[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., FLA., ALA., OHIO, NEB., UTAH, CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

July 21



TEXAS:

Texas Matters: Transparency & Death Row - What's To Hide?



This week on "Texas Matters," we look at the death penalty.

Texas has executed 553 prisoners since capital punishment resumed in 1976, 
which is more than any other state. Over 11 years, Michelle Lyons watched 278 
men and women take their last breath at the hands of the state.

Lyons joins us to discuss her experiences witnessing executions 1st as a 
newspaper reporter and then working for the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice in the book, "Death Row: The Final Minutes."

This past week, the state put Chris Young to death for the 2004 murder of 
Hasmukh Patel during a robbery of his San Antonio convenience store.

Young's final statement was, "l want to make sure the Patel family knows I love 
them like they love me. Make sure the kids in the world know I'm being executed 
and those kids I've been mentoring keep this fight going."

Young had told children to avoid the path that his life took.

Nationally, public support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in 4 
1/2 decades.

According to an October 2017 Gallup poll, 55 % of adults support capital 
punishment for convicted murders. And a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll 
released last month shows that Texans still strongly support the death penalty, 
with 65 % in support and 25 % in opposition. This represents a 10 % decrease in 
support over the last 3 years.

(source: Texas Public Radio)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Has the death penalty come to an end in NC?



This case is about the constitutional protection every person in America 
deserves. It is not about whether Marcus Reymond Robinson, Quintel Augustine, 
Christina Walters and Tilmon Golphin deserve our sympathy. They don't.

Golphin and his brother killed a Cumberland County deputy and a state trooper 
in a 1997 traffic stop. Walters led some gang members on an initiation ritual 
that saw 2 women randomly kidnapped and killed in 1998. Augustine killed a 
Fayetteville police officer in 2001 - although he claims he was wrongfully 
convicted and is factually innocent. And Robinson killed a teenager in a 1991 
robbery.

The crimes was horrific enough that they challenged our opposition to the death 
penalty.

But that's the other factor here: The public and even many politicians are 
losing their taste for executions. The last one in North Carolina was 12 years 
ago and there are none scheduled, despite having 143 inmates on death row. If 
this state is caught up in the national trend, it's possible that the death 
penalty has already come to a de facto end.

These 4 were removed from death row in 2012 when a judge found black jurors 
were illegally blocked from serving on their juries. Under the provisions of 
the state's Racial Justice Act, passed in 2009, their sentences were changed to 
life imprisonment with no chance of parole.

The state appealed that verdict and in 2015 the N.C. Supreme Court said the 
trial judge had erred in the way he held the hearing and the state deserved 
another chance to make its case. The 4 killers were returned to death row. And 
around the same time, the General Assembly repealed the Racial Justice Act.

But now the 4 say their 5th Amendment rights against double jeopardy were 
violated when their death sentences were reinstated. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
interpreted the amendment to mean that once a death sentence has been revoked 
for a specific crime, it can't be reimposed.

As for whether the 4 should be executed, that's another question that also 
seems separate from this appeal. It appears the state has distanced itself from 
carrying out executions, but politicians lack the backbone to discuss the issue 
and decide whether it's time to change this state's maximum penalty for capital 
crimes to life without parole.

The best we can expect from this case is a simple ruling on a 5th amendment 
issue. We'll have to wait for another time to see the debate we really need to 
have.

(source: Opinion; Editorial Board, Charlotte Observer)








FLORIDA:

Convicted killers in South Florida avoiding death row under new law----Juries 
must unanimously find at least one aggravating factor justifying the imposition 
of the death penalty under the new law



South Florida juries appear to be less likely, so far, to send convicted 
killers to death row under the state's newest death penalty law.

2 juries in Broward County decided to spare the lives of convicted killers in 
the past week in cases where capital punishment would have seemed likely just a 
few years ago.

On July 16, convicted cop killers Bernard Forbes, Eloyn Ingraham and Andre 
Delancy learned they would not face execution for the 2006 ambush murder of 
Broward Sheriff's Deputy Brian Tephford.

