about judicial override and the state's 
lethal injection protocol. Chief Justice John Roberts added his vote to those 
of the 4 liberal justices "as a courtesy" so that the case could be considered 
for review. It was 1 of 3 cases denied Monday.

The following month, the justices green-lighted the execution of Alabama's 
Ronald Smith for a 1994 murder in which a judge overrode a jury verdict and 
sentenced him to death.

In last year's Florida case, Sotomayor ruled that "the 6th Amendment requires a 
jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A 
jury's mere recommendation is not enough."

Alabama officials had pointed out differences between their system and 
Florida's. They argued that in Alabama, juries must find at least 1 aggravating 
circumstance that make defendants eligible for the death penalty. Florida and 
Delaware courts demand more stringent findings.

The differences did not impress Sotomayor in 2013, when she dissented from the 
high court's refusal to hear a challenge similar to those denied Monday. 
Alabama's elected judges, she said at the time, "appear to have succumbed to 
electoral pressures."

The skirmish over Alabama's system is part of the continuing Supreme Court 
battle over the nation's ultimate penalty - 1 imposed and carried out less 
often each year, but which voters in California, Nebraska and Oklahoma decided 
to retain in November.

Does the death penalty serve a purpose? Supreme Court hasn't decided either

The justices are increasingly divided over when it is applied, how it is 
administered and whether it serves any purpose. Since the turn of the century, 
they have ended executions for the intellectually disabled, those whose crimes 
were committed as juveniles, and those who do not commit murder or treason. 
Last year, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was time to 
decide whether capital punishment itself should be abolished.

Time, however, is not on their side. President Trump soon will nominate the 
late Justice Antonin Scalia's successor, someone who is virtually certain to 
support the death penalty. Before his term is over, Trump could get the chance 
to replace 1 or more of the 5 justices who have limited its scope. 3 of them - 
Ginsburg, Breyer and Justice Anthony Kennedy - are long past traditional 
retirement age.

(source: USA Today)






MISSOURI----impending execution

Appeals court grants hearing for Missouri inmate facing execution


A Missouri prison inmate scheduled to be executed later this month has been 
granted a court hearing to argue that he was "abandoned" by his former lawyers.

Mark Christeson is scheduled to be put to death on Jan. 31 for the 1999 
killings of a woman and her 2 children near Rolla.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered a federal judge to 
"convene promptly a limited evidentiary hearing on the question of 
abandonment."

Christeson, 37, is alleging that attorneys appointed to represent him more than 
a decade ago abandoned him after missing a deadline to file his appeal.

Attorneys for the state of Missouri argued that a mistake or negligence by his 
attorneys was not abandonment.

In Wednesday's order, the court of appeals said it was prudent to allow the 
hearing for Christeson so a decision on whether he was abandoned could be 
"based on a more complete understanding of the facts."

(source: The Kansas City Star)






USA:

Prez mercy means little to death row convicts' kin


President Pranab Mukherjee's decision to commute the death sentence of 4 
persons convicted for killing 34 upper caste people at Bara village in Gaya 
district in 1992 means little for the family members of the convicted men.

Setting aside the state government and Centre's recommendation, the President 
had commuted the death sentence of the 4 persons - Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal 
Mochi, Bir Kuer Paswan and Dharmendra Singh alias Dharu Singh - on Sunday.

While the quartet languish in Bhagalpur central jail, their family members are 
not enthused by the President's decision, the reason being that they will spend 
their remaining lives in jail. "Life in jail is no life," says Chandrami, wife 
of Krishna Mochi.

1 of the 4 children of Krishna, who is a local band master, was born when the 
Bara case accused was in jail. Krishna's other children, including a daughter, 
are now married and have their own families. The 4 marriages took place in 
Krishna's absence. Notwithstanding the conviction by the TADA court and its 
approval by the Supreme Court, the family continues to regard Krishna as 
innocent.

Krishna's son Ajay, a daily wager, said being poor he can hardly afford to 
visit Bhagalpur jail to see his father. "If he is transferred to Gaya, we can 
visit him once in a while," Ajay added.

Since Nanhe Mochi's family migrated to some other distant village soon after 
the massacre, they could not be contacted. Dharmendra's family members refused 
to talk.

Legal circles are not surprised by the turn of events and the commutation of 
death penalty into life imprisonment. According to Sartaj Ali Khan and Ashok 
Kumar, 2 of the defence lawyers in the Bara massacre case, the inordinate delay 
in disposal of the mercy petition favoured the accused. BJP functionary and 
former chairman of Bihar Legislative Council Tarakant Jha presented the main 
argument on behalf of the accused in the TADA court presided by Jawahar Prasad, 
the then district and sessions judge.

"Holding condemned men on death row for long goes in his favour," said Khan, 
now the public prosecutor of Gaya. The mercy petition was filed in 2003 and its 
disposal took 14 years.

34 male adults belonging to the Bhumihar caste were butchered on the outskirts 
of Bara village on February 12, 1992 under the then Tekari (now Alipur) police 
station. The TADA court's judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court.

(source: The Times of India)

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

Under Trump, death penalty likely to remain


The election of Donald Trump as president and the tumultuous transition of 
power have dominated headlines for the last few weeks. One issue, however, has 
not received much coverage: What is going to happen to the death penalty?