And on July 19, Eric Montgomery's life was spared by the same jury that 
convicted him of fatally shooting his stepdaughter in the face, chasing down 
her terrified mother and shooting her to death while his own grandmother 
physically tried to stop him, taking a bullet in the process.

In 3 1st-degree murder trials in Palm Beach County since September, juries have 
recommended life sentences for the men they convicted.

The challenge appears to be the stringent requirement of the death penalty law 
passed in the spring of 2017. The state now requires juries to unanimously find 
at least 1 aggravating factor justifying the imposition of the death penalty, 
and a second unanimous vote recommending it.

"The requirement for unanimity was probably the biggest factor in why the jury 
spared their lives," said Ingraham's penalty-phase lawyer, Ed Salantrie, who 
added that the jury might have been troubled by 1 piece of missing information 
- no one knows exactly which defendant fired the bullets that killed Tephford.

Simple majorities were required before 2016, but a combination of federal and 
state supreme court decisions found that without a unanimous verdict, Florida's 
death penalty process was unconstitutional.

"It would appear based solely on the fact that a unanimous verdict is now 
required rather than a majority verdict, it will be more difficult to secure a 
death penalty verdict under the current law," Broward State Attorney Mike Satz 
said.

Since the newest law was enacted, Broward juries have rejected the death 
penalty in 3 of 4 cases. In each of those cases, the defense put up a fight, 
calling witnesses and urging jurors to show mercy. The unanimous death decision 
came against Peter Avsenew, convicted of killing a Wilton Manors couple near 
Christmas 2010, using their credit cards, stealing their car and trying to hide 
out at his mother's house in Polk County.

After his conviction, Avsenew fired his defense lawyers and represented himself 
in front of the jury, making no effort to plead for his life or show a hint of 
remorse. "I have no regrets in my life and I am proud of the decisions I've 
made," he said.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors agree that it's too soon to determine whether 
the new law will result in a long term reduction in the number of capital 
sentences.

According to the state corrections department, Florida sent 12 inmates to death 
row in 2014 and 2015.

>From 2017 to 2018 so far, four have been condemned: 1 each from Collier, Polk, 
Duval and St. John's County.

But in Palm Beach, prosecutors have not gotten a death penalty since 1998, even 
under the old law.

(source: Sun Sentinel)








ALABAMA:

Jilted Boyfriend Facing Death Penalty After Kicking Pregnant Girlfriend???s 
Stomach Until Unborn Baby Died----"I didn't want to hurt her, just the baby."



An Alabama man went on trial this week for allegedly murdering his 
ex-girlfriend???s fetus, The Birmingham News is reporting. Christopher Ammons 
Kemp faces the death penalty if convicted.

Deputy District Attorney Neal Zarzour described Kemp as a "jilted boyfriend" 
who was being "pushed out." He says Kemp took out his rage not on his 
ex-girlfriend, Jessica Jackson, but rather on her unborn baby, of which he was 
the father.

The 2 had had an on-again, off-again relationship since high school, during 
which time they had other relationships. Kemp had fathered a daughter, while 
Jackson had gotten married and divorced. In 2015, Jackson allowed Kemp and his 
daughter to move into her home.

It wasn't long before Jackson began to be afraid of Kemp. She kicked him out 
multiple times, and let him back in multiple times. At some point during all of 
this, she became pregnant with Kemp's baby. She also maintained a platonic 
relationship with her ex-husband.

On New Year's Eve 2015, Jackson said that Kemp fired a gun outside her home. 
That motivated her to finally kick Kemp out for good, and with the help of her 
father, she changed the locks on her home. She also cut off all contact with 
Kemp, allowing him to only contact her via email.

By March 6, the day of her baby shower, Jackson had told Kemp of her plans to 
give the baby her own last name and had tried to discuss custody and 
co-parenting arrangements with Kemp. Jackson's ex-husband, meanwhile, had been 
helping to paint the nursery and, on the day of the shower, helped bring boxes 
of gifts inside.

The alleged assault happened 10 days later, on March 16. Jackson came home from 
work, prosecutors say, to find Kemp there waiting for her. He allegedly began 
choking her, although Jackson fought back, to no avail. He also allegedly 
kicked and beat Jackson, paying particular attention to her abdomen, in order 
to injure the fetus.

The fetus suffered lacerated organs, displaced ribs, fractured bones, and a 
fractured skull. She died at a hospital. Jackson survived.

Kemp, meanwhile, allegedly admitted to the crime to a friend on Facebook.

"I didn't want to hurt her, just the baby."

Kemp's attorney, John Robbins, doesn't deny that his client did what he's 
accused of. However, he says his client "just snapped." He is angling for Kemp 
to be charged not with murder, but with a lesser charge of manslaughter.

If convicted, Kemp faces the death penalty.

(source: inquisitr.com)








OHIO----death sentence commuted

Juror after Cincinnati killer Raymond Tibbetts is spared: 'I don't think 
anybody really wins'



Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Friday spared death row inmate Raymond Tibbetts, who 
was convicted of killing his wife and landlord in Cincinnati more than 2 
decades ago.

Kasich - going against the recommendation of the Ohio Parole Board - said that 
there were "fundamental flaws" in sentencing Tibbetts. Jurors didn't learn 
about Tibbett's background as a neglected and abused child.

One juror, Ross Geiger, brought those concerns to Kasich's attention earlier 
this year in a letter that prompted the governor to delay Tibbetts' Feb. 13 
execution to give the parole board more time to review the matter.

Geiger told The Enquirer he's glad Kasich took his concerns seriously, but he 
said he's sorry the families of Tibbetts' victims had to endure more months of 
uncertainty and media attention.

"It's not like I feel like there's a victory here," Geiger said. "I don't think 
anybody really wins."

Kasich commuted Tibbetts' sentence to life in prison without the possibility of 
parole. Tibbetts had been set to be executed Oct. 17.

Tibbetts had been sentenced to death for beating his wife, Sue Crawford, to 
death and fatally stabbing his landlord, Fred Hicks, on the same day in 1997 in 
Over-the-Rhine.

The Ohio Parole Board had given Tibbetts' case a second look after a former 
juror, Ross Geiger of Loveland, wrote a letter to Kasich, expressing concern 
that jurors didn't know more about Tibbett's background before sentencing him 
to death. Ultimately, the parole board voted 8-1 against clemency.

Kasich disagreed. In a news release, the governor explained that "the defense's 
failure to present sufficient mitigating evidence, coupled with an inaccurate 
description of Tibbetts's childhood by the prosecution, essentially prevented 
the jury from making an informed decision about whether Tibbetts deserved the 
death penalty."

Mark Hicks, the nephew of Fred Hicks, had pleaded with Ohio officials to 
execute Tibbetts for his crimes in a letter.

"The Hicks family knows Governor Kasich has what it takes to sign a death 
warrant. He's proven he is going to follow the law! The law in Ohio allows for 
heinous killers like Tibbetts to be executed," Hicks wrote.

Tibbetts isn't the 1st death row inmate whom Kasich has spared. In March, 
Kasich commuted the death sentence of Toledo-area killer William Montgomery. In 
that case, the state parole board had recommended mercy in a narrow vote.

(source: cincinnati.com)

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

Ohio governor pushes September execution to May



Ohio Gov. John Kasich has delayed the execution of a killer who was set to die 
in September after he said the inmate's attorneys stopped working on the case.

The decision Friday by the Republican governor moves the scheduled execution of 
Cleveland Jackson from September to May 2019.

Jackson was sentenced to die for the 2002 shooting of a 17-year-old girl in 
Lima during a robbery.

Kasich said he delayed the execution after Jackson's former attorneys admitted 
they failed to do any work to prepare for Jackson's application for clemency 
over the past 4 years.