Before the election, some observers predicted that the end was near for capital 
punishment in this country. A Pew Research Center poll released in September 
suggested that public support for the death penalty has declined in recent 
years. According to Pew, which has measured public opinion on this issue since 
1936, only 49 % of Americans now say they support execution as the punishment 
for murder - down from a high of 80 % in 1995. While there are still more 
supporters of the death penalty than opponents, this is the lowest level of 
support since 1971.

But in November, voters in three states chose to keep or strengthen the death 
penalty. In California, opponents rejected a referendum that would have 
abolished it entirely. In Nebraska, where the legislature recently ended 
capital punishment, voters chose to reinstate it. In Oklahoma - where 
controversy followed the 2014 "botched" execution of Clayton Lockett, who was 
not fully sedated during his lethal injection procedure - voters rejected 
criticism of the process by adding new language in the state constitution that 
the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual."

Not only did voters in these 3 states keep or strengthen the death penalty, the 
results were also not as close as predicted. In California, 54 % of voters 
rejected the anti-death penalty measure. In Nebraska, 61.2 % voted to reinstate 
the death penalty. In Oklahoma, 66.4 % voted in favor of adding the pro-death 
penalty language to the state constitution.

In fact, in California, voters did more than reject an attempt to abolish 
capital punishment. They simultaneously approved - by a slimmer margin - a 
different referendum, sponsored by supporters of the death penalty, providing 
that appeals in these cases be subject to strict time limits and restrictions 
on repetitive litigation. The idea is to end the decades of delay afflicting 
capital cases.

But these results, all pointing in one direction, are only a part of the story. 
The more fundamental change may occur in the Supreme Court of the United 
States.

After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court has been split 4-4 between 
conservatives and liberals on many issues of criminal justice, including 
capital punishment. 2 justices - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both 
Democratic appointees - have declared their belief that the death penalty 
violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment.

That phrase is subject to changing interpretation based on our nation's 
evolving standards of decency and justice; Ginsburg and Breyer have written 
that mounting concerns about executing the innocent, along with longstanding 
problems with racism and poor lawyering in capital cases, among other things, 
have made the death penalty intolerable. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena 
Kagan (both Obama appointees) have not yet gone this far, but each has 
suggested that they, too, harbor concerns about the viability of capital 
punishment.

If Hilary Clinton had won the election, it is easy to imagine the American 
death penalty having been squeezed out of existence in the next decade or so. A 
President Clinton would have been able to appoint a progressive replacement for 
Justice Scalia. A possible replacement for older conservative Justice Anthony 
Kennedy, now 80, would have further tilted the court's ideological balance 
toward the left. While this may not have resulted in any immediate change, 
these new Clinton appointees would presumably have been at least sympathetic to 
the argument that our society no longer tolerates the death penalty. 
Eventually, that may have been the end of the capital punishment in the United 
States.

A Trump presidency promises very different results. It is now Trump who will 
appoint Scalia's replacement, along with any other vacancies that might occur 
in the next 4 years. (Possible retirements include Ginsburg herself, who is now 
83 and has health problems). The list of possible Supreme Court appointments 
issued by Trump during the election campaign is filled with pro-death penalty 
jurists who will be likely to reject any interpretation of the Constitution 
that prohibits executions.

The election of Trump has ended any chance that the Supreme Court will declare 
capital punishment unconstitutional in the foreseeable future. That means that 
opponents of the death penalty must redouble their political efforts; as the 
results in California, Nebraska and Oklahoma show, that will be an uphill 
battle. Those who oppose the death penalty have a lot of work to do.

(source: Tom Dolgenos, who lives in Philadelphia, is a former assistant city 
district attorney and is a lecturer in the Department of Criminology at the 
University of Pennsylvania and an adjunct professor at Delaware Law 
School-----Morning Call)






US MILITARY:

Jury Ready for Trial of Airman Charged with Murder of Pregnant Fiancee


A jury has been selected for the trial of a Robins airman charged with the 
murder of his pregnant fiancee.

Charles Amos Wilson, 30, a support member of the 461st Aircraft Maintenance 
Squadron, is charged with premeditated murder and death of an unborn child.

Tameda Ferguson, 30, was found shot to death in her Dawson home Aug. 29, 2013. 
She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. The alleged motive is $1 million in 
insurance money.

The court-martial panel includes a mix of officers and enlisted personnel. The 
trial before Col. Vance H. Spath, chief trial judge for the Air Force, is being 
held at the Houston County Courthouse.

Barring any delays, opening statements from prosecution and defense attorneys 
are expected Wednesday morning.

Pretrial motions are expected to be addressed in the meantime.

If convicted of premeditated murder, Wilson faces the death penalty.

Wilson was arrested Sept. 3, 2013, after an investigation by the GBI and the 
Terrell County Sheriff's Office. He was charged with murder and feticide.

The trial will mark the 3rd court-martial proceeding against Wilson.

In the 1st court-martial proceeding, Wilson was found not guilty June 2 of 
felony murder, aggravated arson and related charges in in the death of a friend 
in an October 2011 house fire in an alleged insurance fraud scheme.

In the 2nd court-martial proceeding, jurors convicted Wilson on June 10 of 
striking a retired technical sergeant, who was his girlfriend at the time of 
the 2012 incident.

(source: The Macon Telegraph)