Attorney James Jenkins declined to comment. A message was left with attorney 
John Gibbons.

On Friday, Kasich also spared condemned killer Raymond Tibbetts over concerns 
the extent of the inmate's childhood abuse was shielded at trial.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Kasich Grants Reprieve to Cleveland Jackson and Commutes Sentence of Raymond 
Tibbetts



Today Gov. John R. Kasich granted a reprieve to delay the execution of 
Cleveland Jackson and commuted the death sentence of Raymond Tibbetts to life 
in prison without the possibility of parole. Jackson had been scheduled to be 
executed on September 13, 2018 and Tibbetts on October 17, 2018.

Cleveland Jackson was convicted for the 2002 murder of 17-year-old Leneshia 
Williams and 3-year-old Jayla Grant in Lima. The reprieve will delay his 
execution until May 29, 2019 to allow his newly appointed legal counsel 
sufficient time to review the case and properly prepare for his clemency 
hearing before the Parole Board. Jackson's previous court-appointed counsel 
withdrew their representation just 4 months prior to his initially scheduled 
execution after admitting that they failed to do any work to prepare his 
clemency application over the course of the previous 4 years.

Raymond Tibbetts was convicted for the 1997 murders of his wife, Judith 
Crawford, and the couple's landlord, Fred Hicks, in Cincinnati. Tibbets's 
commutation is being granted as a result of fundamental flaws in sentencing 
phase of his trial. Specifically, the defense's failure to present sufficient 
mitigating evidence, coupled with an inaccurate description of Tibbetts's 
childhood by the prosecution, essentially prevented the jury from making an 
informed decision about whether Tibbetts deserved the death penalty.

(source: ohio.gov, July 20)

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

Attorney says death penalty case work gut-wrenching, pay 'not great'



The defense attorneys appointed by the court to defend serial killer Anthony 
Kirkland are more than earning their money, Cincinnati Criminal Defense 
Attorney Mark Krumbein said.

Krumbein has handled more than a dozen death penalty cases in Ohio. FOX19 spoke 
to him about what it's costing taxpayers to see Kirkland go through a 
re-sentencing.

He said to keep in mind that there are only a handful of attorneys in the 
entire state qualified to do death penalty cases by the Ohio Supreme Court. 
What they're earning, he says, has only become attractive in the past 2 decades 
or so.

"It's still not great," said Krumbein. "It really isn't competitive with the 
private market for equally experienced attorneys in the private sector or the 
civil sector, but it's getting better."

Prosecutor still wants death penalty for serial killer: 'It's horrible'

Krumbein said the work done by Kirkland's defense attorneys, Richard Wendel and 
Timothy Cutcher, is thankless.

"It's really gut-wrenching work," said Krumbein. "You've got someone's life or 
death in your hands, and a lot of times people don't understand -- if someone's 
accused of a murder, or in this case, has already been convicted, how do you 
defend somebody like that?"

So far, Wendel and Cutcher have earned a little more than $140,000 in the last 
three quarters of billable hours. It may sound like a lot, but Krumbein said 
when you look at their expenses, office expenses, insurance, transportation, 
and their continuing legal education, it's not.

"It's rough work. It just is rough work," said Krumbein.

Prosecutors have yearly salaries, he says, not billable hourly wages like 
defense attorneys, but the work is still difficult for both sides.

"The pay has gone up over the years, but 30 years ago, when the death penalty 
started in Ohio again, you could barely find anybody to do the work. I mean, 
for an entire case, the state might pay $5,000 and you would be lucky to even 
make your expenses and I was doing those cases back then," said Krumbein.

Once a jury is seated, the re-sentencing is expected to last at least a couple 
more billable weeks.

(source: WXIX news)








NEBRASKA:

Midlands Voices: Nebraska Supreme Court too hasty in setting execution date for 
Carey Dean Moore



The Nebraska Catholic bishops' statement opposing the Aug. 14 execution of 
Carey Dean Moore impels me to comment. Notwithstanding intractable disagreement 
on other matters, I stand foursquare with the Catholic Church, Pope Francis and 
the bishops in opposition to the death penalty in all cases.

This piece could be captioned "The Four Horsemen of State Killing," deriving 
from the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse - 4 allegorical horses in the Bible, 
Revelations 6:1-8. Verse 8 says, "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and 
his name that sat on him is Death."

Allegorically speaking, the 4 horsemen of state killing who maintain and 
operate the machinery of judicial execution are Gov. Pete Ricketts, Corrections 
Director Scott Frakes, Attorney General Douglas Peterson and, collectively, the 
Nebraska Supreme Court.

Which of the 4 has such a heavy hand in the grisly activity as to warrant 
identification as "him that sat upon the pale horse?

Who (1) hired executioner Frakes; (2) vetoed the bill that abolished the death 
penalty; then (3) joined with his dad to spend $300,000 to fund a petition 
campaign that reversed the Legislature's override of his veto - and thereby 
reinstated the death penalty; and (4) appointed the majority of the judges 
sitting on the Supreme Court bench?

Not so fast. Things are not always as they may appear.

In my opinion, the court, despite dealing with the most serious and solemn act 
that the state can undertake - the extinguishment of a human life - made a 
political decision to abandon its ethical, sworn duty to act judiciously and 
with due care in all of its proceedings, in order to hastily set an execution 
date prior to the expiration date of one of the death drugs.

In effect, the court has essentially predetermined the outcome of pending 
litigation which it will review on appeal regarding the legality of the 
execution protocol and the withholding of public records information relative 
to the origin of the drugs - without having considered the facts and evidence 
presented at trial.

One must be indeed naive to believe that the court, after allowing an 
execution, would rule that the process is legally flawed.

Ironically, the court itself, in past cases, emphasized its "heightened duty" 
to ensure that the Constitution and laws are strictly complied with in 
administering the death penalty.

The court's disappointing, precipitate conduct lends credence to the cynical 
observation of "Mr. Dooley' (Finley Peter Dunne), although directed at the U.S. 
Supreme Court: "No matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, 
th' supreme coort follows th' illiction returns."

If any act of the state deserves to be done "decently and in order," it is the 
extinguishment of a human life. In this instance, the state fails 
spectacularly.

(source: Ernie Chambers; The writer, of Omaha, represents District 11 in the 
Nebraska Legislature----omaha.com)








UTAH:

Utah death row inmate moves closer to execution, but it's still likely years 
away



A federal judge has rejected arguments made by a death row inmate seeking to 
block his pending execution.

Taberon Honie is on death row for the 1998 murder of his girlfriend's mother, 
Claudia Benn. He slit her throat and sexually assaulted her. Benn's 
grandchildren witnessed the killing, prosecutors said.

In a ruling issued Thurday, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson cut 
through Honie's requests to consider additional evidence in his death penalty 
appeals, siding with the state.

"The court will now proceed to consider and rule on the petition," she wrote.

Honie's petition for habeas corpus is one of the few remaining claims, although 
it will likely take years to litigate with another round of appeals.

(source: Fox News)








CALIFORNIA:

Supreme Court Reverses Death Penalty Based on Dismissal of Venireman----S.C. 
Says Prospective Juror Should Have Been Questioned as to Ability to Perform 
Despite Opposition to Capital Punishment; No Reversal Based on Incompetent 
Counsel



The California Supreme Court decided yesterday that a former attorney did not 
provide ineffective assistance to his client in a 2002 capital murder trial 
despite being on State Bar probation following a 6-month suspension, but 
reversed the judgment of death due to the improper dismissal of a prospective 
juror based on his opposition to capital punishment.

Defense counsel in the case, Mark I. Blankenship of Riverside, was on a 5-year 
probation after stipulating to 10 counts of misconduct in 2000. He had been on 
actual suspension for 6 months.

(In 2006, he stipulated to another 17 acts of misconduct, including abandoning 
a client, and resigned that year with charges pending.)

In the unanimous opinion by Justice Ming W. Chin, the high court determined 
that, while Blankenship had made some errors, his conduct did not rise to the 
level of incompetence.

Murder of Policeman

In 2001, the defendant Steve Woodruff fatally shot Riverside police officer 
Charles D. Jacobs while Jacobs was responding to a noise complaint at 
Woodruff's mother's house, near where Woodruff lived.

Then-Riverside Superior Court Judge Christian F. Thierbach (who retired in 
2015) heard evidence that Woodruff's IQ was between 65 and 80, but ultimately 
determined that he did not have an intellectual disability that would make him 
incompetent to stand trial.

Chin spent substantial portions of his analysis on Woodruff's competence 
considering the defendant's interactions with the court on the question of 
retaining Blankenship as his counsel.

Inexperienced Counsel

About a month before the trial in 2001, the prosecutor asked the judge to 
conduct an inquiry into Blankenship's competence to handle a defense involving 
a capital crime. Acceding to the request, Thierbach made note that Blankenship, 
who was not a criminal defense attorney, had failed to request investigative 
funds to which Woodruff was entitled, and had not brought certain motions the 
judge viewed as necessary parts of the proceedings.

When the judge made his misgivings clear to Woodruff and offered to appoint a 
deputy public defender, the defendant asserted his belief that the attorney, 
who was representing him pro bono, had been sent from "higher up" to represent 
him.

Chin viewed this statement as evidence of Woodruff's competence, not 
incompetence. He explained:

"Defendant's desire to proceed with Blankenship's representation because a 
'higher up' had sent Blankenship did not suggest an inability to understand the 
proceedings. On the contrary, it reflected defendant's desire to accept 
Blankenship as his attorney and thus defendant's ability to assist in his 
defense. Simply because, as defendant characterizes it, his comment indicated 
'a belief that his volunteer attorney was a gift from God,' it does not follow 
that he was not competent to understand the proceedings."

Trial Strategy

Despite declining to make several pre-trial motions, Blankenship offered as his 
reasoning a belief that the motions would have been frivolous as they would 
have been denied, and to file them would have telegraphed his trial strategy to 
the prosecution.

Thierbach accepted this as a valid decision for the lawyer to have made and 
allowed him to finish the trial. Chin noted that this finding, combined with 
Woodruff's continued insistence that Blankenship represent him, rendered the 
judge's ruling reasonable.

The justice continued:

"Moreover, it is evident from the record that Blankenship never relinquished 
his responsibility to represent defendant and instead actively litigated issues 
and examined witnesses on defendant's behalf throughout the 
trial....Blankenship's actions throughout the trial reflected his stated 
strategy of presenting this case as a Riverside community issue involving 
minorities and law enforcement."

Improperly Dismissed

Blankenship challenged the dismissal of a prospective juror - identified in the 
opinion as D.K. - during jury selection, alleging that the prosecution moved 
for the dismissal based on the prospective juror's race. Both the venireman and 
the defendant are African-American.

Thierbach dismissed this argument, but instead dismissed the prospective juror 
based on his opinion on the death penalty.

In the juror questionnaire, the man had indicated that he was strongly opposed 
to the death penalty, and that terminating a life was a choice "only God can 
make." Elsewhere in the questionnaire, he indicated that notwithstanding his 
beliefs he was willing to apply the law based on the facts of the case.

Chin explained:

"The parties could have, and should have, examined D.K.'s responses further 
through voir dire. As the trial court noted in its initial decision to deny the 
challenge for cause, D.K.'s response that he would follow the law 'need[ed] to 
be explored' and there was nothing to be lost by questioning him in voir dire."

Because the man had been improperly dismissed, Chin noted, a reversal of the 
penalty verdict was required.

The case is People v. Woodruff, 2018 S.O.S. 3549.

(source: metronews.com)